2 John 1:10-11 and inter-religious dialogue

[Hadi]

*10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house and do not give him any greeting, 11 because the person who gives him a greeting shares in his evil deeds.

*Does this verse discourage Christians from inter-religious dialogue…
And if it meant only bringing people to your house to discus other religions ,the “non-catholic forum” dose that (virtually).

I appreciate if someone explains it to me since I might be taking it out of its context

 

[Nita]

Here are the footnotes from the Navarre which I found helpful.

…In the Middle East hospitality and greeting were not, as they are sometimes among us, mere marks of courtesy or good manners; they involved a real sense of solidarity and affinity. Hence the warning that reception of these people implied complicity in their evil deeds (v. 11), and the consequent danger of giving scandal to others.

Instructions of a similar kind are to be found in Mt 18:17; 1 Cor 5:9-13; Tit 3:10-11. The Church has a duty to safeguard the faith…

St. Vincent of Lerins warned: “If you were to tolerate, even just once, a doctrinal error, I shudder to describe the grave danger to religion that would result; once you give way in any area of catholic dogma you will give way in another and another, as something quite lawful and required by custom” (Commonitorium, 23).

In the introduction to this letter, the Navarre commentary makes another important point – that the phrase “elect lady and her children” most likely does not refer to an individual woman and her family, but to a local church. They note that St. John, in his closing, uses a similar term (“elect sister”) to refer to the Christian community from which he is writing.

 

[TMC]

The interesting question is what is “this teaching.” Is it that Christ came in the flesh? 2 John 1:7, or is it “love one another” 2 John 1:5-6?

 

[Nita]

The interesting question is what is “this teaching.” Is it that Christ came in the flesh? 2 John 1:7, or is it “love one another” 2 John 1:5-6?

Aren’t both part of the “doctrine of Christ”? It is abiding in the doctrine of Christ that is the criteria.

II John 9 and 10 Any one who goes ahead and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God; he who abides in the doctrine has both the Father and the Son. If any one comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into the house or give him any greeting;

 

[PJM]

=Hadi;5142930]*10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house and do not give him any greeting, 11 because the person who gives him a greeting shares in his evil deeds.

*Does this verse discourage Christians from inter-religious dialogue…
And if it meant only bringing people to your house to discus other religions ,the “non-catholic forum” dose that (virtually).

I appreciate if someone explains it to me since I might be taking it out of its context

A wounderful and very thoughful question:tiphat:

One needs to keep in mind the following.

The Bible is among the Oldest Books available.

There are thousands of verses, and hundreds of thousands of words.

The WORD “Gospel” means “good-news.”

Then we must try to place ourselves at or into the scene. Why? So that can can understand who is speaking, why, what is the message, and to whom is this person speaking.

John was an Apostle to primarily the Jewish Nation, so he likely was addressing Jews. This is important because the approacjh one would take with a “religious” group, would likely differ from the approach one would take with pagans.

In order to be heard, early Christians had to be aware of the religious practices and beliefs of those they were trying to convert.

The goal was not simply to teach, but far more difficult to actually re-educate. To be able to
not only teach new doctrine and dogma, but to have these teaches take hold and replace existing understanding.

**1 Peter 2: "1 “So put away all malice and all guile and insincerity and envy and all slander. 2 Like newborn babes, long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up to salvation; 3 for you have tasted the kindness of the Lord.” **

Because in a real sense, early Catholics were “spiritual babies” and they “had to be fed,” cared for and protected before they would be able to feed themselves.

The message of the passage you quote is simply a warning. “Play with fire and you’re going to get burnt!” “Look for trouble, and you’re far more likely to find it.” It’s better to be safe tna to be sorry."

This is what the message was.

It was extremely important also because the Church was under direct persecutation. Friends and family, doing what they thought was right, often turned in to the authorities, loved ones whom they felt were traitors! Not limiting ones association to members of the New Catholic Church, often resulted in death!

Hope this explains the verse for you? If not please ask a follow-up question.

Love and prayers,

 

[TMC]

Aren’t both part of the “doctrine of Christ”? It is abiding in the doctrine of Christ that is the criteria.

II John 9 and 10 Any one who goes ahead and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God; he who abides in the doctrine has both the Father and the Son. If any one comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into the house or give him any greeting;

But what does John mean by abiding the the doctrine of Christ? 5-6 suggest that he is saying we should reject any who do not agree that we should love one another, not that we should reject anyone who does not know Christ. The second meaning would make evangeliziing tough.

 

[Hadi]

Thanks Nita for the footnote…

PJM,

I understand that the message was for the survival of the young and weak church and to protect the new followers from other religious influences. But today the church is strong and have billions of followers and the doctrines of the church are well defined and protected.

You also mentioned that John was addressing this message to a Jewish audience, and from that passage it seems that they were already believers in Christ. so did he mainly choose them because of the strong influence of the Pharisees at that time… I don’t think the Romans had much religious influence but rather political power.

 

[PJM]

=Hadi;5145585]Thanks Nita for the footnote…

PJM,

I understand that the message was for the survival of the young and weak church and to protect the new followers from other religious influences. But today the church is strong and have billions of followers and the doctrines of the church are well defined and protected.

You also mentioned that John was addressing this message to a Jewish audience, and from that passage it seems that they were already believers in Christ. so did he mainly choose them because of the strong influence of the Pharisees at that time… I don’t think the Romans had much religious influence but rather political power.

I’m not exactly sure of your question.

Certainly the influence of the Jewish Highpriest was the foundation for the attacks. Just look at the early life of Saul / Paul. He too was a Pahrisee Priest.

The Jewish ruling class was concerned about losing influence and Rome was worried that Christians might get sufficient numbers to be a real threat to Roman Rule.

So the threat came from both quarters.

Love and prayers,

 

[Nita]

But what does John mean by abiding the the doctrine of Christ? 5-6 suggest that he is saying we should reject any who do not agree that we should love one another, not that we should reject anyone who does not know Christ. The second meaning would make evangeliziing tough.

John is not referring to those who do not know Christ (ignorance). He’s referring to those who know the Christian claims about Christ but openly reject the teaching and proclaim/state that Jesus is not God incarnate (“Jesus Christ in the flesh”). In other words, they bring a different doctrine and they should not be allowed into the house (church gathering) where they could proclaim their false doctrine to those assembled.
(At the time of John’s letter, I don’t think there were separate church buildings where the faithful gathered for Mass and prayer. I believe they were still gathering in homes.)
You might compare it to the current case of President Obama being invited to speak at Notre Dame - where bishops have spoken out against it. But there are some notable differences between that situation and the one John is addressing. Obama openly rejects the Catholic doctrine of love and respect for the life of the unborn, but he is Christian. Also, he’ll be speaking, I presume, in an auditorium and not in Church where people are gathered to worship. And also, presumably, he will not be proclaiming his beliefs about abortion.

Evangelizing of non believers would still take place (but not by inviting them in to Christian assemblies).