John’s Historicistic Epistles

     This probably means that the Elder5633 or the Apostle John was writing on the authorisation of the Presbytery in which he himself was ministering.  This would then suggest he was writing also on behalf of "the children"5632 or the Congregations of that Presbytery too.   For that Presbytery would then have been the "elect sister" of the "elect lady" to which he would thus have been writing.  

     That addressee "lady" would then seem to have been a different Presbytery of the Church or Bride of Christ.   Indeed, "her children" would then seem to have been coaddressees: viz. the daughter Congregations of that Presbytery.   

     This would then suggest that the two Presbyteries were themselves united in synodical fellowship, even at the level of a General Assembly.5635   And indeed, we are well aware that this same Apostle John had played a leading role in the deliberations of the first General Assembly of Christ's Church — which had met in Jerusalem several years earlier.5636    

     Thus it would seem that the Apostolic Church functioned harmoniously as one Church with many Congregations.   They were all united together by Triune Baptism into the Name of the many Persons of the one God, and to His glory.5637 

     Second.   John enjoined his addressees to hold fast to their confession.  It was that of the incarnation of the Son of God.   This presupposes their insistence on both the deity and the humanity of the Lord Jesus Christ, alias the One anointed and appointed by God the Spirit of the Father and of the Son. 

     "Grace be with you, mercy, and peace — from God the Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ the Son of the Father, in truth and love….   He who abides in the doctrine of Christ, has both the Father and the Son."5638   Indeed, as Christian people baptized in the Triune Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit — they had been strengthened and confirmed to do this very thing.5639 

     Third.  They were to reject all deceivers and antichrists who denied this Christian Confession of Faith.   "For many deceivers have entered into the World — who do not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh.   This is the deceiver and the antichrist….  Whosoever keeps on transgressing and does not continue abiding in the doctrine of Christ — does not have God."    

     Dr. Adam Clarke points out that the Early Gnostics denied the incarnation — denied this fundamental Christian doctrine that the Word of God had indeed come to our Earth in human flesh.   However, in a different sense, so too does Papal Roman Catholicism.   For it believes with the popes that the incarnation has not been accomplished once and for all — but constantly needs to keep on being re-effected and re-iterated by way of what Bible-believing Protestants regard as the abominable doctrine of transubstantiation in daily masses. 

     At Second John 2:7's mention of 'antichrist' — Rev. Professor Dr. Albert Barnes refers to his notes at the cognate First John 2:18 and 4:3.   There, he comments: "the word 'antichrist' occurs in the Newer Testament only in these epistles of John.   The proper meaning of 'anti' in composition is: (1) over-against, as in antitattein [alias ‘to range in battle over-against another’]; (2) contrary to, as in antilegein [alias ‘to contradict’ or ‘to gainsay’]; (3) reciprocity, as in antapodidoomi [alias ‘to recompense’ or ‘to repay’]; (4) substitution, as in antibasileus [alias a ‘viceroy’ in the place of a king] or as in anthupatos [alias a ‘proconsul’ in the place of a consul]." 

Page 20 of 25« First...10...1819202122...Last »