Week Nine:  Nov 6, 2011

This week we focused on the false teachers that are the subject of the letter.  As a result we spend all of our time on verse 7.  I will repeat the first part of this verse from last week.

Study

II. Body

a.      Reject False Teachers (7-11)

7* – For many deceivers have gone out into the world. They refuse to acknowledge Jesus the Messiah¹ is coming in flesh². Any such person is a deceiver and an antichrist.

For (ὅτι -oti )

–          While this verse marks a change in the letter from positive exhortation to warnings, it is connect to the previous verse.  In context, John was glad that they were living in the truth because…

many deceivers have gone out into the world.

–          Just as Christian missionaries that 3 John 5-6 says we should welcome have gone out
so had their counterparts. It is these counter parts that John is now going to warn them about.

refuse to acknowledge Jesus the Messiah is coming in flesh

–          The word translated acknowledge (ὁμολογοῦντες – omologountes) is a legal term for contracts in terms of   someone agrees and therefore promises to do something.   It is not referring to a mere intellectual acceptance of doctrine, but implies action as well.   In this light we can better understand John’s stress on both Truth (intellectual acceptance) and Love (doing).  Both are inseparably linked. To really believe is to do.

–          The phrase is coming is in the present tense, and is somewhat an unusual way of putting this.   Normally we would expect has come as in a reference to the incarnation, or will come, as a reference to the second coming.  But John puts this into the present tense.   We can see in this a clue concerning the identity of the false teachers.

It is unlikely that John would be warning them about the common place dangers of which they all were aware.  As such these false teachers were probably not from any of the well known religious groups of the time.  For example, if he were referring to the Jews, he could have simply said that they denied that Jesus was the Christ.

Therefore these false teachers were most likely people who claimed to be Christian, but who were not spreading the truth, but a lie.  Thus John’s use of the label “deceivers.”  Understood in this light, John’s reference to “Jesus the Messiah is coming in flesh “ makes a lot more sense as it point to a particular group, the Gnostics, or probably more accurately proto-Gnostics.  This is because full blown Gnosticism is a 2^nd century movement.

Gnosticism may have had it start with Simon Magnus in Acts 8:9-24, a magician who claimed to be a Christian, but who really wanted to buy from the apostles the ability to give the Holy Spirit.  It was built around a number of concepts borrowed from many beliefs.  But they did see Christ as an important figure, and thus could be mistake for more orthodox Christians.

Another belief important in this discussion is that Gnostics drew a sharp distinction between the spiritual world which was good, and the material world which was corrupt.   In fact they drew the divide so sharply that it resulted in a major problem.  How could a spiritual god create a corrupt world?  They attempted to solve this by postulating a very complex series of layers and intermediate actors in an attempt to separate the spiritual creator, from the corrupt creation.

This also caused a problem with Jesus and Christ for Gnostics made a division between the two.   In Gnosticism, the body is material and therefore corrupt.  But Christ is spiritual, and not corrupted. Gnosticism had several explanations for this, but they all centered on separating Jesus from the Christ.   Irenaeus described such a view in his discussion of the beliefs of person named Cerinthus .  In his book Against Heresies (Book 1.26.1)

Christ descended upon [Jesus] in the form of a dove from the Supreme Ruler, and that then he proclaimed the unknown Father, and performed miracles. But at last Christ departed from Jesus, and that then Jesus suffered and rose again, while Christ remained impassible, inasmuch as he was a spiritual being.

Irenaeus also tells us that Cerinthus was a contemporary of John, in the following amusing antidote  (Against Heresies,  Book III.3.4):

There are also those who heard from him that John, the disciple of the Lord, going to bathe at Ephesus, and perceiving Cerinthus within, rushed out of the bath-house without bathing, exclaiming, “Let us fly, lest even the bath-house fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within.”

John apparently new Cerinthus and is referring to him, or someone with similar beliefs.  Thus his phasing of the false teachers as denying that Jesus is coming in the flesh, i.e., Jesus and the Christ are the same, always have been, and always will be.

Any such person is a deceiver and an antichrist.

–          There is a translation issue here.  It is not so much in the Greek text, or with what the author wrote, but rather with what the modern reader hears.   We hear of the antichrist, and immediately think of the end times. But that is not what John is saying here.   Rather John is stressing the magnitude of the error. They are not just wrong, but 180 degrees wrong.

–          So the false teachers were most likely a group of traveling messengers bringing a gospel of Christ, but it was not the true Gospel but a false one. This is why John felt it so important to warn this church so that they would not be taken in.

Questions and Discussion.

The questions and discussion this week centered on the false teachers and modern applications.   Did these teachers know they were spreading false doctrine, or did they really believe what they taught? My belief is that then, like now, one must draw a distinction between the founders of a religious movement, and the followers. Thus for example, it is very possible that Simon Magus was nothing more than a con-man.  But con men deceive people, and as a result many were taken in by his teaching.  By the time you get to the later part of the century when John is writing, it is very possible that the false teachers John was writing about were themselves deceived, and thought they were spreading the truth.

In terms of a modern application, there is a pretty general agreement that, whatever one thinks of Joseph Smith,  Mormons as a group are wonderful people.  Yet there is little doubt that they have been deceived and are deceiving others. Many of their converts come from evangelical denominations.   For example, while Christians have historically taught, along with the Jews and Muslims, the belief in monotheism, that there is only one god,  Mormon are henotheists, they believe that there are many gods, but they only worship one God.  To justify this belief, one of the verses they cite is 1 Cor 8:5,  which does say “as there be gods many, and lords many” (KJV).

Standing alone and out of context, this does seem to support the Mormon belief.  But read in context it cannot.  Paul here is addressing the issue of whether or not it was acceptable for Christians to eat meat sacrificed to idols.   He argues that it is ok to eat the meat because, “We know that no idol is real in this world and that there is only one God.”  (1 Cor 8:4) He acknowledges, what was in the first century city of Corinth very true, that there are many things that are called gods.  Thus the ISV renders this as,

4Now concerning eating food offered to idols: We know that no idol is real in this world and that there is only one God. 5For even if there are “gods” in heaven and on earth (as indeed there are many so-called “gods” and “lords”), 6yet for us
there is only one God, the Father,
from whom everything came into being
and for whom we live.
And there is only one Lord, Jesus the Messiah,
through whom everything came into being
and through whom we live.  (1 Cor 8:4-6)

Not only does the passage in context not support the Mormon claim, it actually refutes it, for it starts with a strong statement of monotheism.  In addition to this the Mormon claim is further rendered impossible for it would completely undercut Paul’s argument.  Paul argument is that “no idol is real in this world.”  Since they do not exist, it is meaningless that the meat was sacrificed to them, so it is ok to eat.  Yet the Mormon claim is that this passages is saying that other gods do in fact exist, which would destroy Paul’s argument.  Thus the twisting of God’s word to teach doctrines antithetical to those historically accepted by Christians is not something that was only confined to John’s day, but rather continues today.

So does this make Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses “antichrists?”  The answer here depends very heavily on the translational issue addressed above.  Again the word antichrist is for the modern mind strongly linked to the end-times, and in this sense I would say no, they are not.    But John was not referring to the end times, but rather to the type of error. He was referring to people who claimed to be bringing the truth, when what they were bringing was the opposite of the truth.  They were not bringing the truth of the real Christ, but of a false, or antichrist.  In this latter sense, they are antichrist’s, for the Jesus Christ preached by the Mormons, and by the Jehovah’s Witnesses, is one that is significantly different from the Jesus Christ that has historically been taught by Christians down through the ages, and I would argue significantly different that the Jesus Christ taught in the Bible.  Yet given the modern understanding of the word “antichrist” the label does not apply.

Next week we will continue in 2 John 8

If you have question or comments about the class, feel free to send me an email at elgin@hushbeck.com and be sure to put “Epistles of John” in the header.

See here for references and more background on the class.

Scripture taken from the Holy Bible: International Standard Version^®. Copyright © 1996-2008 by The ISV Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED INTERNATIONALLY. Used by permission. www.isv.org

Note: Some places I have modify the text from the ISV version. Passages that I have modified have been noted with and * by the verse number and the ISV text is included in a footnote.

---

Footnotes:

1 7 Or Christ
2 ISV: having become human

Listen to the MP3

While it has drifted off the radar screen at the moment Tim Morgan at Christianity Today’s political blog recently raised a question that is sure to come back into the forefront as a hot divisive issue, what to do with the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants and their children.  That it is coming back as an issue is clear from President Obama’s plans to grant them citizenship, an effort that news reports say will begin next month and last through the summer. 

Morgan’s question was not so much the policy issue directly, but asks the question in terms of “What would Jesus do?” My thinking on this question has always been somewhat mixed.  On the one hand, it is a great question and one that we should all ask far more often than we do.  But if that’s the case, then what is the problem with the question? 

My problems begin when the question enters public discussions, and are for a number of reasons.  The biggest problem is that your answer to the question will strongly depend on your knowledge of Jesus, and even for Christians in general, the actual knowledge of Jesus is somewhat lacking, and even more so for the public at large.  While it can be very valuable to struggle with this privately in prayer and contemplation before God, as a general rule, the more people involved, the less prayer and contemplation you will have. 

I think it can be stated as a general rule that nobody really knows what Jesus would do in the case of such public policy issues.  In fact, the verse that would seem to apply the most is, Jesus’ comment in Matthew 22:21 concerning taxes, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”

The problem with trying to figure out what Jesus would do in any particular issue of public policy, is that we live in a world corrupted by sin and governed temporally by sinful people.  Issues of public policy such as illegal immigration are basically tinkering at the margins.  Jesus would go to the root of the problem, and when he was finished, the answer to the question of “What would Jesus do about illegal immigrants would be : nothing, for there would not be an Illegal immigrants issue to begin with. 

This is not to say that we should have open boarders and allow everyone in, it is to point out the reality that the roots of the Illegal immigration problem are vast and deep.  There is the economic, political, and social problems in the countries from which the illegal immigrants come.  If every country in the world had the freedom and prosperity of the United States, there would not be a problem. 

Then there is the breakdown of law in this country that has allow the problem to grow such that there are now so many here.  If there were only a few thousand illegal immigrants in the country who had only been here a few months, again this would not be an issue.  But for a variety of reasons, government at many levels have ignored the growing problem until now there are millions of illegal immigrants here, many for decades. 

So to come in now and ask “What would Jesus do?” is somewhat like asking what would Jesus do to deal with  his past sins?  He wouldn’t do anything because he would never be in that position.  When he does come back he will not tinker with minor issues such as illegal immigration. He will address the root issues and eliminate the problems that cause it in the first place. 

One other problem I frequently have with this question comes from the view of God that currently predominates the public square: God is Love.  The predominant view of God is Love, often expresses itself in such questions making them almost “What would Love do?”  In this case wouldn’t love say we should have compassion for the illegal immigrants?

While certainly true, that is not the only attribute of God.  We sinful humans are never very good at balancing, and it takes a lot of effort.  When balancing something on the end of your finger, if you get distracted or inattentive, it will fall.  The same goes for the church balancing the attributes of God.  God is Love, but he is also Justice.  Psalm 101 starts, “I will sing of your love and justice; to you O Lord, I will sing praise.”

Love says we should have compassion for the illegal immigrants, but justice says that they have broken the law.  Then there are all the other attributes of God, such as Righteousness and Holiness.  So what would Jesus do about the illegal immigrants and their families?  Ultimately I don’t know. 

I do think that we need to approach the issue beginning with all the attributes of God, not just Love that would let them all stay, or Justice that would throw them all out.  I also think that any solution would have to focus on the root causes that has allow the problem to get out of hand in the first place, though unlike Jesus, here we are somewhat limited to control over our own country, though we can work to spread economic freedom and liberty to other countries.  Still while easy to say, working these out into actual public policy will take a lot of contemplation and prayer. 

This is Elgin Hushbeck, asking you to Consider Christianity: a Faith Based on Fact.

Listen to the MP3

As I have discussed previously all too often people dismiss rituals as meaningless and of little value. But is somewhat of a chicken and egg problem.  Are rituals dismissed because they are meaningless and of little value, or are they meaningless and of little value because they are dismissed?

Whether something does or does not have meaning depends largely on us.  The cross is meaningful because we see it as a symbol of Christ’s sacrifice.  We give it meaning by associating it with what Christ did.  In short, we choose whether or not we will see it as significant.

This phenomena is not simply limited to religion.  For example in 1971 Congress restructured federal holidays to give more three day weekends.  Before 1971 Memorial Day was May 30^th. Now it is the last Monday in May.  As a three day weekend every year Memorial day has for most completely lost its meaning. A Gallop Poll last year show that only 28% of Americans knew the actual reason for the three Day weekend they were celebrating.  Instead,  for many Memorial Day is nothing more than a time for barbeques and parties rather than what it was originally intended, a solemn day to honor those who gave their lives in the service of their country.

Yet when rituals are seen as meaningful, they can focus and magnified belief. They also serve a teaching function, as a way of transmitting important values to the next generation.  The casual anything goes attitude of society exists just as strongly in a church more eager to attract members than to make disciples.

Apart from older churches with a long history of tradition such as the Roman Catholic Church, Easter and Christmas are pretty much the last Christian rituals, and for many even these are in decline. The meaning slowly draining away year after year, and for increasing numbers of young people the meaning is never implanted.

This weekend most Western Churches will celebrate Easter which commemorates the resurrection of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.  (Orthodox observe Easter on the 19th)  This is the most important date on the Christian Calendar.

Paul writing to the Corinthians said that “I passed on to you the most important points that  I received: The Messiah died for our sins according to the Scriptures, he was buried, he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures-and is still alive!-” (1 Cor 15:3-4 ISV)

This is so important and central to the Christian faith that Paul later writes “if the Messiah has not been raised, then our message means nothing and your  faith means nothing… your faith is worthless and you are still imprisoned by your sins.” (1 Cor 15:14,17 ISV)

Given its centrality and importance it is not surprising that the resurrection is not only one of the most well documented events of the Bible , it is one of the most well documented events of the time period, and one which skeptics have attempted in vain to refute for 2000 years.  (See Christianity and Secularism Chapter 6)

The magnitude of the event is beyond comprehension.  Even the natural aspects are difficult to fully grasp,  a man was betrayed by one of his inner circle and deserted by the rest.  The crowds that had hailed him one week earlier now called for his death.  He was savagely beaten, scourged, condemned to death and then crucified.  Because of the coming Sabbath, his body was hurriedly placed in a borrowed tomb. Which was then guarded by those who had had him executed.

Yet starting early on the following Sunday morning, people began claiming to have seen him. And not just a few,  all of those close to him did, along with many of his followers. Even Paul who strongly tried to suppress the growing faith, saw him and converted as a results.   In fact Paul point out that one appearance was before a crowd of over 500 , and challenged skeptics to go and talk to those that were still alive about what they had seen.  In short a man who had died, had come back to life.

As amazing as this was, this was still just of secondary importance, serving mainly as a confirmation of what was really the most astounding part, a part that went completely unseen by those who witness Jesus’ death, burial and resurrection.

Jesus did not just die on the cross, he died for our sins. This is the truly astounding part and something that is beyond all comprehension. He died for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2), He died for me, and he died for you.  He did this that we may live.  “For as in Adam all die, so also in the Messiah will all be made alive.” (1 Cor 15:22 ISV)

This is the true meaning of Easter, that Jesus the Son of God,  “died for our sins according to the Scriptures, he was buried, he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures-and is still alive!” (1 Cor 15:3-4 ISV)    This is the true meaning of Easter.   Will what you do this weekend be in accord with this?

This is Elgin Hushbeck, asking you to Consider Christianity: a Faith Based on Fact.