2 John 10

by What Now? 18 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • What Now?
    What Now?

    Hi all!

    Just looking for some rebuttals to 2 John 10, specifically when it comes to shunning family.

    We essentially admitted to our families that we do not want to raise our kids as witnesses and do not believe what jehovah's witnesses teach.

    Predictably, they use 2 John 10 to justify shunning us, specifically the portion of the verse where it says "If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him".

    Since we are apostates (according to the jw definition), and no longer "bring this teaching", would our family be correct in interpreting this verse to mean that they should shun us?

    Or as usual, is this verse and the context surrounding it referring to something completely different?


  • Londo111
  • Londo111
  • wannabefree
    It doesn't matter what they should do or what the context or technicality may be. The Watchtower does the interpreting and they are the only ones with the authority to understand or explain scripture to the JW.
  • Ding

    In the day the scripture was written, churches met in Christians' homes. The text is saying that they should not allow heretical teachers to teach them.

    If you take that passage out of context, JWs wouldn't be allowed to let non-JWs plumbers and electricians into their homes.

    Ironically, a lot of people use the same scripture as justification for refusing to open their doors when JWs come knocking.

  • The Searcher
    The Searcher

    (2 John 10) "If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him."

    John was referring to people who denied Christ's credentials as the ransom sacrifice etc., and described them as anti-Christs for doing so.

    (2 John 7) "...those not acknowledging Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh."(RNWT)

    (2 John 7) "If anyone comes to your meeting and does not teach the truth about Christ, don't invite that person into your home or give any kind of encouragement." (NLT)

    So someone who does not accept some of the WTBTS teachings - but still accepts Christ as the ransom sacrifice, is not being described in 2 John 7, and anyone who treats a fellow Christian in such an evil way, should read Matthew 25:45 - "Then he will answer them, saying: ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of these least ones, you did not do it to me.’"

    The J.W.'s false application of 2 John 10, applies equally to 99.9% of people in their area, so why do they talk to such people on the ministry or in passing?

  • Khaleesi
    As you know jws equate leaving the WT as rejecting God himself if you can reason with them explaining & establish you don't reject God but want to worship him how the bible commands it and not how men want you to worship him... read the whole account first in context so u can defend your position first as to what it was talking about.
  • StephaneLaliberte

    The letter was sent to a particular sister. Reading the first part of the letter, we can see that this Sister raised her kids in the truth and not all of them followed.

    Logically speaking, in such a sentence, in that context, if the apostle John also meant her kids, he would have said: "Do not receive them, even your own kids".

    Also, this was a letter sent to a woman by John in a specific set of circumstances. It was not addressed to a congregation and it was not sent in the name of the "Apostles". And it surely was not meant to be considered as source material to pass laws 2000 years later.

    Of course, you can appreciate the meaning of this letter and even provide counsels using it. But to pass a law enforceable through shunning, presenting it as a direct message from God? Non-sense.

  • StarTrekAngel

    The gospels never really make a huge deal out of the belief in the apostles or God himself. Most of the congregational issues that the early Christian confronted were related to, first and foremost, wether Jesus was the promised Messiah or not, second, issues over allowed foods, third but not less, issues of immorality and loose conduct.

    By far, the Christ was the biggest concern as it seems like they kept arguing with one another over what proof they had for or against him. This threatened the very basis of their faith, so the apostles had very little patient towards arguing over this matter. Wether you believe or not, there is a big parallel between that and the modern day GB, except that the GB today is not arguing wether Jesus was the Messiah. They argue their own authority and appointment, for as if you could convince anyone that 1914 is a hoax. among other things, they loose all authority.

  • StarTrekAngel

    Sorry something not working right with my computer today.

Share this