|
Bro. Turner:
 In
2 Jn. 9, does “the doctrine of Christ” mean what Christ
taught, or teaching concerning Christ come in the flesh? Does
the Greek clarify? BT
Reply:
I
dread these “Greek” questions for they mean slow, laborious
searching through material that is over my head. I’ll explain
this as clearly as my knowledge will allow. “Of Christ” is
genitive — the case of genus or kind. A. T. Robertson’s
Grammar (and at $17.50 it had better be a good grammar) says,
“In itself the genitive is neither subjective nor objective,
but lends itself readily to either point of view.” Four other
grammars in my library are in substantial agreement. The context
must determine the meaning. Viewed purely from the grammatical
angle we could translate: “Whosoever goeth onward and abideth
not in the Christ-kind of teaching..”
Every
Greek expositor available to me, with the possible exception of
Wuest, says this passage refers to teaching that has Christ as
its author. Robertson’s “Word Pictures” has “Not the
teaching about Christ, but that of Christ which is the standard
of Christian teaching as the walk of Christ is the standard for
the Christian’s walk (1 Jn. 2:6). See Jn. 7:16; 18:19.”
Meyer says, “tou Cbristou is not the objective
... but the subjective genitive ... the doctrine which,
proceeding from Christ, was proclaimed by the apostles.” Wuest
says, “teaching with reference to Christ,” but broadens this
to “the limits of true doctrine.” His barbs are aimed at
Unitarian, Modernist, or Liberal.
|
|
Wescott
says, “the doctrine which Christ brought” and says the usage
of the N.T. is uniformly in favor of such an interpretation.
Alford also pleads uniformity of N.T. usage, and between them
they cite Matt. 7:28; Mk. 4:2; Jn. 18:19; Acts 2:42; Rev.
2:11-15. Both mention and repudiate the idea that this is an
objective genitive.
It
is not my practice to array the “scholars” for you, but in
such a technical matter this seemed wise. It seems to me that
both context and N.T. usage require 2 Jn. 9 to refer to that
which Christ taught, personally and through His apostles. John
warns of a particular error (that Christ had not come in the
flesh) but this does not negate a more general application of
the principle given. In 1 Jn. 4:2 are we to understand that the only
test for determining those “of God is the confession that He
is come in flesh? Or is this simply one example (currently
needed) of a broad principle? (Note v.6). Do all who say Jesus
is Lord, have a “spiritual gift”? (1 Cor. 12:3). See Deut.
13:2 for O.T. example of citing a specific error to teach a
general principle.
The
teaching that came from Christ would, of course, include the
fact that He came in the flesh. So far as immediate context is
concerned, it would also include His commandment concerning love
(vs. 5-6), and all the “truth. ..which abideth in us” (v.2).
Limiting
this passage to the error concerning Christ in the flesh is
convenient for those who would “broaden fellowship,” but
neither scholarship, context, nor Bible usage sanction it.
[Previous
Article] [Next
Article]
|
