Shunning supported by 2 Jo 9-10

by Splash 23 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  sabastious

  Does this therefore support shunning? How could I answer someone who says it does?

  Back then allowing someone into your house had social implications that are different than modern society. The word Greek used in 2 John 1:10 oikia denotes a household, not just a dwelling, but the dwelling of a family. A Christian family head was supposed to turn away false teachers, not shun them, just turn them away. The landscape of the early church was that of mass confusion. Something great had happened and many political and religious ideologies scrambled to cover it up or provide adequate replacement. This created an army of miscellaneous false teachers. The best way to deal with these cockroaches was to not allow them into your "house" as teachers. I don't think shunning was really the practice here as the early Christians were supposed to maintain diplomatic relations with all neigboring ideologies. They were supposed to follow in the footsteps of their Master and die for their enemies. Without good relations with neighboring ideologies the speading of the good news would be hindered. It would be reasonable to disallow the teaching of a contrary doctrine within your house. To allow such would denote weakness of leadership. Nonetheless, what you allowed into your house was considered what you deemed to be acceptable. This was a social norm of the day and nothing out of the ordinary.

  Notice the Greek word didaché which is translated "teaching" in most translations of 2 John 1:10.

  teaching, doctrine, what is taught.

  So, if someone identified themselves as a teacher of what you as the head of a Christian house considered heresy you would not allow them in your house as a teacher. This doesn't mean that they are not welcome as a guest in your Christian house, but not as an instructor. This ideology is along the lines of freedom of religion. A house has to the right to turn away a false teacher, just as we today have the right to turn away the Jehovah's Witnesses out in the field ministry. Remarkably even today we have the same problem that they did back then. We have to keep them out of our houses as teachers. Which would mean taking them into your house as a Bible teacher would not be appropriate because they clearly teach false things. To be their friend however would not be forbidden, only warned against.

  The early christian church would have looked a lot like a cult.

  They died for their faith and each other in horrible fashion. Their sacrifice will never be forgotten or whitewashed by the likes of you.

  -Sab
• 

  Quarterback

  The application of 2 Jo 9-10 is not applied consistently with the WT ORG.

  You have relatives that were raised as JW's but because they were not baptized, they can be accepted into your homes, you can have a restaurant meal with them, you include them in your associations.

  Then you have relatives that did get baptized, but because they disagreed in the rigid routine, they withdrew, and wrote a letter of Dissassociation out of obtaining some peace of mind. These ones are the ones that the Society claims this applies to.

  The scripture does give a message of shunning, but, common sense would demonstrate that the Society doesn't get it.
• 

  Vegas Girl

  Intersting points. DF'ing is something I was never comfortable with. I remember as a kid my mom holding my hand and pulling me away from the DF'd person in the KH and whispering "you can't talk to her" It seemed to weird to me to pretend that someone who was standing in my midst suddenly did not exist. I will say that I don't disagree with keeping a congregation clean, you don't want it to become a free-for-all. But I am not so sure that it is the DF'ing that makes a person sorry or the actual sin that may have been committed from a JW viewpoint. I think most people fear DF because is immobilizes you socially. I mean if you are out having an affair and committing gross sin, I don't think most people would approve of such behavior and would thus prob choose not to hang out with that person. They may see them on the street and say Hi but that is about it. I don't think JW's give "worldly" people enough credit for being moral and decent people. Who says that you have to shun someone in order to reach their heart?? I think it is the fear of being DF that makes people sorry, not the actual sin in itself. Just my 2 cents
• 

  binadub

  Splash:

  The way I read it:

  10 If anyone comes to YOU and does not bring this teaching, never receive him into YOUR homes or say a greeting to him.

  I agree with the people here who said that it was about associating with people as believers in home Christian gatherings.

  Christians were instructed to "greet" one another with a kiss. (Rom.16:16; 1.Cor.16:20; 2Cor.13:12; Ti.3:15; 1Pet.5:14)
  When Paul sent his "greetings" in a letter to the Christians in Thessalonica, he requested that the "brothers" be greeted by a "holy kiss" on his behalf. (1Thess.5:26)
  It was by this sign that Judas betrayed Jesus. (Luke 22:47,48)

  According to Matt.18:15-17, people expelled were to be treated as Gentiles and tax collectors. Christians did not shun Gentiles and tax collectors.