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

by yadda yadda 2 24 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Narkissos
    Narkissos

    NeonMadman,

    Interesting input.

    In my above posts you already have a number of objections into which I won't go again (unless you want to discuss them specifically, of course). So I'll keep to additional remarks to your text:

    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.

    Unfortunately, in many cases, the NT forms of Christianity do not seem to have had such a tolerant attitude toward "apostates" (in the real sense of the word for once, those who forsook Christianity altogether, or at least a specific version of it). Cf. Hebrews 6; 10; 2 Peter 2:20-22. Cf. also the problem of lapsi (those who betrayed their Christian confession in time of persecution) in later Patristic literature.

    In his later letter to the same church, apparently in reference to that same individual

    This is the WT stance, but it is hardly supported by the analysis of 2 Corinthians: there the sinner seems to have been guilty of a personal offence against Paul, challenging his authority, rather than any sexual "sin". The letter mentioned in v. 3 is generally considered lost. Cf. 7:12 and the commentaries.

    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.

    That's a possible reading of tôn pleionôn (which can also mean "the community"), but then the case of 1 Corinthians 5 is clearly different, since there Paul requires a solemn decision by a plenary assembly (v. 4f).

    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.

    Except, the "house churches" in the NT were not necessarily as small and as many as the modern version. They actually depended on the Roman patron/client system where the hosts were wealthy people (which could generate a number of problems, cf. the rich/poor problematic in the epistle of James) and could welcome important ekklèsiai (cf. Gerd Theissen's work on the social structure of early Christianity). And the evidence for the Johannine community in particular is quite scarce (fwiw, eis oikian in 2 John 10, if understood of the church "house" and not private homes, doesn't imply more than one).

  • dinah
    dinah

    When I see alot of scriptures quoted my eyes tend to cross or glaze over.........

  • yadda yadda 2
    yadda yadda 2

    I suppose I havn't apologised Narkissos because it feels as if the tone of your responses appears rather supportive of the JW's total shunning policy. You seem to be attacking those who attack that policy.

    If we are going to consider 1 Cor 5 in relation to 2 John 9-11 then the best appropriate starting point is a discussion of The Greek word 'sunanamignumi', which the NWT translates as 'quit mixing in company with'.

    This has the meaning of 'intimate association' and 'close association, as with a friend' (Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the NT, p 601). This is in contrast with the Greek word 'mita', which Strong's Exhaustive Concordance says denotes "accompaniment; amid (local or casual) - general association". Under this light, what Paul was stating was that the congregation should not have intimate, close association with the evildoer, as indicated by not 'eating with them' in a social setting. Saying a greeting and a few friendly, encouraging words to a disfellowshipped person is hardly 'intimate..close' association. So according to the context, Paul was not forbidding casual conversation or a friendly greeting.

    While the "attitude" between the Johannine and Pauline communities might be similar, as you noted, there is nothing in 1 Cor 5 to indicate Paul was suggesting not even saying a polite salutation to them, which 2 John only reserves for antichrist teachers.

  • Narkissos
    Narkissos
    I suppose I havn't apologised Narkissos because it feels as if the tone of your responses appears rather supportive of the JW's total shunning policy. You seem to be attacking those who attack that policy.

    Oh boy. Now I have to apologise. I thought your misrepresentation was unnecessarily mean and unfair while it was obviously the very best you could come up with. You're still in the "us vs. them" pattern, you have only switched sides and taken the whole Bible along with you. Now it must be used against the Watchtower just as consistently as it would have to support it before.

    Maybe sometime further down the road you'll learn about something called intellectual honesty. I'm not sure you can find what it means before you allow yourself to disagree with Bible texts though. As long as the Bible is the "authority" to you, you may feel the compulsive need to bend the meaning of every text until it says something that "feels good". Strangely, you would call that "respect" for the Bible, and I would call it the opposite.

    Have you suffered shunning personally yadda yadda? I have. I don't approve of it anymore than you do. The difference is that I feel that only part of it is to blame specifically on the Watchtower sect, while another part is a common possession of Christianity, including the NT. A sentence like "you are to hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord" (1 Corinthians 5:5) has had far worse consequences than WT shunning in Christian history.

    So let's turn to sunanamignumi. The basic meaning is "to mix together," which applies to things (e.g. ingredients) and only secondarily (figuratively or metaphorically) to personal relationships. The particular LXX background points to a special pejorative and sexually connotated sense of "intermingling with pagans" or "idols" (Hoshea 7:8; Ezekiel 20:18), which is also found in Philo (Life of Moses, I, 278). This is a religious (ritual, ceremonial) background (cf. the reference to the Passover and leaven in the context of 1 Corinthians 5) rather than a practical one (indicating a level of personal intimacy). What is involved practically rests on the interpretation of mède sunesthiein, which can be understood epexegetically (so Greeven in TDNT ad loc.), that is, as an explanation of what sunanamignumi implies, or as a limit case as I suggested above (not even eating with such a person). What is clear however from 2 Thessalonians 3:14 is that sunanamignumi as and of itself doesn't imply total shunning -- a point which the Watchtower obscures by applying those two uses of the same verb two different levels of discipline for different "cases" (disfellowshipping and marking). But it would be equally arbitrary to induce from the mere use of the same verb that the same sanction is implied in both contexts.

    As has often been pointed out, the NT doesn't offer a consistent system of church discipline. From one text to another not only the "sins" are different but the procedure is, too (for instance, what appears to be a community decision in 1 and 2 Corinthians has become a one-man decision in the Pastorals). Every church (or sect, or cult) makes its own system and bears the responsibility for it, no matter how many prooftexts it "uses" to back it up. We can criticise it on humane grounds. We can also criticise the misapplication of some scriptures to a completely different context. But I'm not sure we would have liked the discipline in at least some early churches much better...

  • yadda yadda 2
    yadda yadda 2

    Thanks Neonmadman for that excellent article.

    Narkissos, yes I have suffered from personal shunning and still do.

    I have never said the Society is wrong to partially shun congregation members who wilfully sin under 1 Cor 5. In fact, I have even defended the Society's position on that since it is overall clearly scriptural imo. I am hardly trying to use the whole Bible to unfairly attack the Society as you allege. I’m only questioning their total shunning policy (as in not even saying a polite “hello” to a disfellowshipped person under 1 Cor 5).

    I was seeking a balanced and thorough analysis of particular Greek words at 2 John 9-11, and now 1 Cor 5, since it was claimed the Society had their Greek usage all back to front (read my first post again). I'm satisfied now that based on the information you've brought to light and from my own research that khairo at 2 John 11 could well be taken to mean a polite greeting. Thank you for that.

    As for intellectual honestly, since 2 John 9-11 is only about receiving itinerant anti-christ preachers, an important point you made in your first post, there is no natural connection between that passage and 1 Cor 5. Furthermore, not saying a "greeting" to antichrists at 2 John 9-11 and "not even eating with such a man" at 1 Cor 5 are obviously two quite different things: one is a simple salutation/greeting while the other is socialising on a fairly intimate level. Clearly both passages are instructing communal ostracism against types of wicked “Christians” and no one is suggesting there was “unconditional tolerance” of wilfully sinful congregation members; yet the differences are clear between both passages and it is disappointing that you seem to be focusing mostly on alleged (and forced imo) similarities between them in a way that seems supportive of the Society’s wrong application of 2 John 9-11 to all disfellowshipped persons. Perhaps you don’t see it that way but it’s definitely how it came across to me and I think it’s offensive to the many persons who have suffered and still suffer from the Society’s clear misapplication of 2 John 9-11. It’s surprising, as you admit to having been disfellowshipped with a wrong application of 2 John 9-11 being used against you. I’m certainly not saying that that is an excuse for anyone to be intellectually dishonest in attacking the Society unfairly but it’s odd that you are almost doing the opposite in this thread. If I have got you all wrong on that then I apologise.

    Your subsequent information re sunanamignumi at 1 Cor 5 is interesting but I disagree entirely with your thought: “This is a religious (ritual, ceremonial) background (cf. the reference to the Passover and leaven in the context of 1 Corinthians 5) rather than a practical one (indicating a level of personal intimacy).” On the contrary, it is plain from the context of 1 Cor 5 that the use of sunanamignumi has everything to do with practical advice on how the congregation members should personally conduct themselves in their relations with a person removed under 1 Cor 5. I don’t think merely saying that it all depends on how we understand it “epexegetically” quite cuts it.

    What do you have to say about the points about sunanamignumi made in my previous post? Again: Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the NT gives this word has the meaning of 'intimate association' and 'close association, as with a friend' (Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the NT, p 601). And what about the apparent contrast of this with the Greek word 'mita', which Strong's Exhaustive Concordance says denotes "accompaniment; amid (local or casual) - general association".

    As for 2 Thessalonians 3:14, the instruction to "stop associating” (sunanamignumi) disorderly ones is qualified by Paul at the end of the passage that they are not to be completely avoided as if an "enemy", so this scripture can’t be used by itself to say that sunanamignumi does not support total shunning. In fact, it could be argued that because the apostle has to make it very clear at the end not to treat the disobedeint one as an enemy then perhaps sunanamignumi could have been otherwise taken by the congregation to mean something like total shunning! And anyway that instruction is on how to treat those disobedient to the word in that letter, not necessarily on dealing with offences under 1 Cor 5 (is that intellectually honest enough?):

    2 Thessalonians 3:6, 14-15 “Now we are giving YOU orders, brothers, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, to withdraw from every brother walking disorderly and not according to the tradition YOU received from us…. 14 But if anyone is not obedient to our word through this letter, keep this one marked, stop associating with him, that he may become ashamed. 15 And yet do not be considering him as an enemy, but continue admonishing him as a brother.”

    “From one text to another not only the "sins" are different but the procedure is, too (for instance, what appears to be a community decision in 1 and 2 Corinthians has become a one-man decision in the Pastorals).”

    What do you mean by “different”? Does the apostle contradict what are deemed sins from one letter to the next? Where are these “one-man decisions” you suggest occur in the Pastorals please?

    “We can also criticise the misapplication of some scriptures to a completely different context.”

    Yes we certainly can and we most certainly should if religious organisations' misapplication of scriptures is ruining lives and breaking up families. Any apparent difficulty in ascertaining the NT’s stance on administering congregational discipline is no reason for tip-toing around the issue where harmful abuses of scriptural are clearly in evidence.

    Putting the personal insults and side points aside, having apparently resolved khairo I really would like to get to the 100% honest truth about sunanamignumi. I'll keep doing my own research meantime.

    Any other scholarly types on here want to offer their 10c worth?

  • Narkissos
    Narkissos

    I have never said the Society is wrong to partially shun congregation members who wilfully sin under 1 Cor 5. In fact, I have even defended the Society's position on that since it is overall clearly scriptural imo.

    Then you are more of a WT apologist than I am, since to me "scriptural" does not equal "right". A "scriptural" stance could be judged wrong from another point of view (e.g. humanism).

    it is disappointing that you seem to be focusing mostly on alleged (and forced imo) similarities between them in a way that seems supportive of the Society’s wrong application of 2 John 9-11 to all disfellowshipped persons. Perhaps you don’t see it that way but it’s definitely how it came across to me and I think it’s offensive to the many persons who have suffered and still suffer from the Society’s clear misapplication of 2 John 9-11. It’s surprising, as you admit to having been disfellowshipped with a wrong application of 2 John 9-11 being used against you. I’m certainly not saying that that is an excuse for anyone to be intellectually dishonest in attacking the Society unfairly but it’s odd that you are almost doing the opposite in this thread. If I have got you all wrong on that then I apologise.

    Well you have: as far as scriptural application of 2 John is concerned, the main WT fallacy consists in extending the understanding of "the teaching of Christ" to any WT teaching... including those that clearly go beyond the teaching of Christ! When I happened to be in that case, my argument was: I could use this text to shun you, you cannot use it to shun me!

    More generally I do see some structural parallelism (but I admit it is debatable) between 1 Corinthians 5 and 2 John in the following: first there is a general prohibition (do not associate with / do not receive), second a more specific (and apparently more extreme) one (do not greet / do not eat with).

    Your subsequent information re sunanamignumi at 1 Cor 5 is interesting but I disagree entirely with your thought: “This is a religious (ritual, ceremonial) background (cf. the reference to the Passover and leaven in the context of 1 Corinthians 5) rather than a practical one (indicating a level of personal intimacy).” On the contrary, it is plain from the context of 1 Cor 5 that the use of sunanamignumi has everything to do with practical advice on how the congregation members should personally conduct themselves in their relations with a person removed under 1 Cor 5. I don’t think merely saying that it all depends on how we understand it “epexegetically” quite cuts it.

    You missed my point on two distinct issues:

    - "background" is not "meaning"; specific Jewish usage (as I pointed out with the LXX and Philo) only suggests a religious, "theological" connotation to the verb. "Not mixing/mingling with" has religious overtones (reminiscent of ceremonial cleanness, which are also obvious in the "leaven/Passover" analogy). Of course the prohibition is practical. But the use of sunanamignumi gives it a "sacral" ring. Interpreting it in terms of "level of intimacy" is on the wrong track imo.

    - "epexegetically" means that sunesthiein only explains what sunanamignumi practically means; it means that "not eating with" does not imply anything more than "not associating with"; it actually suits your view better than mine. I tend not to understand it "epexegetically"...

    What do you have to say about the points about sunanamignumi made in my previous post? Again: Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the NT gives this word has the meaning of 'intimate association' and 'close association, as with a friend' (Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the NT, p 601). And what about the apparent contrast of this with the Greek word 'mita', which Strong's Exhaustive Concordance says denotes "accompaniment; amid (local or casual) - general association".

    I have not Thayer's at hand; and, as I have already said, afaik the original Strong concordance doesn't "say" anything -- it just give scriptural references. Your edition must have some lexicon (whose?) attached. What I have looked up (TDNT and my French Bailly dictionary) doesn't suggest any particular nuance of intimacy. And I have no idea what mita is. Could you scan or type the entire entries?

    As for 2 Thessalonians 3:14, the instruction to "stop associating” (sunanamignumi) disorderly ones is qualified by Paul at the end of the passage that they are not to be completely avoided as if an "enemy", so this scripture can’t be used by itself to say that sunanamignumi does not support total shunning. In fact, it could be argued that because the apostle has to make it very clear at the end not to treat the disobedeint one as an enemy then perhaps sunanamignumi could have been otherwise taken by the congregation to mean something like total shunning! And anyway that instruction is on how to treat those disobedient to the word in that letter, not necessarily on dealing with offences under 1 Cor 5 (is that intellectually honest enough?):

    Lol, yes.

    What do you mean by “different”? Does the apostle contradict what are deemed sins from one letter to the next? Where are these “one-man decisions” you suggest occur in the Pastorals please?

    As for the potential difference between the "sins" involved in 1 Corinthians 5 and 2 Thessalonians 3, you just pointed it out yourself. As to the Pastorals, cf. 1 Timothy 1:20, I have turned them over to Satan, the role of the episkopos (bishop) in chapter 3, the role of Titus in chapter 1 and 3,10f, among others. The concentration of authority (including the disciplinary kind) on an individual figure (the "apostle," the official "envoy" and the "bishop") seems to be well on its way toward the monarchical system which is attested in Ignatius for instance.

  • Leolaia
    Leolaia

    Narkissos....I was stumped by the "mita" reference until it hit me that yaddayadda is talking about meta, the preposition (!). Quite an unusual apple to sunanamignumi's orange...

    I suppose I havn't apologised Narkissos because it feels as if the tone of your responses appears rather supportive of the JW's total shunning policy. You seem to be attacking those who attack that policy.

    yaddayadda....You are completely misreading what Narkissos is saying if that is what you think. He has been quite explicit on why the policy is wrongheaded and hurtful. He agrees with you that the situation that the Johannine epistles address is not the same one that the Society addresses when it co-opts these texts to support its policy. Rather he points out that you have not drawn the right conclusions about the meaning of the two Greek words in question in context and that you have to look at much more than laconic lexicon entries in a concordance to understand the words' usage. When one gives constructive criticism, one is not attacking those giving criticism themselves. Criticial arguments stand or fall on their own merits. Constructive criticism is about making sure one has the right arguments; otherwise it is all sophistry. Caring about accuracy should come first regardless of the subject.

  • mrsjones5
    mrsjones5

    When I see alot of scriptures quoted my eyes tend to cross or glaze over.........

    Me too, Dinah. But it serves a purpose.

  • yadda yadda 2
    yadda yadda 2

    It's called Strong's Exhaustive Concordance and it has definitions. Here is a link to 1 Cor 5:9 and "associate" http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=4874&version=nas

    The NAS New Testament Greek Lexicon

    Strong's Number: 4874 Browse Lexicon
    Original WordWord Origin
    sunanamignumifrom (4862) and a compound of (303) and (3396)
    Transliterated WordTDNT Entry
    Sunanamignumi7:852,1113
    Phonetic SpellingParts of Speech
    soon-an-am-ig'-noo-mee Verb
    Definition

    to mix up together. To keep company with, be intimate with one

  • yadda yadda 2
    yadda yadda 2

    Yes it's meta or metah, not mita, and I note it's "(local or causal)" not "casual". I was quoting that information from a second-hand source and the author may be completely misusing/misapplying it in trying to compare it with sunanamignumi. Here's some info on it:

    http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?search=3326&version=nas&type=str&submit=Find

    And

    www.abibleconcordance.com/41G-0200.htm

    G-240. allelon, al-lay'-lone;

    Gen. plur. from {A.}G-243 redupl.; one another:--each other, mutual, one another, (the other), (them-, your-) selves, (selves) together [sometimes with {B.}G-3326 or {C.}G-4314].

    {A.} G-243. allos, al'-los;

    a prim. word; "else," i.e. different (in many applications):--more, one (another), (an-, some an-) other (-s, -wise).

    {B.}G-3326. meta, met-ah';

    a prim. prep. (often used adv.); prop. denoting accompaniment; "amid" (local or causal); modified variously according to the case (gen. association, or acc. succession) with which it is joined; occupying an intermediate position between G-575 or G-1537 and G-1519 or G-4314; less intimate than G-1722, and less close than G-4862):--after (-ward),X that he again, against, among, X and, + follow, hence, hereafter, in, of, (up-) on, + our, X and setting, since, (un-) to, + together, when, with (+ -out). Often used in composition, in substantially the same relations of participation or proximity, and transfer or sequence.

    {C.}G-4314. pros, pros;

    a strengthened form of G-4253; a prep. of direction; forward to, i.e. toward (with the genit. the side of, i.e. pertaining to; with the dat. by the side of, i.e. near to; usually with the accus. the place, time, occasion, or respect, which is the destination of the relation, i.e. whither or for which it is predicated):--about, according to, against, among, at, because of, before, between, ([where-]) by, for, X at thy house, in, for intent, nigh unto, of, which pertain to, that, to (the end that), + together, to ([you]) -ward, unto, with (-in). In comp. it denotes essentially the same applications, namely, motion towards, accession to, or nearness at.

    .... G-575. apo, apo';

    a prim. particle; "off," i.e. away (from something near), in various senses (of place, time, or relation; lit. or fig.):--(X here-) after, ago, at, because of, before, by (the space of), for (-th), from, in, (out) of, off, (up-) on (-ce), since, with. In composition (as a prefix) it usually denotes separation, departure, cessation, completion, reversal, etc.

    .... G-1537. ek, ek;

    or ex, ex;

    a prim. prep. denoting origin (the point whence motion or action proceeds), from, out (of place, time or cause; lit. or fig.; direct or remote):--after, among, X are, at betwixt (-yond), by (the means of), exceedingly, (+ abundantly above), for (-th), from (among, forth, up), + grudgingly, + heartily, X heavenly, X hereby, + very highly, in, . . . ly, (because, by reason) of, off (from), on, out among (from, of), over, since, X thenceforth, through, X unto, X vehemently, with (-out). Often used in composition, with the same general import; often of completion.

    .... G-1519. eis, ice;

    a prim. prep.; to or into (indicating the point reached or entered), of place, time, or (fig.) purpose (result, etc.); also in adv. phrases: --[abundant-] ly, against, among, as, at, [back-] ward, before, by, concerning, + continual, + far more exceeding, for [intent, purpose], fore, + forth, in (among, at unto, -so much that, -to), to the intent that, + of one mind, + never, of, (up-) on, + perish, + set at one again, (so) that, therefore (-unto), throughout, till, to (be, the end, -ward), (here-) until (-to), . . . ward, [where-] fore, with. Often used in composition with the same general import, but only with verbs (etc.) expressing motion (lit. or fig.).

    .... G-4314. pros, pros;

    a strengthened form of G-4253; a prep. of direction; forward to, i.e. toward (with the genit. the side of, i.e. pertaining to; with the dat. by the side of, i.e. near to; usually with the accus. the place, time, occasion, or respect, which is the destination of the relation, i.e. whither or for which it is predicated):--about, according to, against, among, at, because of, before, between, ([where-]) by, for, X at thy house, in, for intent, nigh unto, of, which pertain to, that, to (the end that), + together, to ([you]) -ward, unto, with (-in). In comp. it denotes essentially the same applications, namely, motion towards, accession to, or nearness at.

    .... G-1722. en, en;

    a prim. prep. denoting (fixed) position (in place, time or state), and (by impl.) instrumentality (medially or constructively), i.e. a relation of rest (intermediate between G-1519 and G-1537); "in," at, (up-) on, by, etc.:--about, after, against, + almost, X altogether, among, X as, at, before, between, (here-) by (+ all means), for (. . . sake of), + give self wholly to, (here-) in (-to, -wardly), X mightily, (because) of, (up-) on, [open-] ly, X outwardly, one, X quickly, X shortly, [speedi-] ly, X that, X there (-in, -on), through (-out), (un-) to(-ward), under, when, where (-with), while, with (-in). Often used in compounds, with substantially the same import; rarely with verbs of motion, and then not to indicate direction, except (elliptically) by a separate (and different) prep.

    .... G-4862. sun, soon;

    a prim. prep. denoting union; with or together (but much closer than G-3326 or G-3844), i.e. by association, companionship, process, resemblance, possession, instrumentality, addition etc.:--beside, with. In comp, it has similar applications, includ. completeness.

    .... G-4253. pro, pro;

    a prim. prep.; "fore", i.e. in front of, prior (fig. superior) to:--above, ago, before, or ever. In comp. it retains the same significations.

    .... G-3844. para, par-ah';

    a prim. prep.; prop. near, i.e. (with gen.) from beside (lit. or fig.), (with dat.) at (or in) the vicinity of (obj. or subj.), (with acc.) to the proximity with (local [espec. beyond or opposed to] or causal [on account of]):--above, against, among, at, before, by, contrary to, X friend, from, + give [such things as they], + that [she] had, X his, in, more than, nigh unto, (out) of, past, save, side . . . by, in the sight of, than, [there-] fore, with. In compounds it retains the same variety of application.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit