An Exchange on Meaning of "doctrine of Christ" in 2 John 9
The following is a sampling of an Internet exchange between several preachers and me relative to the meaning of "doctrine of Christ" in Second John 9-11. I include it in Bible Truths with the hope that it may help you decide whether "doctrine of Christ" includes all Jesus' teaching or simply teaching about Jesus, his deity. (Please first read, "What Does the 'Doctrine of Christ' in Second John 9-11 Mean?")
Don Martin to the list:
Jim wrote:
I would like to see someone provide an exegesis of 2 John 9-11, with special emphasis on
the meaning of 2 John 9. I believe this passage has been grossly misunderstood.
Don comments:
Second John 9-11 reads as follows:
"9: Whosoever transgresseth,
and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine
of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.10: If there come any unto you, and bring
not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:11: For he
that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds."
Many who do not want religious restraint and commandments are heard saying, "'the
doctrine of Christ' only involves matters pertaining to the person and deity of Christ,
not commands on how to live and what to believe." I admit that the immediate
contextual reference is pertaining to "Christ coming in the flesh" (vs. 8).
However, when you examine the Book of Second John, you find that John did not simply
present the idea of Jesus' deity being the only required belief (a commandment), but that
John stressed "commandments" (plural). Hear John, "And this is love, that
we walk after his commandments..." (vs. 6). The immediate reference of verse nine
regarding those not abiding in Jesus' doctrine appears to be the Gnostics of John's day.
This religious/philosophic group was condemned for more than simply denying the deity of
Jesus. Consider John's teaching in I John 2: 3-6. Notice how emphasis is placed on
"keeping his commandments," not simply commandment (believing in Jesus' deity):
"3: And hereby we do know that
we know him, if we keep his commandments. 4: He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not
his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 5: But whoso keepeth his word,
in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him. 6: He that
saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked."
The entire vocabulary of the apostle John's writings is such that leave
the reader with the firm belief that more is involved in serving Christ than simply and
only the acceptance of Jesus' deity (see I Jn. 1: 5-7; 2: 9-11; 2: 15-17; 3: 3-9; 3: 10;
3: 17, 18; 3: 22, 24; 5: 18; 3 Jn. 3, 4; and 9-11). It is clear from all these passages
that teaching that walking in the light; love of brethren; abstinence from the love of the
world; not practicing sin; doing righteousness; assisting needy brethren; keeping God's
commandments; avoidance of sin; walking in the truth; and shunning the example of
Diotrephes and emulating the life of Demetrius are all necessary to maintaining a saved
relationship with the Father and the Son. Hence, the "doctrine of Christ"
(didache tou christou) in 2 John 9 must not be restricted to the meaning of the teaching
about Christ (his deity) and not teaching belonging to or that Jesus issued. Based on the
teaching and vocabulary of John, the phrase "doctrine of Christ" in 2 John 9
means Jesus' teaching, including the specific teaching relative to his being the Son of
God. Any particular teaching that is presented as essential, then, must be respected. Any
law or commandments must be obeyed. There are no dispensable or non-essential commandments
or laws (see Jas. 2: 10). The "doctrine of Christ" is inclusive of all that John
and inspired writers meant to be included and certainly does not only and simply mean a
belief that Jesus was the Son of God in the flesh.
The "doctrine of Christ" is presented by John as being a requisite to having
"both the Father and the Son." In presenting this concept of the required
"doctrine of Christ," John wrote, "he that abideth in the doctrine of
Christ" (vs. 9). "Abideth" is from the Greek menon and means to live, have
as one's sphere; hence, to persist, walk in, or continue. One's sphere and walk who has
God, then, is to be the "doctrine of Christ." Not just an occasional
acquaintance with the "doctrine of Christ," but total familiarity and contact.
Not just an impermanent relationship as a tenant, but as one who abides or continues in a
permanent dwelling (idea of the Greek menon).
The "doctrine of Christ" is also presented by John as the means of testing
others, as to their spiritual identify and acceptance (10, 11). The one not bringing the
"doctrine of Christ" is characterized by "evil deeds" (the absence of
the "doctrine of Christ" and the presence of false teaching). To accept or
fellowship one not bringing the "doctrine of Christ" also causes the one to be
"partaker of his evil deeds" (vs. 11).
In closing, A. T. Robertson has these comments on 2 John 9:
Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament
Whosoever goeth onward (paß o proagwn). "Every one who goes ahead. Proagw literally
means to go on before (Mark 11:9). That in itself is often the thing to do, but here the
bad sense comes out by the parallel clause. And abideth not in the teaching of Christ (kai
mh menwn en th didach tou Cristou). Not the teaching about Christ, but that of Christ
which is the standard of Christian teaching as the walk of Christ is the standard for the
Christian's walk (1 John 2:6). See John 7:16; John 18:19. These Gnostics claimed to be the
progressives, the advanced thinkers, and were anxious to relegate Christ to the past in
their onward march. This struggle goes on always among those who approach the study of
Christ. Is he a "landmark" merely or is he our goal and pattern? Progress we all
desire, but progress toward Christ, not away from him. Reactionary obscurantists wish no
progress toward Christ, but desire to stop and camp where they are. "True progress
includes the past" (Westcott). Jesus Christ is still ahead of us all calling us to
come on to him.
Don Martin to the list:
I posted an article from Bible Truths, "What does 'Doctrine of
Christ' in 2 John 9-11 Mean?," and ask that it be considered and any studious
comments shared with the list. The thrust of the material, I explained, was to show that
more is involved in "doctrine of Christ" than simply and only the belief that
Jesus is the Son of God, viewed as a single item. "Matt" has posted some
comments to the list. I appreciate Matt sharing his thoughts with us.
Matt wrote:
Don,
You have labored much in this post and taken much time to do so. I apologize for not doing
the same, but I am "heading out" for the next few hours. I only have a couple of
comments/questions to leave for you to tackle.
Don comments:
Thank you, Matt. It does take time to attempt to completely study a verse, beginning with
the Greek, the syntax, the total verse, noticing word arrangement, connection, and
contribution, the immediate context, and the remote context and then reverse the whole
process. However, such discipline is required to a correct and complete understanding.
Matt wrote:
1. The "doctrine" of Christ is here stated in John as singular, not plural. It
has a specific teaching in view. Now to understand what that specific teaching is, we have
to rely on the makeup of the letters John wrote; the audience he has in mind; the ones' to
whom he cautions against in the letters.
Don replies:
Matt, I think you have made a good observation in your second and third sentences. Our
goal must be to always attempt to establish what the author meant, not what we want him to
mean or what others mean when they employ the same phraseology.
Matt, I must respectfully disagree with your first sentence. Does "apostles
doctrine" in Acts 2: 42 mean the apostles only had one teaching as opposed to
additional truths? The grammar is materially the same as "doctrine of Christ" in
2 John 9. The doctrine or teaching of Christ would be any and all particular tenets that
make up the whole, just as in the case of the apostles.
Matt wrote:
2. The "doctrine" referred to hear, is objective. It has a definite point of
reference.
Don answers:
Matt, if you are speaking of "objective" in the grammatical sense, the article
in Bible Truths addresses this matter. In teaching Greek, I make the point that some
constructions can only be determine by the context. The subjective and objective genitive
matter is a case in point. In the article, I use the total context (the writings of John
and the supporting teaching of the entire New Testament) to show the "doctrine from
Christ" is under consideration and not just the "doctrine about Christ."
Matt said:
3. Granted that it could be subjective, what teaching specifically is it? It is a
specific, definite teaching "of Christ".
Don responds:
Matt, I am glad that you do at least grant the possibility of the subjective genitive,
"from Christ." The answer to your good question is "doctrine of
Christ" would be inclusive of any and all matters John and inspired writers included.
We cannot restrict "doctrine of Christ." Some have the same problem with
"the gospel." They want to limit the gospel to different items. The gospel just
as the doctrine of Christ (equivalent terms) are inclusive of many particulars (see Gal.
2: 11-14).
Matt said:
4. Allowing for the plural, subjective view- how many teachings do we have in view here in
John's epistles? How many in view from Matthew to Revelation? If there is to be an
outer-reference here, other than what the teaching CONCERNING Christ is, we must have
those in precise and accurate detail. Otherwise, we are utterly left to our own
intellectual achievements to decipher how many "teachings"(plural); what they
are; and who they are addressed to.
Don answers:
If "doctrine of Christ" is inclusive of all of God's will for man in this final
dispensation (I am convinced it is), then all of God's requirements are included in
"doctrine of Christ." The article that I posted addresses these matters. Acts 8:
35 is a simple illustration to prove that "preaching Jesus" involves more than
simply Jesus' person and deity. When "Jesus was preached," it involved baptism
(Acts 8: 35-40).
Matt stated:
5. The doctrine John has in view here is objective in every sense of the word. It is the
centrality of the Gospel- the virgin birth, the sinless life, the suffering, death,
burial, resurrection, ascension, coronation, and present ministry at the right hand of
God.
That gospel is central to all "sound doctrine" and pivotal in apostolic
teaching. Failure to comprehend the Gospel of Christ is the cause of all doctrinal error
in the Christian community. It is the reason for distorted understanding, and erroneous
emphases.
Don comments:
Matt, you have now gone from the "could be" to the "must be," same as
I have done. The difference, though, is you are saying "doctrine of Christ" must
be only teaching concerning Christ and I am saying it must be teaching from Christ, all
Jesus' required teaching (inclusive but not limited to teaching about Christ). I have
shown in the material that more is required in order to be saved and extend fellowship to
others than simply and only the belief in Jesus' deity.
Matt observes:
6. The Gospel itself is the center of reasoning for the people of God. That is why these
"antichrists" or gnostics are being warned about.....
Don reflects:
Matt, I have stated in the article that it appears Docetic and Cerinthian Gnostic beliefs
are being refuting in John's writings, as far as the immediate application (cf. 2 Jn. 7).
However, I think I have also shown that John presents more than just Jesus' deity as
essential, even in the case of the Gnostic belief system. I notice you do not address any
of the arguments and expressed biblical facts contained in the article.
Matt wrote:
7. One form of gnosticism today is the idea that Jesus could not sin, that He in His deity
was incapable. But such teaching denies the fact that of the subject of the text, that
Jesus came "in the flesh"; He had emptied Himself out; was made in the likeness
of man, tempted in all points as we.
Don here:
Matt, I think you make a good point in the immediately above (Heb. 4: 15).
Matt said:
8."EVERY spirit that does not confess Jesus is come in the flesh" (1 John 4 :3)
has, by that very failure, made known they are NOT from God. They have nothing from God to
give us, for God offers nothing apart from Christ Jesus.
Don replies:
In the simple test for the Gnostics, Matt, yes, this was the criterion used. However,
there is contained in John's writings much criteria (plural), requisite matters in being
saved and extending fellowship to others.
Matt observes:
9. The Spirit reveals the following about "Antichrist." The presence of
antichrist is an indicator of the "last time" or "hour" (1 John 2:18).
There are "many antichrists" (1 John 2:18). This is a spirit that denies Jesus
is the Christ (1 John 2:22a). This spirit denies the Father and the Son (1 John 2:2 2).
The spirit of antichrist denies that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh (1 John 4: 3).
Believers were told this spirit was coming (1 John 4:3). The spirit of antichrist was
already in the world at the time First John was written (1 John 2: 22). The spirit of
antichrist DOES NOT confess Jesus Christ came in the flesh (2 John 7).
Don concludes:
Matt, I agree with your last statement. However, again, John presents criteria not just
criterion.
Matt's final statement:
I hope to be able to lay out a more extensive study when I get some time.
Don's final observation:
Matt, in all kindness, I wish you had reviewed my article. The article addresses all
the above and more. Again, I believe the material shows that more than simply believing in
Jesus' deity is required in order to be saved and extend fellowship to others. Many
teachers say they believe in Jesus' deity, but they deny water baptism, Jesus' church,
etc. Are they saved and should the Christian fellowship them? (See Acts 2: 38, Acts 20:
28.) An increasing number in the church are seeking to circumvent and limit "doctrine
of Christ." Some have said, "doctrine of Christ means Jesus' deity plus
baptism." Others, "it means Jesus' deity plus the church." Matt and the
list, I kindly but candidly say, the "doctrine of Christ" includes everything
that Jesus and the inspired writers of the New Testament included, no more, no less.
Matt, thanks again for your time and thoughts. May we all proceed with reverence and great
caution in our determination of "doctrine of Christ," especially in view of the
warning about "adding to" and "taking away from" God's word (Rev. 22:
18, 19, Gal. 1: 6-9).
Don Martin to Dale, Gary, and the list:
Some on the list, such as Gary, want to discuss particulars relative to
2 John 9-11 when they evidently believe "doctrine of Christ" in 2 John 9-11 is
limited to Jesus' deity. Hence, Jesus' deity is the only test John gave to determine
salvation and baptism. While they want to limit "doctrine of Christ" to belief
of Jesus' deity, they still, when pressed, want to affirm the necessity of water baptism.
I maintain that "doctrine of Christ," when defined in the total concept and
vocabulary of John's writings, takes in a number of maters, some of which I have
repeatedly presented. Not one single item, such as Jesus' deity, is to be viewed as
totally exclusive of other required matters, such as brotherly love (I Jn. 3: 14). I,
therefore, maintain that all of God's commandments for man today are required and are the
criteria to determine salvation and fellowship. A number on this list do not agree with
what I have just said. I really do not see much need to say any more. We each accept or
reject the scriptures. All I know to teach and attempt to practice is implicit obedience
to God's law, knowing that even so, we are still undeserving servants (Lk. 17: 10). Now,
you can call me a legalist, sectarian, etc., as some of you have, I will have to just keep
right on, because this is all that is taught in the New Testament. Consider Dale's
comments:
I wrote:
Dale, since you believe "doctrine of Christ" in 2 John 9-11 is limited to belief
in Jesus' deity in matters of salvation and fellowship, do you still attempt to maintain
that baptism for the remission of sin is required for salvation and fellowship?
Dale responds: There is no "attempt" to it, brother Don, and putting that word
into the question was unnecessary, IMO. I do indeed maintain that baptism for the
remission of sin is required for salvation and fellowship. And I pray that the Almighty
will give me the strength to continue to preach that truth for the remainder of my days.
Don asks: If the answer is, yes, how do you attempt to harmonize all of this?
Dale responds: By respecting the context of John's letter. Do YOU "attempt" to
respect that context, Don? Was there some reason that you did not acknowledge the example
I gave?
Don answers:
I have repeatedly said that "doctrine of Christ" in 2 John 9 is contextually
referring to the deity of Christ (vs. 7). I also have said that in view of the broader
context, vocabulary, and conceptual presentation in John's writings, "doctrine of
Christ" is a comprehensive phrase that includes all that John and inspired writers
taught as being required of man today. I not only have said the just mentioned, I have
repeatedly proved it. Kind reader, it is utterly inconsistent to say that "doctrine
of Christ" only involves Jesus' deity and the means to determine salvation and whom
to fellowship and then turn around and say baptism is required. To top it off, some who
are doing this have trouble with me because I say all of God's commandments for man today
are to be obeyed. They say none except belief in Jesus' deity, then add baptism, then
condemn me because I say there is more than belief in Jesus' deity.
Dale wrote:
At any rate, "chain studying" is NOT a reliable method of studying God's Word.
"Chain" references are those little verse numbers printed in the middle column
of the page in many modern Bibles. What that is based on is when you run across a certain
word or a phrase when reading, you might see a little letter beside it that corresponds to
a verse number in the middle column. If you look up that verse, you will very often find
the same word or phrase.
Don answers:
I am not sure what Dale means by "chain studying." Since he is referring to my
reasoning and teaching, I suppose he means taking in all that is said on a given subject.
With Dale's reasoning, I must beg to differ.
Again, I say to Gary that there is no use discussing particulars when there is no
agreement about particulars others than Jesus' deity being necessary. I have been up-front
in this matter. Please, Dale and Gary, hear me again:
I believe "doctrine of Christ" in 2 John 9 has as one requisite particular the
deity of Jesus and that this is the paramount particular in 2 John 9 (vs. 7). However, in
view of John's vocabulary, concepts, and total teaching, the doctrine of Christ, the means
to determine salvation and fellowship of others, is a generic phrase that takes in all
that John and inspired writers taught as being required of man today. How can I be
misunderstood? I have provided the simple illustration that the belief of Jesus' deity is
presented as the test but also brotherly love is seen as the test. I am doing violence to
the scriptures if I stress brotherly love to the exclusion of Jesus' deity. "Don
Martin is divisive and a legalist, how many commands are there....," is the
manifestation of a poor attitude toward God, his authority, and his commands.
Dale continues and concludes:
The FACT remains, brother Don, whether you want to continue to ignore it or not, that your
application of 2 John 9-11 means that you are strictly commanded not to have ANYTHING to
do with anyone who disagrees with you on ANY word of the New Testament. So SEVERE is that
commandment that if you even utter goodbye (God speed) to someone who disagrees with you,
then YOU are a "partaker of their evil deeds". Can you stop just long enough to
consider that such an application actually condemns YOU, Don?
Don concludes:
"You are misunderstanding what these fellows are saying, Don," some might say. I
know I am capable of misunderstanding, that is why I ask so many questions. Dale and the
list, I do not want to deprecate, depreciate or de-emphasize any of God's commands for me.
I know that without grace, I am lost. But I also know I must have respect for God's
commands (Heb. 5: 8, 9; I Jn. 5: 3). Dale, I must respectfully point out that John did not
say do not study or discuss differences.
You have inserted this into 2 John 9-11.
I was hoping that the thing that would have happened is that we would have gotten on first
base, if you will, by agreeing that we must seek to do all the will of God. We could have
then discussed particulars. However, we cannot even agree that the "whole counsel of
God" is necessary (Acts 20: 27). Dale said, "I do not have the patience or the
desire or the health to keep repeating myself on this, brother." I feel the same. We
each have said what we think and we each will stand before God in Judgement.
Dale, I gather your health is not good. I desire and trust your health will improve. Dale,
Gary, Steven, and others, thank you for your time in this discussion. We should all
realize that while we are closing this chapter of discussion without agreement, others
have been afforded the opportunity of examining our logic, use of scriptures, and
thinking. I also commend those of you who have followed this discussion.