-----------------------Here is the first of four parts:

Considering the Context of 2 John 9:

Historical Context
The antichrists denied that Jesus came in the flesh. Why? Because, the Gnostics (or "pre-gnostics" if it pleases you) held, all matter is inherently evil. Only that which is completely spirit can be good, and only God is completely spirit and completely good. If God became flesh, He could not be good. So, they say, He didn't. Not really. Some said Jesus' flesh was an illusion. There were various theories developed to explain the incarnation.
Gnostics also worshiped "emanations" or angels. These beings were mostly spirit, and close to God, only tainted by a small amount of matter. Man, on the other hand, was pretty much split down the middle between his spirit and flesh. There was way too much matter for a man to hope to be "good." He is inherently flawed in his very makeup.
This caused many of the Gnostics of John's day, and yes, this mixture of Christianity and human philosophy continued to develop into the 2nd century and beyond, to adopt a very "Epicurean" or libertine lifestyle. Their "spirit was willing, but their flesh was impossible." Their belief system, including the denial that God became flesh, had severe consequences on their morality. Sin in the flesh was no danger to the Gnostic's spirit. It was the nature of matter. How ignorant, they thought, were those who actually thought they could control the flesh, or that they even needed to.

This is a summary of the background of the false teachers that John addresses especially in his epistles, but we also see some countering of this philosophy in his gospel. Some also suggest that the liberal teachings of the Nicolaitans are a form of this (REV 2:14,15). If we insist on recognizing the context, and we should, then we must consider the historical context as well.

I have considered the context from about every perspective I know of in coming, to the conclusion that "the doctrine of Christ", while certainly including Jesus' identity and incarnation and death on the cross, and the neccesity of love for God and man, also includes His precepts, or laws, or orders, or rules, or commandments, or pattern, or ordinances, or injunctions.

So the question; does "the doctrine of Christ" mean the teaching about Jesus, as you say, or the teachings coming from Jesus, as I insist. The historical context shows that the problems associated with denying that Jesus came in the flesh included the thought that keeping the commandments of Christ was not necessary, or even possible for men of flesh.

In the future, I am looking forward to sharing with you more from the context of the passage itself, from the context of John's writings addressing these problems, and how similar language is used in other places in the New Testament.

In the next post we will consider the phrase "doctrine of..." and see how it is used in the New Testament. We'll see if "doctrine of Christ" is better understood in the subjective genitive (the things Jesus taught; i.e. His commands, as I believe) or objective (teachings about Jesus; i.e His incarnation, as you believe).

-------------------------2nd of 4 posts

"Doctrine of ..." in the Bible

Last post we considered the historical conrext of 2 John 9. The apostles was waging a battle against those who thought all matter was inherently evil, and therefore we half matter/half spirit humans could not keep the commandments of God. The false teachers thought it was impossible and unnecessary to do so. John says they are wrong... we must abide in the doctrine of Christ.

With this post, we will consider the greater Biblical context and its use of "doctrine of..." to see how it is used in the Scripture. If it is consistently used a specific way, this will help us discover how it is used in 2 John 9.

Having established the proper historical context of II JOHN 9; that John was battling a loose view of the need to obey the teaching of Christ on the part of those who, for philosophical reasons, denied that God, who was spirit and therefore pure, could take upon Himself material flesh, because all matter was inherently evil, we'll narrow the scope of context just a bit.

The phrase "doctrine of Christ" could be either subjective genitive (the things Jesus taught) or objective genitive (the things taught about Jesus). No argument can be made one way or the other from a purely grammatical standpoint. It could be either way.

When we have a choice like this to make, we must consider the context. I've already considered the historical context. Now, let's consider the Biblical context, starting with the New Testament itself, and then in the next post I plan to narrow the context further to John's writings; and especially those in which he deals with the problems caused by the antichrist.. Finally, I hope to consider with you the immediate context of II JOHN. One thing for sure. No one who reads this will ever be able to charge, "Well, you are ignoring the context" as someone has charged.

There are other passages in the New Testament that use the term "doctrine" (didache). In TITUS 1:9 the overseer must be able to "exhort in sound doctrine." This was necessary because of Judiazers (10,11). Titus was to speak those things fitting for "sound doctrine." (TITUS 2:1). This included instructions to various elements within the church in all kinds of things, from being temperate and sensible to family instructions for young Christian mothers to watching one's speech (2:2-14). These are the things Titus was to teach (2:15).

The term "doctrine" with reference to the things early disciples taught by the authority of Christ had to do with the body of teachings given through the Holy Spirit. Ron Halbrook quotes Robertson, who says "didache" is synonymous with " the dogmatic teaching, with the body of faithful doctrine which was ultimate type and norm for the community" and then gives this list of references (TITUS 1:9; ROM 6:17; 16:17 and compare MATT 16:12; ACTS 5:28; 17:19; HEB 13:2). Robertson continues by saying this usage is the normal one in John (John 7:16, 17; 18:16).

Wescott says that the New Testament is "uniformly in favor of it "(i.e. taking the subjective genitive meaning of II JOHN 9; doctrine=the things Jesus taught). He cites JN 18:19 and ACTS 2:42.

In addition to our text in II JOHN 9, John uses the phrase "doctrine of..." in REV 2:14 "Doctrine of Balaam"; REV 2:15 "Doctrine of the Nicolaitans". Also, consider other NT uses of the phrase: "doctrine of him" (MATT 7:28; 22:33; MARK 1:22; 4:2; 11:18; 12:38); "doctrine of the Pharisees" (MATT 16:12); "doctrine of apostles" (ACTS 2:42); "doctrine of you" (ACTS 5:28); "doctrine of the Lord" (ACTS 13:12). And we find the same things with another form of the word; didaskalia (MATT 15:9; MK 7:7; I TIM 4:1; 6:1; II TIM 3:10; TITUS 2:10).

"Doctrine of Balaam" means things Balaam taught, not things taught about Balaam. "Doctrine of the Nicolaitans" means the doctrines they taught, not doctrines about them. And so on through the rest of the above examples. All these passages use the phrase the way I contend it is used in II JOHN 9. "Doctrine of Christ" refers to the teachings from Christ (His commandments included) and not merely teachings about Him (His incarnation). This is consistent with how it is used in EVERY other instance in the Scriptures. It is NEVER used in the sense that some contends it is used! Not once!

That is all for now, Next time, I'll focus more on John's writings, and then take a look at passsages where he deals especially with the problems associated with the false teachings of the antichrists.

------------------------3rd of 4 posts

In the first post, we looked at the historical context of 1&2 John. We saw why those who denied that Christ had come in the flesh had taken that view, and how their philosophy had influenced them to live lives of disobedience to the doctrine of Christ (the commandments of Christ).

In the second post, we looked at how the New Testament uses the phrase "doctrine of _____" in the subjective genetive sense. This being the case, "doctrine of Christ" would refer to the things Jesus taught; not merely to the teachings about the nature of Jesus. The doctrine of Christ therefore includes His commandments given in His New Testament.

In this post, I'd like to look at the emphasis in the context of I and 2 John placed on obeying the doctrine, or teaching of Christ. You have suggested that we take 2 John 9 out of context when we suggest that "Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ" means to exceed the bounds of what His teaching authorizes. We "go beyond" when we add to the things He has taught us to do, including our moral and doctrinal practices. When we do things He has not authorized, we have gone beyond the teaching of Christ.

[Those references below marked with an "*" are especially noteworthy since they show that the context deals with the "doctrine of Christ" or the things "written" or "practiced" in the sense of all His commandments, and not just teachings about His identity.]

I John 1:1-4 - Affirmation that Jesus, the Word of Life was here; that He was tangible; and that the things written are for the purpose of allowing others to enter into fellowship with Him.

*I John 1:5-10 - Cannot walk in darkness and have fellowship with God. Instructions to those in the light about being cleansed of sin.

*I John 2:1-6 - Those who say they know Him but do not keep His commandments are liars. It is the one who keeps His word that are in Him.

*I John 2:7-11 - Remember the old commandment, to love your brothers

*I John 2:12-17 - Encouragement to be strong in the word and to not love the world.

*I John 2:18-29 - Warning about the antichrists who deny the Son. Must continue to abide in what was heard from the beginning (cf 1:1) and not be deceived. Those who truly are of God practice righteousness.

*I John 3:1-12 - Children of God purify themselves. Those who practice sin are of the devil. Sin is lawlessness. Those who practice righteousness are of God. The antichrists had claimed that what one practiced did not effect his spirit (see first post).

*I John 3:13-24 - The child of God lives by a different standard that the world, therefore the world hates him. True love is that which is in deed, not just words. It is the one who keeps His commandments that abides in Him.

*I John 4:1-6 - The spirit of the antichrist has gone into the world. Must listen to the teachings of the apostles, for they are of God, and this is the only way to distinguish between truth and error.

*I John 4:7-21. Love; love of God; love for one another; and God's love for us. Love of brethren is a commandment of God.

*I John 5:1-12 - Those who love God's children love God and observe His commandments, which are not burdensome. It is by this active faith in Christ we overcome the world. It is in the Son we have eternal life.

*I John 5:13-17 - We know we have eternal life through the things written. We have confidence to ask according to His will. All unrighteousness is sin.

I John 5:18-21 We know that we are of God.

*2 John 1-3 Know truth; truth abides in us.

*2 John 4-12 Children walking in commandment, encouraged to love one another, which is not a new commandment, and this is love, that we walk according to His commandments. From the very beginning, the commandment has been to walk according to His commandments. Many deceivers have gone out into the world; the antichrists (they say keeping His commandments unneccesary; see post 1) deny Jesus came in the flesh. Those that do not abide in the doctrine of Christ do not have God. Do not encourage the false teacher.

That's it. Next, my final post will deal more with the immediate context of 2 John. To say that taking "the doctrine of Christ" means any less than accepting the truth about Jesus AND keeping His commandments ignores the historical context (1st post) , the Biblical context (2nd post) and the context of John's writings and his dealing with the teachings and practices of the antichrists (this post). Looking at the emphsis in 1 and 2 John on keeping His commandments, it would be those who take your position that are ignoring the context.

------------------------------ 4th of 4 posts in a series on 2 John addressing the contention that "doctrine of Christ" refers only to the teaching about Christ and not to the teachings from Christ.

In the first post, we looked at the historical context of 1 & 2 John. We saw why those who denied that Christ had come in the flesh had taken that view, and how their philosophy had influenced them to live lives of disobedience to the doctrine of Christ (the commandments of Christ). John addresses this repeatedly in his epistles by stressing both the possibility and necessity of obeying the teaching of Christ.

In the second post, we looked at how the New Testament uses the phrase "doctrine of _____" in the subjective genetive sense. This being the case, "doctrine of Christ" would refer to the things Jesus taught; not merely to the teachings about the nature of Jesus.

In the 3rd post, we saw the emphasis in the context of 1 and 2 John placed on obeying the doctrine, or teaching of Christ. You have suggested that we take 2 John 9 out of context when we suggest that "Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ" means to exceed the bounds of what His teaching authorizes. We "go beyond" when we add to the things He has taught us to do, including our moral and doctrinal practices. When we do things He has not authorized, we have gone beyond the teaching of Christ.

Finally, this post contains an article I wrote and included in the August, 1994 issue of Expository Files, a monthly publication which I co-edit with WarrenBerkley. It deals specifically with 2 John. LOVE AND TRUTH: A STUDY OF SECOND JOHN
======

Thanks for reading and considering the context of 2 John 9; the historical context; the greater Biblical context; the epistles of John context, and the context of 2 John itself. Most assuredly the "doctrine of Christ" includes the commandments of Christ.

Brotherly, Jon Quinn
April 23-25,2001

Return to the New Testament Study of 2 John