Society's use of 2 John 9-11 to justify total shunning totally wrong!

by yadda yadda 2 24 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • yadda yadda 2
    yadda yadda 2

    The Watchtower Society appears to have totally twisted the meaning of the original Greek work for "greeting in 2 John 9-11 to justify not even saying a polite "hello" to disfellowshipped or disassociated ones.

    The following from http://www.jwfacts.com/index_files/disfellowship.htm sums it up very nicely:

    "Likewise the term to never “say a greeting” to him needs to be understood in light of first century practice. It is wrong for the Watchtower to claims that John used the term ‘a greeting’ to indicate a simple hello.

      “John here used khai´ro, which was a greeting like “good day” or “hello.” (Acts 15:23; Matthew 28:9) He did not use a·spa´zo·mai (as in verse 13), which means “to enfold in the arms, thus to greet, to welcome” and may have implied a very warm greeting, even with an embrace. (Luke 10:4; 11:43; Acts 20:1, 37; 1 Thessalonians 5:26) So the direction at 2 John 11 could well mean not to say even “hello” to such ones.” Watchtower 1988 May 15 p.27

    This article claims the word khairo is used to forbid a simple greeting, instead of aspazomai which means a more affectionate embrace, enfolding in the arms, kiss, greeting or welcome. The writer seems to be confused as the very opposite is true. Strong’s states;

    • 5463 chairo {khah'-ee-ro} 1) to rejoice, be glad 2) to rejoice exceedingly 3) to be well, thrive 4) in salutations, hail! 5) at the beginning of letters: to give one greeting, salute
    • 783 aspasmos {as-pas-mos’} 1) a salutation, either oral or written

    2 John does not indicate a polite greeting is wrong. John here shows that a person is a sharer in the Antichrist’s wicked works if he shows acceptance and agreement with the evildoers cause or teachings, or wishes them favour and success.

    If this is true then it's such an obvious mistake. How on earth could the Watchtower have got this so back to front?

    This error was even perpetuated at this weeks bookstudy!

  • Narkissos
    Narkissos

    I don't think there is any extraordinary meaning to look for in khairein, per se.

    The context of the statement implies that it is about the community rejection of "false" (from the author's perspective) itinerant teachers rather than private shunning of any kind of "sinner" (this, otoh, may be implied in 1 Corinthians 5:11) -- a rejection which, ironically, the "Elder" and his envoys also suffer from another church according to 3 John.

    Now the small "part of truth" in the WT interpretation is that individual members are most likely expected to support the collective decision, as the singular form of v. 11 suggests: "for he who says (ho legôn) khairein to him shares in his evil works"...

  • yadda yadda 2
    yadda yadda 2

    Anyone else care to comment? Narkissos seems to agree with the Society's use of John 9-11 to justify not even saying a polite hello or greeting to disfellowshipped persons. Lovely.

    Isn't anyone else bothered by the fact that the definitions in Strong's dictionary for "greeting" seem very at odds with the Watchtower explanation in that article?

  • mrsjones5
    mrsjones5

    2 John 1:9-11 (New International Version)

    9

    Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him. 11 Anyone who welcomes him shares in his wicked work.

    Does the Watchtower really continue the teachings of Christ?

  • Narkissos
    Narkissos
    Narkissos seems to agree with the Society's use of John 9-11 to justify not even saying a polite hello or greeting to disfellowshipped persons. Lovely.

    My post stands above yours: I was quite careful to define the context and application of the prescription in 2 John. A Johannine community is asked not to receive the itinerant envoys which it (or the Elder) considers false teachers. As 3 John shows, this works both ways: the "Elder"'s representatives are similarly rejected by another (kind of?) church. This has nothing to do with the centrally organised procedure of disfellowshipping any kind of sinners by closed-door committees as exists in the Watchtower.

    Now does it imply individual refusal to greet the persons who are subject to this communal rejection? I said the singular wording of v. 11 suggests so. You're welcome to offer a contrary argument. "Lovely" won't do.

    Simply reversing the difference of intimacy which the WT artificially reads between the practically equivalent terms aspasmos and khairein will lead you nowhere. Aspasmos means a greeting, aspazein means greeting sb, while khairein (khaire, khairete) is what you say when you greet anybody. The equivalent of "Hello," "Good day," Hebrew shalom or Latin ave.

    It's what Judas says to Jesus in Gethsemane (Matthew 26:49); what the soldiers say to him when they mock his kingship (Matthew 27:29; Mark 15:18 -- where saying Khaire is described as aspazein; John 19:3); it is also the official greeting at the beginning of a letter (Acts 15:23; 23:26; James 1:1) -- compare the use of aspazein etc. in Matthew 5:47; 10:12; 23:7; Mark 12:38; Luke 1:29,41,44; 10:4; 11:43; 20:46; Acts 18:22; 20:1; 21:7,19; 25:13; Romans 16:3ff; 1 Corinthians 16:19ff; 2 Corinthians 13:12; Philippians 4:21f; Colossians 4:10ff; 1 Thessalonians 5:26; 2 Thessalonians 3:19; 2 Timothy 4:19ff; Titus 3:15; Philemon 23; Hebrews 13:24; 1 Peter 5:14f; 2 John 13; 3 John 15. And tell me if you find any difference of "intimacy".

    Fyi there is no such thing as "Strong's dictionary". Strong made a numerical concordance which, for its convenience, was later coupled with a number of dictionaries and lexica, from the most scholarly to the most fanciful. The numbers help to find the right entry but it's obviously not enough to use it correctly. In the above quotations of "Strong's dictionary" (sic) it clearly appears that khairein means "to rejoice" but that it is also the ordinary Greek salutation. Mixing the meanings make you believe that it is some kind of extraordinary, intimate greeting. It is not. Not anymore than the meaning of peace makes the daily use of shalom extraordinary for Hebrew speakers.

    Btw sometimes the meanings do overlap in literature, but only because the context creates a special effect: for instance, in Luke 1:28f, the angel greets Mary with what would be an ordinary khaire were it not developed in an extraordinary way: khaire kekharitômenè (note the pun with "full of grace," which works only in Greek), ho kurios meta sou. Then Mary wonders about this particular kind of aspasmos... And then the reader can read more than the everyday greeting into the khaire (remembering, for instance, of the prophetic -- and not idiomatic -- addresses "rejoice, daughter of Zion" in the OT).

  • yadda yadda 2
    yadda yadda 2

    Well I guess that settles it. Where do you get all this heavy duty research from Narkissos? Khairo in 2 John 9-11 could well mean not to even say a polite salutation, so the Watchtower could be right on that point. But the point remains that such a harsh attitude was only reserved for persons teaching an antichrist message.

  • gubberningbody
    gubberningbody

    yadda, the FDS isn't. They are Antichrist in their teachings. (I list)

    1. Jesus isn't your mediator.

    (do my prayers go in the shredder?)

    2. The FDS is the "channel".

    (oh, you mean go-between, or mediator? I thought that was what Jesus role was? Do I pray to the FDS now or just the GB?)

  • sspo
    sspo

    I was in for 32 years and could never accept their interpretation of shunning by using 2John.

    Yet millions continue to buy into it cus it comes from " jehovah"

  • Narkissos
    Narkissos
    Well I guess that settles it.

    Well I guess that's the closest you can do to an apology for misrepresenting my view...

    Where do you get all this heavy duty research from Narkissos?

    Simply from reviewing the occurrences of the Greek terms in discussion within the NT corpus and their respective contexts. Aka. primary sources.

    But the point remains that such a harsh attitude was only reserved for persons teaching an antichrist message.

    Yes, and more importantly it (not just the criterion, but the whole prescription) is just one view among many. Nothing like a centralised, global organisational policy consistently applying to all "Christian" churches. As the comparison with 3 John shows it could be reciprocal. The authority in one "church" can be rejected by another.

    It somehow hurts a modern mind to see that the Johannine community which produced apparently the highest possible praise of love (God is love) could come up with such a prescription. Its notion of love (which was mutual, love one another, i.e. dependent on mutual recognition of a determined group of "elect" -- not love of neighbour, let alone love of the enemies as in the Synoptics) did not include unconditional tolerance -- which is rather a lower virtue than love in our set of values...

    But, as I said, when you skip to Paul (in 1 Corinthians, for instance) you find a similar attitude toward a much broader panel of "sinners" (5,9ff): I wrote to you in my letter not to associate(sunanamignumi, as in 2 Thessalonians 3:14) with sexually immoral persons-- not at all meaning the immoral of this world, or the greedy and robbers, or idolaters, since you would then need to go out of the world. But now I am writing to you not to associate (idem) with anyone who bears the name of brother or sister who is sexually immoral or greedy, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or robber. Do noteven eat with (mède sunesthiein) such a one. For what have I to do with judging those outside? Is it not those who are inside that you are to judge? God will judge those outside. "Drive out the wicked person from among you."

    Here the issue of "greeting" is not mentioned, instead "(not) eating with". It would be tempting (to our sensitive souls) to reduce the scope of this prescription to religious communal meals such as the Eucharist in its earliest form of "agape," i.e. full meals shared by all members of the church (cf. chapter 11), as in Galatians 2:12, thus limiting it to ecclesial excommunication, so that it would have nothing to do with ordinary, secular relationships. However the place of the command in the Pauline rhetoric runs contrary to this idea: do not associate with, do not even eat with such a one, suggesting that "eating with" belongs to a "lower," not "higher" level of religious relationship. The position of the ordinary khairein, second to lambanô (do not receive him, do not [even] greet him) in 2 John 9-11 is similar imo, although not strictly as explicit.

    Briefly put, "tolerance" was hardly an absolute virtue to any particular segment of early Christianity; there was always room for tolerating some diversity inside (cf. 1 Corinthians 8 and Romans 14 as far as Paul is concerned), and nearly absolute diversity outside ("Christians" in general did not feel responsible for moralising the "world"), but there were clear borders (not the same for all obviously) and those who would transpass them would suffer communal ostracism, for which individual solidarity was certainly expected.

    (Incidentally, when I was df'd for "apostasy" the token "motif" scripture read to me was 2 John 9-11; which was quite ironical after several hours of discussion in which I had consistently professed to abide in Christ's teaching, and not being able to follow the Watchtower anymore as it clearly went beyond it. On this I did question the application of this verse; not on the general principle of "shunning," which I certainly didn't like but was an integral part of this scripture.)

  • NeonMadman
    NeonMadman

    The following is a paper that I wrote for a Theology course with Moody Bible Institute. I thought it might be of interest (though certainly less technical than Narkissos' comments) in the context of this thread:

    "Expel the Wicked Man"

    It is unfortunate that there are times in church life when a case of sin requires the expulsion of an individual from the fellowship of the church. If a person who has been involved in serious sin refuses to respond to the various attempts at reconciliation outlined by Jesus in Matthew 18:15-20, the church is left with no choice except to regard that individual as "a pagan or a tax collector".

    I was, for nearly 30 years, a member of a cult group that carried the concept of church discipline to abusive levels. Persons who had fallen into sin were tried before closed-session "judicial committees" and expelled, or "disfellowshipped" from the organization for a variety of offenses, some solidly biblical, others much less so. Members were absolutely forbidden to speak with those who had been expelled; not even a simple "hello" or a word of encouragement was allowed. Even dearest friends and close relatives had to be shunned. Worse, even persons who had left the group voluntarily were to be treated in exactly the same manner as those who had been cast out. This condition would continue throughout one's life and disfellowshipped persons would be permanently shunned unless they applied for and received reinstatement to the organization from the same committee of elders who had disfellowshipped them in the first place.

    What is even more unfortunate is that practices such as these are not entirely confined to cult groups. There are church groups that are absolutely orthodox in their theology who nonetheless engage in such high-control tactics.

    Generally, groups that require such shunning of former members rely upon a small handful of texts to support their position. We turn now to an analysis of those texts in order to determine what the Scripture actually requires with regard to those who have been excommunicated from the church.

    Matthew 18:17

    "...if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. "

    After outlining the progressive steps for church discipline, Jesus discussed the treatment of one who did not respond with repentance at any point in the procedure. If the sinning individual was still impenitent after being admonished by the church as a whole, he or she was to be regarded as "a pagan or a tax collector." There has been some controversy over these words. The fact is that not everyone in first-century Judea treated pagans and tax collectors in the same fashion. The argument is sometimes made that the religious leaders of the time, particularly the so-strict Pharisees, utterly shunned Gentiles because they were not of the chosen people. Likewise, tax collectors were regarded as collaborators with the Roman government against their own people, and were also avoided socially. Those who favor extreme shunning argue that Jesus was encouraging such a Pharisaical attitude.

    However, it must be pointed out that Jesus was not addressing the Jewish religious leaders. He was speaking to His own disciples, who might be expected to follow His example. Jesus did not shun pagans and tax collectors; rather, He displayed the love of God toward everyone He encountered. In fact, Jesus was known to dine with tax collectors and was criticized by those very religious leaders for doing so (Matt. 9:10, 11; Matt. 11:19). It hardly seems reasonable that Jesus would so often condemn the religious leaders for their hypocrisy and then hold them up as examples for His disciples to follow. There is no support in this verse for the contention that Jesus was instructing His disciples to enforce an extreme sort of shunning upon those who would be excommunicated; rather He was telling them to treat such persons as they would anyone else who was not a Christian.

    1 Cor. 5:11

    "But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat."

    Here Paul lays down a general rule for dealing with an individual who engages in scandalous sin within the church. The specific case at hand was that of a man who was engaged in an immoral affair with his stepmother. Rather than mourning over the sin that had infested their congregation, the members of the church were patting themselves on the back, probably congratulating themselves for their "tolerance". Paul writes about how sin should be dealt with in order to bring them to their senses.

    There are a few points that stand out immediately about Paul's command. First, the person to whom this procedure is applied must be one who "calls himself a brother." In the immediately preceding verse, Paul had specifically said that he was not talking about non-Christians who were sinners, since to avoid such persons, one would actually have to "leave this world." It would seem, therefore, that one who actually left the church would not need to be shunned for the rest of his or her life, unless he or she continued to identify with the church in a public manner. The object of church discipline is to bring about repentance which results in reconciliation of the sinner both to God and to the church in renewed fellowship. If the person leaves the church completely and begins to live as a non-Christian, there is no point in perpetuating punishment indefinitely; rather he or she has indeed become as a "pagan or a tax collector" and is subject to evangelism as would be any other unbeliever.

    What is lost through excommunication is, not the simple courtesy of normal human interaction, but spiritual fellowship. Saucy defines church fellowship as "one way God has ordained for the believer to give himself to the Lord and fellow believers and to get from them that which is necessary for spiritual edification."[1] True Christian fellowship involves more than coffee and conversation; it is a spiritual relationship that involves believers in each other's lives and in the life of God. It is that relationship which has been broken by sin in the case of an excommunicated person. That is the level at which the believer must "not associate" with a church member who persists in sin. A simple greeting or normal conversation would not fall under this classification.

    Another point in Paul's command that stands out is the use of the present tense. Paul says not to associate with "anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy," etc. This would seem to rule out shunning such an individual forevermore. If the person caught in sin abandons his or her course, there is no reason why he or she should not be received back into fellowship. Paul mentions no organizational procedure or secret committee meetings for the purpose of reinstatement; rather Christians should be eager to welcome back into their midst a sinner who repents.

    In fact, it appears that this was the case with the man who had the affair with his stepmother. In his later letter to the same church, apparently in reference to that same individual, Paul writes, "The punishment inflicted on him by the majority is sufficient for him. Now instead, you ought to forgive and comfort him, so that he will not be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. I urge you, therefore, to reaffirm your love for him" (2 Cor. 2:6-8). Again, the goal of church discipline is seen to be, not punishment, but repentance. Once the man had repented, he was to be accepted back into fellowship without delay.

    Another point that becomes evident in the quotation from 2 Cor. 2:6-8 above is that shunning was not enforced as mandatory upon members of the church. Individual members were to make their own decisions about withdrawing fellowship from the excommunicated man. Paul refers to punishment being inflicted by "the majority," not by all. Apparently some did not cooperate with the church's decision, but there is no indication that they were themselves disciplined for not doing so.

    Finally, Paul admonishes that Christians do not even eat with such a man. It is unclear whether this is a reference to the Lord's Supper, to the "love feasts" that were held as church functions among first-century Christians or to normal social dining. The latter, however, seems unlikely, since Jesus Himself ate socially with sinners and tax collectors (Mark 2:16), and that is exactly who He said excommunicated persons should be treated like. Certainly one who has been excommunicated from the church would not be allowed to partake in Communion, so that is a possible meaning for Paul's statement. However, the most likely reference would seem to be to the "love feasts," official functions of the church at which spiritual fellowship would certainly be encouraged. That represents precisely the sort of fellowship that would be withdrawn from the unrepentant sinner.

    Comparison of this text with 2 Thess. 3:14 makes it clear that Paul did not intend that the sinning brother be cut off from all contact. There, Paul writes: "If anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take special note of him. Do not associate with him, in order that he may feel ashamed." The Greek word for "do not associate" in this verse (sunanamignumi) is identical with the word rendered "not associate" in 1 Cor. 5:11, indicating that the action to be taken is the same. However, in 2 Thessalonians 3:15, Paul goes on to write, "Yet do not regard him as an enemy, but warn him as a brother." Love and compassion are the watchwords; the object is to reconcile, not to punish.

    2 John 9-11

    "Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting; for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds."

    This text is a favorite among those who favor extreme forms of shunning because it appears to forbid even the saying of a greeting. However, there is nothing in the text that associates this command with church discipline, nor is John here discussing treatment of an excommunicated person. The reference is to one who "does not abide in the teaching of Christ." Of course, some groups also disfellowship for "apostasy," which they define as any deviation from the group's official teachings.

    The historical context of 2 John was one that involved many house churches. Most Christian groups in that time met in private homes, whether because of the small size of the group or the fear of persecution, or both. Itinerant teachers would travel from church to church offering instruction in the faith and receiving their support from the churches. Unfortunately, not all of those teachers were absolutely orthodox in their teaching; in particular, some had succumbed to the heresies of Gnosticism. These are the ones to whom John had referred earlier in verse 7: "For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist. "

    So John was admonishing the Christians who were meeting in house churches to test the beliefs of those offering themselves as teachers. If their doctrine was not sound, they were not to be received as teachers into the homes of believers where church meetings were being held. Likewise, the members of the house churches were not to offer a "greeting." The King James Version of the Bible translates the Greek word chairo ("greeting") as "God speed." To offer a "greeting" of this type was to wish God's blessing on the life and work of the one receiving it, and this would obviously be inappropriate for a believer to offer to a false teacher.

    Summary

    It is apparent from this brief examination of much-abused texts that there is really no warrant in Scripture for the extreme shunning of one who has been expelled from the church because of unrepentantly pursuing a course of sin. It must always be remembered that the primary purpose of church discipline at all stages - even excommunication - is to reclaim the sinner to fellowship. A person who has been expelled from church fellowship is to be denied Communion and participation in other spiritual activities of the church. However, there is no objection in Scripture to extending normal human courtesy and compassion, and certainly no prohibition against a simple "hello." The words of Galatians 6:1 are very germane: "Brothers, if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently. But watch yourself, or you also may be tempted."

    Bibliography

    Baker, William H. Survey of Theology 2 Study Guide. Chicago, IL: Moody Bible Institute, 2001.

    Barker, Kenneth, Gen. Ed. The NIV Study Bible, 10 th Anniversary Ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1995.

    Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2000 rev.

    Saucy, Robert L. The Church in God's Program. Chicago: Moody Bible Institute, 1972.

    Thiessen, Henry C. Lectures in Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1999.

    White, John and Ken Blue. Healing the Wounded. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1985.

    Zodhiates, Spiros. Hebrew-Greek Key Word Study Bible (NASB). Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers, 1990.


    [1] Robert L. Saucy, The Church in God's Program. Chicago: Moody Bible Institute, 1972, p. 102.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit