Articles
What is the 'Doctrine of Christ'?
In 2 John 9-11 the apostle decreed: “Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doc-trine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not re-ceive him into your house nor greet him; 11 for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds.
Fellowship with God is contingent upon abid-ing in the “doctrine of Christ.” Fellowship with God’s people requires the same. God flawless-ly manages the status of a man’s fellowship with Him, but men must discern whether a man has failed to abide in the doctrine of Christ. This, of course, necessitates that we determine: “What is the doctrine of Christ?” Various answers have been given— Some say that it refers exclusively to the doctrine which Christ (Himself) taught. Others insist (I believe rightly so) that it would include the apostle’s doctrine? Still others ascribe the meaning ‘teaching about Christ.’ This latter interpreta-tion was popularized by an influential preach-er (now deceased), Carl Ketcherside (1908-1989). He wrote the following of our text in question...
“It has become the handle for every factional tool used to pry apart the living stones in the temple of God. It is the murderous knife em-ployed to dismember the body of the Lord. It was written by the apostle of love to protect the flock of God from prowling wolves who sought to seduce them through denial of the fun-damental fact that Jesus has come in the flesh. It is now used to convert the sheep into snarling dogs, snapping at each other over every stray scrap of doctrine. It has substituted the law of the pack for the love of the flock.” (Carl Ketcherside, The Twisted Scriptures, Ch. 9, p. 78) Later, Ketcherside clearly states, “The doctrine of Christ, in this case, does not consist of the things Jesus taught, but of the thing taught about Je-sus.” (ibid. p. 85)
Candidly, I am certain that occasions exist during which 2 John 9-11 was used to instigate a sinful division in the body of Christ. But abuses of the text do not warrant a fresh interpretation that robs the com-mandment of its force. It is true that “the doctrine of Christ” would include doctrines about the Christ, but limiting it as such is unwarrant-ed.
While it is true that the immediate context concerns the issue of Jesus coming in the flesh, the larger body of John’s writings deal with other important issues which surfaced as a result of Gnostic teachings: the nature of God, the nature of man, and even the nature of sin. Does ha-bitual sin affect our fellowship with God? Even the love of the brethren was at issue! If you were to ask John, “Should I receive one into my house if he contradicts your teaching about walking in light or darkness or the need to love one’s brother” what do you think he would say? “Well, that isn’t specifically about Jesus so, to each his own?”
Another problem with Ketcherside’s view is that it ignores the observa-ble pattern of meaning which is clearly demonstrated by the phrase “the doctrine of” throughout scripture. At least twenty-one times in the New Testament we find “the doctrine of” a person or group. In each case, whether it be: the doctrine of the Pharisees (Mt. 16:12), the doctrine of the Lord (Acts 13:12), the doctrine of Balaam (Rev. 2:14), the doctrine of the Nicolaitans (Rev. 2:15), the doctrines of men (Col. 2:22), the doctrines of devils (1 Tim. 4:1), the doctrine of Paul (2 Tim.
3:10), the apostles’ doctrine (Acts 2:42) it never meant the doctrine about the person or group, but rather always referred to the doctrine or teaching from the person or group.
So much effort to circumvent the natural meaning of the text, when 2 John 9-11 is far from the only place that teaches this truth! No one wants to be in a position requiring them to refuse the right hand of fel-lowship, but even if you could rework the meaning of “doctrine of Christ” in this passage, you’d soon be faced with another. 1 Jn. 3:24 says: “And he that keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him.” We said at the outset that fellowship with God was contingent on abiding in the “doctrine of Christ.” John reworded this phrase, and his word choice sounds nothing like “doctrine about Christ.” It sounds a lot more like “doctrine from Christ” (specifically, ’keeps His command-ments.’) John 14:23 states 2 John 9 in a different way: “If a man loves Me, he will keep My word: and My Father will love him, and We will come to him, and make Our abode with him.” Again, fellowship is clearly seen to be associated with doctrine from God.
All of this is not to say that fellowship with God or one another is based upon perfect doctrinal correctness in all aspects. None of us would have fellowship with anyone for no one has divine knowledge except God, at least not anymore (1 Cor. 12:8). Really, it is the attitude of being always in pursuit of a better knowledge of Christ that binds us. According to Eph. 4 we endeavor to preserve the unity of the Spirit (4:3) even while we find ourselves at different stages of understanding. Eph. 4:11-9 says that we are being equipped by servants in the church…”until we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God to a perfect man…” This implies that none of us have ‘arrived.’
So, while 2 John 9-11 should not be limited merely to doctrines about the Christ, we would also do well not to abuse this passage, and never short-cut the process of endeavoring to keep unity. The call of 2 Jn. 10-11 is a last-ditch response, after every effort for unity has been exhaust-ed.
