Does anyone have Leolaia's contact details - email or anything? I urgently need to identify the source of something she's brought to our attention in the past, which is the info on itinerants of 2 John, below.
Thanks.
2 John is specifically referring to the Antichrist and should not be applied across the board to all forms of sin, as defined, subject to change from time to time, by the Watchtower Society. Importantly, John’s advice here was not limited to former Christians. It included ‘anyone’ denying Christ. This included Jews that rejected Jesus and people of the nations worshipping other Gods. Yet the Watchtower stance is to apply this only to Jehovah's Witnesses. 2 John 9-11 should be understood within the social setting of early Christianity. The scripture is not about people who have been expelled from the Christian congregation. When read in context, it is about anyone who "does not bring this teaching" [of the Christ]. It presumes the practice of itinerant radicalism, in which charismatic teachers and healers wandered from town to town, from church to church, where they received lodging in exchange for their services. They lived in poverty without any possessions or money of their own. This is the kind of homeless vagabond lifestyle promoted or referred to in Matthew 6:25-34, 8:19-22, 10:5-42, 23:34 etc. as a particularly higher calling to discipleship. Itinerants were not members of a given church. They would stay a while for fellowship before moving on. There however was room for much conflict. Itinerant preachers did not share the same theological and eschatological perspective, and sometimes members in a given church would follow different teachers. Itinerant preachers and healers thus had a significant degree of prestige and authority in the Christian community (cf. the "Seventy" that were sent out as apostles in Luke 10; the church historian Eusebius claimed that these included Barnabas, Cephas, Thaddeus, Matthias, and Joseph Barsabbas Justus). They also may view themselves as followers of a particular teacher or prophet. That was what happened in Corinth, with some members of the church following Paul and others preferring to follow Apollos (1 Corinthians 1-3), as well as what happened in the churches of Galatia when Paul began to lose his influence there to Torah-observant Jewish Christians (1 Cor. 1:6-9, 4:17, 5:7-12, 6:12). Paul lived just such an itinerant lifestyle for much of his ministry. Early Christian society was split between resident communities where Christians owned property and were subject to the rules of the community (cf. Matthew 18), whereas the wandering itinerants were dependent on these host communities for their hospitality. The wandering poor were also sometimes discriminated against within the resident churches on account of their abject poverty. This was the perspective of the author of James. He mentions that some individuals were "chosen" i.e a minority within Christian society - to be "poor in the eyes of the world" and "rich in faith" (James 2:5), poverty as a calling. But in some places, they were discriminated on account of their clothing and personal appearance while wealthy resident Christians were treated with higher respect (James 2:1 - 4). Paul’s focus on faith over works also devalued the importance of the itinerant lifestyle which aimed to achieve righteousness through "works", i.e. by living righteously through poverty. James 2:14 - 26 however defended the value of works and encouraged resident Christians to perform their own good "works" by receiving itinerants with hospitality, using the example of Rahab who "received the messengers and then sent them out another way" (James 2:25). He thus condemned those who would send the itinerants away without caring for their needs: "If a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food and one of you says to him, 'Go on, I wish you well, keep warm and well fed,' but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it?" (James 2:15 - 17) James goes on to guard against commercial itinerism (James 4:13 - 15), wandering from town to town in order to make money. Important here is the code of hospitality, such that even if itinerants have no real authority they have the right to be treated hospitably unless the visitor violates the stated guidelines, such as by asking for money (compare Matthew 10:9), staying too long, eating while in the spirit, etc., any of which proves that the visitor is a "false prophet" and to be shunned. Interestingly, these aspects of personal conduct seem to matter more than doctrine. The conflict between itinerant missionaries and resident Christians also plays out in 2 and 3 John, where the practice of shunning is mentioned in both letters as a response to itinerant visitors. In the first letter, Presbyter John (a leader from the early sub-apostolic period with significant personal prestige, as Papias and Polycarp relate) instructs the churches under his influence to refuse hospitality to itinerant teachers who teach what he regards to be false doctrine. It is important to recognize that these "deceivers" were not resident members of the church but outsiders who would be "coming to you" (erkhetai pros humas) from abroad who seek to be "received into your house" (lambanete eis oikian), i.e. itinerants like those in Matthew 10:12 who seek to be received "into homes" (eis tén oikian) and receive support. This has nothing to do with shunning members of the church itself; it has to do with taking in outsiders who are already known to be teachers of different doctrines, for this would require the church to give lodging, food, and support to the person -- thereby "sharing in his wicked work". In other words, the author here regards "deceivers" as illegitimate itinerants not worthy of the normal hopsitality that wandering teachers and missionaries would receive.