32. “Bidding God Speed” (2 John)
“If there come any unto you, and bring
not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:
For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds” (vv.
10,11).
Without attempting a complete exposition of this
letter, it should be noted that John was addressing an unnamed sister and mother
in the Truth, one in whose home the ecclesia of that district met. In her
kindness the “elect lady” (v. 1) had offered her hospitality to
certain traveling preachers who could scarcely, if at all, be called
Christian.
What was the doctrine so heinous as to merit the
title for its purveyors of “antichrist” (v. 7)? It was the erroneous
contention that Jesus did not “come in the flesh”, in other words,
that he was in essence God and only seemed to suffer the frailties of
humanity and the climactic death on the cross. The apostle rightly saw this as a
significant perversion of the gospel, which effectively nullified all else of
truth to be found in the itinerant speakers’ message. He therefore
counseled the sister not to receive such men into her house nor, by implication,
to receive them at the Breaking of Bread held there. They were to be shunned
completely.
The question is this: Was such a prohibition
intended to apply, as a general rule, to any and every irregularity of belief or
practice, whenever and wherever manifested? The answer is, emphatically,
“No”. The particular error in 2 John is said to be that of
“anti-Christ”, etymologically signifying that which
replaces or stands as a contrast to the true Christ. The name seems to be
reserved for those errors which deny the nature and character of Christ (1 John
2:18,22; 4:1-3), thereby rendering unintelligible his redemptive
work.
A passage from Robert Roberts is often quoted to
justify the disfellowship of everyone that might, mistakenly or otherwise, bread
bread with some individual who believes any error. Brother Roberts says, among
other things:
“As to those who bring not this doctrine,
John’s comment is — ‘Receive him not into your house, neither
bid him God speed!’ This commandment we can no more evade than any other
commandment delivered unto us.”
The citation is certainly forceful enough as it
stands to support most any wide-scale excommunication of individuals and
ecclesias alike. However, the effect is drastically mitigated when a portion of
the immediately preceding paragraph is also quoted:
“The doctrine of Christ is that he is God
made and manifested in mortal flesh of Abraham’s race for the deliverance
thereof, on his own principles, from ‘that having the power of
death’ ” (Seasons of Comfort, p. 98).
It was to such as “bring not this
doctrine” (according to both John Thomas and Robert Roberts), and
to such only, that the extremely harsh directive of the apostle should
apply.
The sweeping use to which our brother’s
words are often put is specifically denied by him in another passage. There he
speaks of “fellowship” on far more practical, reasonable, and (we
might say) spiritual grounds than some of his “followers” would care
to admit:
“Fellowship is friendly association for the
promotion of a common object — with more or less of the imperfection
belonging to all mortal life. To say that every man in that fellowship is
responsible for every infirmity of judgment that may exist in the association is
an extreme to which no man of sound judgment can lend himself. There will
be flawless fellowship in the perfect state. Perhaps it is the admiration of
this in prospect that leads some to insist upon it now. But it is none the less
a mistake. This is a mixed and preparatory state in which much has to be
put up with when the true principles are professed” (“True
Principles and Uncertain Details”, The Christadelphian, Vol. 35,
No. 407 — May 1898 — p. 187).
In reviewing verse 10, other points of interest
emerge:
“If there come any unto
you...” —
These verses clearly refer to some serious error
introduced into one’s local ecclesia. They give no sanction to the
searching out of alleged error in other ecclesias, much less those which are
great distances away, on the basis of some rumor.
“And bring not this
doctrine” —
These deceivers were active, positive false
teachers, engaged in a campaign, not just “holders” of false
doctrine or those who might be termed “weaker brethren” or
“honest doubters”, who should be sought after and
reclaimed.
“Neither bid him God speed”
—
“God speed” was an unfortunate choice
by the translators of the AV, a choice which has colored much of subsequent
Christadelphian analysis of this passage. Brother Roberts equates “God
speed” with “intimacy, toleration, and cooperation” (The
Law of Moses, p. 285); this may be implicit in the text, but it is certainly
not the primary meaning. The Greek word is chairo — which
merely means “greeting” or “farewell”; it is so used
many times in the New Testament (Matt. 26:49; 27:29; Luke 1:28; John 19:3; Acts
15:23; 2 Cor. 13:11; James 1:1). It may also mean “to rejoice”
(Matt. 2:10; John 3:29; 16:22; Rom. 12:12; 2 Cor. 6:10; Rev.
19:7).
This presents us with a couple of alternative
views of the passage:
(1) These false teachers’ doctrine was so
extremely dangerous that they could not even be greeted courteously, nor be
given the most elementary considerations due even to out-and-out worldlings,
much more to “erring brethren”. Such a view, in conformity with our
understanding of this special doctrine, thus removes this passage from serious
consideration as a guideline to ecclesial duties toward most other, milder forms
of error. Would any “minority fellowship” brethren seriously want to
adopt such an attitude toward all other Christadelphians? The otherwise
unanimous view of the apostolic passages regarding errorists is that they are to
be gently entreated, and diplomatically led away from their follies. So we have
here in 2 John a unique case, and consequently one which gives no real precedent
for lesser issues.
(2) The second possibility, much less likely, is
this: If the word chairo here signifies “to rejoice”,
then that which designates brethren “partakers of the evil deeds” of
gross errorists is their rejoicing in that evil — that is,
wholeheartedly approving of and positively participating in the propagation of
error. This is not to suggest that something less, say a passive toleration, is
proper — it may be wrong too, depending on circumstances — but only
that it is not the “partaking” or “fellowshiping” of the
error which some interpreters would have it to be.
Therefore, no matter which of the two
interpretations of “God speed” be chosen, the verse is not that
clear-cut directive to the “block disfellowship” of all that break
bread with one false teacher. Even if the elders of an ecclesia should decide to
tolerate the membership of one holding false doctrine, it cannot be said that
members of that ecclesia who continue to use every opportunity to expose and
denounce his errors are “bidding him God speed” or “partaking
of his evil deeds”. To say that they are is a travesty of language. The
situation has been known a hundred times over that something done or said by a
brother has been openly disapproved of by the rest of his ecclesia without
excommunication being applied. At times the simpler expedient of removing such a
brother from all speaking and teaching duties has allowed him the scope to
recover his spiritual balance and forsake his error.
Brother Roberts’ understanding of
“God speed” certainly conforms to this. He says:
“If men lend themselves to the evil
projects of others and wish them well in them, no doubt they are as responsible
for those projects as if they actually promoted them with their own personal
labours. This is the principle to which John gives expression when he says,
‘He that biddeth him (the holder of false doctrine) God speed is partaker
of his evil deeds’ “ (“True Principles and Uncertain
Details”, pp. 187,188).
The problem in a single-minded reliance on this
passage to justify wholesale separation is evident when the effects are fully
considered. It is self-evident that an interpretation of a passage that
“proves” too much actually proves nothing at all — for then
there is surely something wrong with that interpretation. This is so with an
unbalanced view of 2 John 10,11: (1) If merely refusing to punish error is
“bidding God speed” to it, then was Christ a “partaker of the
evil deeds” of the adulteress when he said, “Neither do I condemn
thee”? (2) Should brethren hold themselves to be “partakers”
and thus personally guilty of every aberration or “sin” of
every brother or sister in their “fellowship”? This is perceived as
sheer folly when examples are considered. Suppose, for example, one brother in
your worldwide fellowship — only one — smokes; suppose
another, but only one, occasionally drinks to excess. Now you yourself never
touch tobacco or liquor of any sort. Are you nevertheless a
“partaker” of these things, and many more, because you endure these
brethren in your “fellowship”? In short, is a brother really the sum
of all the worst parts of all his weakest brethren? Such ill-founded logic must
be our conclusion if we apply 2 John 10,11 to any and every ecclesia
situation.
Two short quotations from John Thomas would seem
to go well here:
(1) Of the correspondent who accused him of being
a “slave owner”, he wrote:
“His argument is that in fellowshipping
slave owners, and those who fellowship them, the parties so fellowshipping them
are partakers with them of their evil deeds; and therefore as much slave owners
and slave holders as if they actually held and drove them. The argument is
specious but not sound” (The Herald, 1851, p.
204).
(2) And again:
“The salvation of individuals is not
predicated on the purity of their neighbour’s faith, though these may be
members of the same ecclesiastical organization” (Ibid., p.
120).
In conclusion: 2 John 10,11 appears to be the
only passage in the Bible which puts “tolerators” on the same
ground of condemnation as the “false teachers” themselves. We have
shown that, for the purposes of condemning those who “bid them God
speed”, this passage proves either too little (for the context is quite
specialized) or too much (thus making us all “partakers” of every
“evil” to be found in our midst). The wisest course would appear
to be that we leave 2 John alone as “pure fellowship” justification,
and that we turn our attentions to other passages which may give more solid
footing, and practical limitations as well, for Biblical
“disfellowship”.