Discussion Jumpstarter
Study leader reference - not a definitive answer
Question 2
David argues that Watchtower’s use of 2 John to justify shunning is misapplied because John is addressing those who deny Jesus came in the flesh (Gnostics); if early Christians limited that text the way David claims, what would their approach to separation, discipline, and hospitality have looked like compared to modern JW shunning?
Another way to ask: If 2 John was only meant for people who deny Jesus came in the flesh, how would early Christians have handled separation, discipline, and hospitality? How would that be different from modern JW shunning?
Discussion Jumpstarter
Direct Answer
The transcript suggests early Christians would have limited strict separation to Christ-denying teachers (the group John addressed), rather than applying a blanket shunning policy to most dissenters; this would make their boundaries narrower and less socially total than modern JW shunning.
- David says Watchtower uses “2 John to justify their practice,” but argues “2 John explicitly applies only to those who deny that Jesus came in the flesh.”
- He adds, “that description doesn’t fit most of us… probably… none of us.”
- He claims John was addressing “the heretical group… known as the Gnostics.”
- He describes modern JW shunning as “the harshest, meanest thing… legally do,” resulting in loss of “parents, children, and siblings,” friends, and sometimes marriage.
- By contrast, he implies many ex-JWs still love “Jehovah and Jesus Christ,” so treating them as the 2 John target is misclassification.