God’s Commands for Dealing with Pagan Religions and

Pagan Religious Practices: The Ban

David Talley, PhD
Biola University, Talbot School of Theology
Grace Evangelical Free Church of La Mirada

A paper presented to the "Insiders Movement Conference: A Critical Assessment."

The way in which God deals with his people throughout time has some distinctions. For
instance, in the Old Testament, the Lord sought to create a physical “sacred space” in which his
people were to dwell and where the Lord’s presence could dwell in the tabernacle.
Consequently, the land had to be cleansed for this to happen, and the people lived separately
from the nations. They were to be a “light” to the Gentiles as they lived in light of the Lord’s
commands and as a result were recipients of the outpouring of his blessings (cf. Deuteronomy
26:16-19). As the nation was blessed over and above any surrounding nation, the nations of
the world would be drawn to know their “god” (cf. the days of Solomon). This is the way I
understand the thrust of “evangelism” in the Old Testament.
However, in the New Testament, the Lord is seeking to create a spiritual “sacred space”
in the body of Christ, in whose individual members the presence of the Lord dwells, with the
intent that this body is to be “salt” and “light” (Matthew 5:13-16) as it lives in the midst of all
the nations of the world. Hence, the command to go “into” all the world and to preach the
gospel (cf. Matthew 28:18-20).
When it comes to the Old Testament practice of “the ban,” it may seem somewhat
foreign to New Testament believers, but there are implications that are important for us as we
consider the pagan religious practices that still abound in our world today. Therefore, it is
important for us to draw out those implications and apply them to our contemporary situation
of living as the people of God.

A Summary of the Teaching in the Old Testament concerning the Ban

Definition of the Ban
The Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament defines “ban” as Aconsecrate something
or someone as a permanent and definitive offering for the sanctuary; in war, consecrate a city
and its inhabitants to destruction; carry out this destruction; totally annihilate a population in
war; kill@ (V:188). The point in war is to annihilate it all. This practice was found in other
Ancient Near Eastern dynasties, so it was a common practice of other nations.

Old Testament teaching concerning this practice

The legislation for the ban is first provided in Deuteronomy 7:1-11 (regulations for
warfare when the nation is still out of the land) and Deuteronomy 20:10-18, especially verses
16-18 (regulations for warfare once the nation has occupied the land). In Deuteronomy 7:2, it
states, A...defeat them, then destroy them totally. Make no covenant with them and show no
mercy to them.@ This command is directed toward the seven nations of Deuteronomy 7:1 (cf.
Deuteronomy 20:17; Exodus 23:23, 34:11), generically referred to as the Canaanites in that they
are the people who inhabit the land of Canaan.
This legislation is clearly followed in the book of Joshua (Joshua 6:17-19, 21; 8:1-29;
10:28, 30, 32, 33, 34-35, 37, 39, 40, 41; 11:8, 11, 12, 20-23; Judges 1:17; cf. Deut 2-
3CSihon/Og). However, it is important to note Joshua 13:13 and 16:10, which hint at the fact
that Israel is not complete in her obedience to the Lord’s command. These “veiled” statements
are developed in the book of Judges, which clearly demonstrates the consequences for not
following the command of the Lord concerning the ban.

[See Appendix One: A Test Case from the Book of Judges: An Explanation concerning the
Failure of Israel to Become the People of the Lord]

In the midst of such apparent atrocity, it is important to note that God is the One who is
behind all of this warfare (cf. Joshua 11:18-20). God is the ultimate Judge and Executor of
judgment, but he is doing so through the instrumentality of Israel’s warfare.

Old Testament teaching concerning the purpose

It is important to not just underscore the teaching of this practice, but also to highlight
the reasons behind it. In order to accomplish, it is necessary to “back up and see the big
picture” of the broader story. Although there are probably other significant factors, at least the
following can be set forth as a rationale for the practice.
First, it is a form of judgment directed toward the wickedness of the people who
occupied the land. God has “patiently” endured their abominations, but now he chooses to act
out of his holy wrath (Cf. Genesis 15:16; Leviticus 18:24-25, 27; Numbers 35:34). Genesis 15:16
is one of the foundational passages for the promise of the land. The Lord’s promise to Abraham
is that in the “fourth generation” the nation will return to the land to occupy it as an
inheritance. The reason provided in this passage is that the “sin of the Amorite is not yet
complete.” The point is that God is not yet “filled to the full” with the sinfulness of these pagan
people. Their sin must be judged because God is just, but God is still being merciful in the time
of Abraham and even throughout the four generations after him. However, over time, his
mercy (i.e., patiently waiting for them to turn from their sin) is continually despised through the
multiplication of abominations and, as a result, his wrath will be enacted.
Leviticus 18:24-25 provides the explanation for the destruction of the Canaanites as “Do
not defile yourselves by any of these things, for by all these the nations which I am casting out
before you have become defiled. For the land has become defiled, therefore I have visited its
punishment upon it, so the land has spewed out its inhabitants.” God uses Israel’s taking over
the land, which was promised to them, as a means of providing judgment to the abominable
inhabitants, who have not responded to his mercy.1

1
It is important to note that Israel is warned that they too will be expelled from the land if
they commit the same abominations, cf. Leviticus 18:26-30. Note the “but as for you.” The
Lord is making it clear that there is no room for compromise in following him. He must be
honored above all and obeyed completely.
 Second, a major concern of Yahweh for His covenant people was that they would not be
negatively impacted by the wicked practices of the pagan nations with regards to idolatry (cf.
Deuteronomy 7:3-4; 20:16-18). In other words, the Lord is creating a context where Israel
would not become followers of these false gods like the Canaanites living in the land. The Lord
was seeking to protect his people from the temptations that the gods of the land presented to
them.2 The nation had a natural tendency toward idolatry because of the culture in which they
lived. So the Lord destroys, i.e., completely annihilates, the people. The logic of the passage is
1) if the people remain, then 2) the Israelites will intermarry with them, then 3) the Canaanites
will turn Israel’s heart away from the Lord, then 4) the Israelites will serve the false gods, and
finally 5) this will incur the Lord’s wrath. We must note that this is the Lord’s understanding
and appraisal of the natural inclination of humanity. Humanity naturally gravitates toward the
idolatry of the culture if it is allowed to flourish. As a consequence, the Lord goes to step #1 in
the logic of the passage and destroys the people, their gods, and their ideology. 3 The point is
that the purity of God’s people is to be preserved and protected. Exposure to pagan systems
can lead to the embracing of these systems, which can lead to the adoption of these systems
and the subsequent rejection of Yahweh.
This same concept is found in the New Testament. Even though we live in the world and
are to be “salt” and “light” to the world (cf. Matthew 5:13ff), we are clearly commanded to
“Love not the world, neither the things in the world” (1 John 2:15). In reference to our “new
self” where “Christ is all in all,” we are to “put to death” or “lay aside” anything that is not
consistent with the “setting of our minds on the things above”(Colossians 3:1-17). With regard
to false teaching we are to “preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove,
rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction” (2 Timothy 3-4). Even though some may
desire to have their itching ears tickled, we are to stay the course with the inspired word of God
and proclaim him. Similarities abound in the new covenant. The consistency throughout is
summarized in two points: 1) the need for truth (light) to be embraced and perpetuated
without compromise (darkness), and 2) the danger, even tendency, for darkness to overtake
light.
Third, the Lord was seeking to protect the holiness of his people. The nation was to be
set apart, clearly identified as his people (cf. Deuteronomy 7:6; 20:18). The point is that God is
holy or “other than” anything/one in this world. His people are also to be holy or “other than”
the people of this world. His followers should be clearly “marked” as his followers. This
marking is not simply “internal” (as marked by loving the Lord with all of one’s heart, soul,
might, and strength) but rather was to have a definite external sense (even beyond
circumcision). The people were to be “in” the world but not “of” the world. They were
markedly distinct as the people of the Lord. At issue here is that the people were never to give
their love or even have the appearance of acknowledging the pagan gods of the land.
2
The Ancient Near Eastern understanding of the pantheon of gods was very much a part of
Israel’s worldview. The temptation to shift allegiance and worship from god to god was a
normal pattern in the culture of the day. The Lord is seeking to combat this worldview by
destroying the gods that may tempt them.
3
Note: Even after being in the land, idolatry was not to be tolerated, but rather obliterated.
Cf. Deut 13:12-18. This is a consistence practice throughout the teaching of the Old
Testament and the failure to obey it is the cause of the constant failures of the nation.
“Looking” like a pagan through tolerance of false gods and religion or worse the practice of
false gods and religion was not an option. With the Lord as their sovereign “god,” there was no
room for the embracing of anything less than the “other than” of his person. Everything was to
be defined by his person and work.
Fourth, this command was to confirm the Lord=s oath given many generations before to
Abram (cf. Genesis 15:16; Exodus 34:11). God is continuing his movement toward
reconciliation with humanity by creating a people for himself to worship him exclusively (cf.
Deuteronomy 9:5; 7:8-9). They were chosen by him to be his people in his land with the sole
focus of worshipping him and carrying out his purposes in this world. There would be no room
for paganism and idolatry. The point is that God is doing a work in this world, drawing people
to himself. He accomplishes this even through the most bizarre circumstances. In this instance
he makes a people from those who are not a people, he takes a people from a nation to make
them a nation, he sets his affection on those he chooses, etc.
All of this teaching is set in the Mosaic or old covenant context. The Lord does not call
his followers today to occupy a territory, such as Hollywood, and make it “sacred space” by
obliterating the “Canaanites” of that city and destroying the “idolatry” of that industry.
However, it does point to certain implications about the Lord, his work in this world, his view of
pagan religion, his concern for his people, etc.

Implications from the Old Testament Teaching on the Ban

1. The Lord is holy. R. C. Sproul states that this is defined as the Lord being “other than”
anything/one in this world. No theology book can contain him. No human word is
adequate to reference him. No human mind can grasp him. There is nothing in physical
reality, which can compare to him. He is simply “other than.” As such, he is to be
presented in all his glory with no reducing of his majesty. If presenting the Lord in this
light is offensive to people, then that is between them and the Lord. The Lord’s people
are not in any way to compromise the Lord’s character, words, purposes, or actions in
this world. Any openness to or toleration of pagan religions/religious practices is an
abomination that profanes the name of the Lord. Such pagan thoughts, practices, and
teaching are to be crushed, obliterated. He redeems people “out of” this and intends
that they remain “out of” this as a people who are distinctly his. We are to steadfastly
and unashamedly proclaim him (cf. Colossians 1:28).

2. The Lord seeks to maintain the holiness of his people. The holiness of his people, being
set apart for him or the “other than” of their lives, matters to him. In no way are his
people to “give way” to anything that compromises their own holiness. In other words,
it is imperative that they “look like” the one they are following. They are to be distinct
from the world around them in belief and worship and living. This is the Lord’s primary
concern here. If other nations were to have a problem with the persons, which the Lord
has recreated his followers to be in passions and purposes as outlined clearly by his
revelation, then that is between them and the Lord. The Lord’s people are to live as the
people of the Lord, committed to his purposes and glory in all things.

3. Pagan religions and pagan religious practices are not to be tolerated in any way. The
 posture of one who follows the Lord is to “destroy” these practices. They are not
allowed to “live” because they bring death because they defy the holiness of the Lord.
In a contemporary context, it would mean that the Lord’s people do not embrace any
aspect of these religions or religious practices or encourage any of their
teaching/practices as to legitimacy, but rather expose them as being contrary to the
Lord. Idols, whether false worship, teachings, or practices, 4 are not to be preserved or
given a new name or painted with a “new face” or given an alternate meaning or
justified as good. They are to be exposed and denounced. There is very little that is
“seeker friendly” or “culturally sensitive” about this. It does not disregard wisdom or
the “love” component of “speaking the truth in love,” but it is bold and clear. The focus
is clearly on honoring the person of Christ rather than being sensitive to cultures.

[See Appendix Two: Maintaining Purity in the Body: The Teaching of 2 John in Light of the False
Teaching of the World’s Religions]

4. The Old and New Testaments are simply two different ways of living out the clear
teaching that “light” has nothing to do with “darkness” except to be shined in a manner
that removes the darkness. In no way is darkness to have a place in light. There is to be
no covenant or marriage between the two. “God is light and in him there is no darkness
at all” (1 John 1:5). In the Old Testament the light “overwhelmed” the darkness, and in
the New Testament the light “penetrates” the darkness. In both cases, darkness is
obliterated. In neither case is any aspect of darkness embraced. When light shines,
darkness ceases to exist. When darkness is pursued, the light is left behind.

Specific Thoughts on the “Insiders’ Movement”

It seems to me that no one “at the table” of this debate is longing for heresy or pushing
an agenda to destroy Christianity. It seems that no one is attempting to knowingly denigrate
Christ or refuse his exaltation. From what I understand, this debate is made up of Christians,
and there seems to be a legitimate desire to take the gospel to the nations who have never
heard.
At issue seems to be at what point the practical concerns of ecclesiology become
doctrinally heretical when the Bible does or does not (I leave this open) explicitly provide
parameters? OR at what point does sensitivity to culture (METHOD) become the focus to the
extent that the exaltation of Christ (MESSAGE) is no longer the focus or even denigrated? One
of the main difficulties seems to be the different means of “evangelism” in the culture of each
testament (as I argue earlier, although I have not necessarily defended it), operating under
different covenants. However, in neither testament is darkness, that which is contrary to the
Lord (specifically paganism), legitimized as having anything to offer that which is of the Lord. In

4
It is interesting that in a book focused on the three tests of Christianity (the person of
Jesus having come in the flesh, obedience to the Lord’s commands, and loving the brethren)
John closes with “Guard yourselves from idols” (cf. 1 John 5:21). Idolatry is ultimately
anything/one, or even any doctrine, that is not consistent with the revelation of God.
neither testament is darkness given any value to be preserved for or integrated into that which
is sacred.
The Old Testament’s teaching on the ban may, on the one hand, simply serve as a
normative warning when it comes to taking the gospel to a culture dominated by a pagan
religion. It, then, will simply serve as a “Watch Out!” On the other hand, it may serve as
foundational teaching and normative directive to what it means to take the gospel to another
culture. As such, the intent of its teaching must be transferred to our new covenant context
and serve as part of our paradigm for evangelizing, especially as it pertains to the discussion of
the “Insiders’ Movement.” Or, as a final possibility, it may serve as a both/and to these first
two possibilities.
What I think is clear is that the Lord’s people have a tendency toward “drifting,”
regardless of which covenant one is in. So, the question, then, becomes at what point is
adapting to a culture (METHOD) a compromise that denigrates the Lord (MESSAGE) and leads
to this inevitable drift. The history of the Jewish people in the Old Testament clearly points to
any “compromise” as the open door that unavoidably leads to drift. The history of Christianity
as found in the New Testament and beyond points to the same. My own life points to the
same, as I am certain your life does. The New Testament calls believers to be “yoked” with
Christ (Matthew 11:29-30) and to not be “bound together with unbelievers” (2 Corinthians
6:14-18). So, at what point is the Insiders Movement “binding” itself to unbelievers (METHOD)
to the exclusion of Christ (MESSAGE)?
One more point that needs to be explored is our understanding of the gospel. What is
the power of the gospel? How does one finally get to a point of yielding to Christ? Is it the
movement of the Spirit of God in a person (cf. 1 Corinthians 1:26-31, especially verse 30, “by his
doing”) or well thought out apologetics that win the mind or blurring the distinctions between
pagan religions and our own so as to make them comfortable and open to discussion (along the
lines of the very popular “seeker friendly” church movement)? It seems that everyone brings
something different to the table that must be taken seriously and must be presented humbly.
Where does each person need to be refined? And more importantly, how do we stay the
course and bring glory to the Lord in everything?
 APPENDIX ONE:
A Test Case from the Book of Judges:
An Explanation concerning the Failure of Israel to Become the People of the
Lord

When we get to the book of Judges, we must ask how could Israel have strayed so far
from what Yahweh intended? How can they be his chosen people in his chosen land for his
chosen purposes and be living so contrary to his calling? What happened? The answer to this
question is extremely important as an implication to the application of this Old Testament
teaching.

1. The problem: 1:1-2:9

NOTE: This is where the “veiled” references in the book of Joshua are now brought to the light
and made clear.
a. ch 1, failure to completely conquer Canaan (verses 20-21, 28-30, 32-33)
b. ch 2, failure to destroy Canaanite religion

2. The result: 2:10-23

3. The explanation: why was this area such a struggle for them?
a. Monotheism was not normative for them
(1) At Mt. Sinai, they were taught about the One God. This was a shift in
their thinking about gods. (cf. Amos 5:25-26; Jer 7:25) It was not simply
the number of gods who provided them difficulty, but rather the whole
concept of the gods (cf. Psa 16:4).
(2) They were steeped in their pagan understanding that gods influenced the
different realms of nature and needed to be satisfied in order to bring
blessing.
POINT: With the proliferation of gods in the lands, Israel was easily led astray
because of this world view. Slowly any recognition of the Lord began to
pale in her everyday life.
b. Israel forgot her history
(1) There was some remembrance---2:10; 6:13; 11:24-27
(2) Cf. The challenge to remember throughout the book of Deut. 4:9-10;
4:15, 23; 6:12, 20; 7:17-18; 8:2, 11-20; 9:7; etc.
(3) A Major Purpose in writing the book is to show that Israel=s spiritual
condition determined its political and material situation
(a) called out to/and lived for Yahweh-- deliverance
(b) disregard for Yahweh B oppression
(c) cf. Ps 107
POINT: Israel became so engrossed in the culture that remained that she
became less conversant in her own history. Pagan ideals began to
dominate her thinking and actions.
Implications from an Explanation concerning the Failure of Israel to Become the
People of the Lord
1. The Lord’s concern that the failure to destroy pagan religions and religious practices
would result in Israel’s own apostasy does in fact come true. In other words, the
boundaries the Lord sets up for his people are for their good. It seems to be a tendency
of humanity to become “dark” when darkness is embraced or even tolerated. Hints of
darkness eventually overtake the light, slowly consuming it when the Lord is not
followed closely.

2. Humanity has a tendency toward idolatry, and people become like that which they
worship (cf. Psalm 115, especially verse 8; Jeremiah 2:5). What people allow to “live”
will prosper in the deepest recesses of the heart. Idols “change” as world views change,
so they vary from culture to culture, even from person to person.

3. The more engrossed a person becomes in a way of thinking and living, the more the
Lord begins to pale in comparison (cf. Jeremiah 2:19). When “methods” or “world
views” become the focus, the focus will shift from the Lord (the message). World views
have a powerful pull on the Lord’s people. (Cf. the NT exhortation to “set one’s mind
on” in Romans 8:5-8; Colossians 3:1-4)

4. To be “salt” and “light” (cf. Matthew 5:13-16) has less to do with sensitivity to culture
(METHOD) and more to do with sensitivity to Christ (MESSAGE). The salt can become
“tasteless” (cf. Matthew 5:13) and the light can become hidden (cf. Matthew 5:14-15).
We proclaim him (cf. Colossians 1:28-29) with no hesitation, no limitation (except in our
abilities to proclaim the one who is “other than”), no denigration, nothing hidden,
nothing added, etc.
 APPENDIX TWO:
Maintaining Purity in the Body: The Teaching of 2 John in Light of the False
Teaching of the World’s Religions
David Talley, PhD
Biola University, Talbot School of Theology
Grace Evangelical Free Church of La Mirada

I recently saw a tattoo that read, “Only God Can Judge Us.” As a whole, this is good
theology, but the message behind it is often, “You cannot say anything about any aspect of my
life because it is none of your business; I am only responsible to God, so butt out!” God is
indeed the only judge, but God calls us to honor him by perpetuating and guarding the truth he
has revealed to us. He expects us to be jealous for his truth.

Introducing 2/3 John

The “twin towers” for John are truth, which means defending the truth about Jesus, and
love, which means that we love one another as an act of obedience to Christ. So the letters of
2nd and 3rd John are occasioned by the same theme: living the truth. There are two dimensions
to this theme: 1) loving those who abide in the family of God; and 2) exposing/chastising those
who want to dismantle that family. Note that there is a similar structure for each letter:
I. Personal Greetings
II. An Exhortation to Love
III. Dealing with a Particular Issue
IV. Closing
John is warning against “community destroyers.” At issue is the question: are we to love those
who disagree with us concerning truth?

I. Understanding This Letter, vv 1-3, 12-13

About 2 John, Yarborough writes, “As to the number of words, one can ask, why the
author bothered to write at all. But as to the weight of the words, one wishes the author had
lingered longer over, expanded upon, and fleshed out virtually every clause.”

A. The Letter
The letter begins with some introductory comments. The author is identified as “the
elder” (v 1). Much discussion could be offered about the identification of this person, but
suffice it to say that the letter is penned by John, especially since 1-3 John engage the same
issues. The church has been established and leadership is in place, so “elder” rather than
“apostle” would be normative (1 Pet 5:1, “fellow elder”).
I intend to keep the concerns about the identification of the author and the addressee
simple because it does not ultimately effect the interpretation of the contents of the letter. So I
am offering simply my understanding and not dealing with the other options for identifying
them. The letter is first addressed “to the elect lady” (v 1). Again much discussion surrounds
the identity of this addressee, but I will conclude that the letter is addressed to a congregation
or group of believers. Often in the Bible, the church and Israel are referenced in the feminine,
as a woman, bride, etc. In addition, the author uses the 2nd person plural throughout (so
obviously a group). Peter uses a similar title for his audience in 1 Pet 1:1, “to those who are
elect exiles.”
The letter is also addressed to “her children” (v 1). I conclude this to be the members of
this local body of believers. So John is writing to a congregation and all who fellowship there.
In addition, the letter ends with a request to greet “the children of your elect sister” (v
13). Based on the brief arguments above, I would conclude similarly here about the
identification these people. This letter is referencing a sister church and all who attend that
fellowship. So we have a fellowship of churches, which have strong connections.

B. Initial Comments
John has an obvious affection for this group of believers (vv 1b-2, 12). He was a
pastor/evangelist, who established several churches in western Asia Minor (present day
western Turkey). He was an important leader in these churches. Pastors from throughout the
area traveled to Ephesus to learn from John and hear his stories about Jesus. The “7 churches”
of Revelation 2-3 may have been in his “territory,” meaning John must have also traveled to
them from time to time, v 12.

So John is watching over this group, guarding, shepherding, and encouraging them to abide and
stay the course. He needs to visit them, but, first, it is imperative that he quickly sends the
contents of this letter to these believers.
 John begins with the point that it is truth that binds (vv 1-2). The gospel is powerful to
save, to transform, and to unify. Knowing this truth, guarding this truth, abiding in this truth is
all extremely important in the Christian life. It cannot be reduced to simply going to church and
talking about Jesus. The church must be getting into the very heart of God and getting his heart
into us–that is abiding!!!
It is increasingly popular to state, “I can worship anywhere.” This is not true, unless
worship simply involves a moment of God-focus. For John, worship is all of life, and he cannot
imagine worship that does not include a central focus on Jesus, knowing/obeying the
commands, or actively and intentionally being in the lives of others and loving them (cf. the
three tests of 1 John). John states, “This binds us.”

II. Great Rejoicing with a Call to Excel Still More, vv 4-6

A. Great Rejoicing, v 4
Initially John references that he “rejoiced greatly.” He must have had some recent
contact, probably with a group who came to him to seek his advice or to report concerns, which
led to this positive response. Again the reference to “children” implies those members of the
congregation. Why the rejoicing? Some, and probably the whole of this group, which met with
John, were “walking in truth” or walking in an exemplary manner (cf. 1 John 1:6-7; 2:6) It is the
“doing” of our “knowing” and the ordering of daily life “in” truth. They are “abiding.” John
notes that this is “just as we were commanded by the Father.” This is the 2nd test of 1 John (cf.
1 John 2:3). This group is passing that test.

B. Call to Excel Still More: Love, vv 5-6

Then John calls for further faithfulness, writing, “and now I ask you...that we love one
another.” Note that this is a request, not a command. Further, the basis for everything that
John is about to write is “love.” He is going to walk into some hard stuff and he wants this to be
the foundation. He focus is the whole group as he uses the singular “you” for the singular
“lady,” which represents this body this body of believers. He is emphasizing oneness (many
members, yet one), yet also the group, including himself, “we.” As in 1 John, John states that
this is not a new commandment (1 John 2:7-8; John 13:34).
John’s point is that, in meeting with this coalition, where he saw them living out truth,
he either saw or heard evidence of some deficiency in love, possibly the result of the
theological battles working themselves out in this fellowship of churches. To be clear, he
continues, “and this is love.” Love is defined as walking in the commandments (cf. 1 John 5:2-
3). Once again, it comes back to the three tests of 1 John: belief in Jesus as he is revealed;
obedience of God’s commands; and loving the body of Christ. These are the true tests of a
believer.
So, this seems to be an “excel still more” (cf. 1 Thessalonians) request. John is stating,
“Some of you are walking in the truth, may you excel still more!” The unity of the body was
being threatened. The integrity of truth was being challenged. The body was being hit from all
sides, and they needed to walk in truth and excel in love in these difficult days. This is the
necessary foundation!
III. A Reminder of False Teaching, v 7
The core of the epistle is found in verses 7-8. The word, “for,” follows verses 4-6. They
must evidence this love “for”.... Then, in what follows, John identifies his main concern. We
must remember similarly in 1 John, the use of “deceivers” and “liars” as John had a similar
concern in that book. The threat continues to be the incarnation (cf. 1 John 4:2-3). This is not a
marginal truth as it is absolutely central to the gospel. The doctrine of these false teachers
violated what God had already revealed and established (cf. 1 John 1:1-3).
The many issues of the “7 churches” of Revelation 2-3 may represent additional
theological disagreements John battled.
• 2:2 some are making false claims to apostleship
• 2:6 works of the Nicolaitans
• 2:9-10 the synagogue of Satan (false claims to be Jews)
• 2:14 teaching of Balaam, eating food sacrificed to idols and committing
idolatry
• 2:15 teaching of the Nicolaitans
• 2:20 tolerating the prophetess, Jezebel, who teaches the practice of sexual
immorality and eating food sacrificed to idols
• 2:24 the deep things of Satan
• 3:1 the synagogue of Satan
These threats mattered to John, and, as Revelation 2-3 makes clear, they matter to God as well.
In each of his letters, John is seeking to maintain that “which was from the beginning.” He
strives to stay the course, maintaining the purity of doctrine. God has spoken, and he intends
to honor God by honoring his word, especially as he received it from Jesus.

IV. Necessary Pastoral Instruction, vv 8-11

A. Warning, vv 8-9
There are two commands in the letter, the first of which John gives now, “watch
yourselves.” This has the idea of know it, get it in your heart, live it, abide in it! They must
continue to mindful of the truths of God’s word. John longs for his flock to stay the course. So
John’s first concern is his flock. He wants to secure the “standing” of his flock. How would they
“lose” a “full reward.” Much could be debated about this idea of future reward or lack thereof.
John is not focused on this as much as the reasons behind it. He is concerned that they might
lose out by compromising their belief and behavior. So John is urging them to “stay the course,
to not lose their perspective/way, to not be pulled away, to keep paying attention!” Eugene
Peterson has a book, A Long Obedience in the Same Direction, a title that captures what John is
encouraging. Believers must constantly be mindful of the Lord, of eternity, of what we live for
(cf. 2 Tim 4:6-8).
John’s reference to “go ahead” carries the idea of representing Christ in ways that are
inconsistent and irreconcilable with established apostolic recollections (cf. 1 John 1:1-3) that
have been crystallized in Christian congregations. John’s call is to abide in truth! The “Apostles’
Creed” captures what the early church held firmly:

“I believe in God the Father Almighty; Maker of heaven and earth.

 And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the
virgin Mary; suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead and buried; the third day he rose
from the dead; he ascended into heaven; and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty;
from there he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit; the holy catholic Church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of
sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting. Amen.”

It has always been a concern of the church to preserve truth. And there are always those who
seek their own agenda. A big issue in the church today is that of communities creating
theology. So theology is changing as cultures and communities change. No! God creates
theology! We abide in his revealed truth!

B. Implication, vv 10-11
John drives home his point, writing, “If anyone comes to you and does not bring this
teaching…”—the body of truth historically embraced by the body of Christ—“…(then) do not
receive him.” This is the second command and John’s second concern, which is how to deal
with these false teachers. The point here is not focused on hospitality to non-Christians, rather
he has in mind aiding people who are undercutting the doctrines found in God’s word, taught
by Christ, and perpetuated by the apostles. It seems that these false teachers were “making
the rounds” and spreading their new teachings with the goal of gaining a following.
Context is extremely important for this book. Missionaries from the “enemy” are trying
to make inroads into the church. The very existence of the church is at stake. 3 basic elements
from the context of this letter must be underscored. First, the church’s opponents are attacking
a theological issue at the center of the church’s faith, namely, Christology. Second, John is
warning against teacher-leaders who are out to sabotage the local church. In other words, this
is not innocent contact between Christians and unbelievers/heretics. These are aggressive
teachers trying to gain access to a congregation in order to win an audience and gain a
following. Third, John’s instructions to repel these teachers and to refuse them access into
homes involve their survival as people who are committed to the three tests of 1 John. Serious
action is needed.
To “receive them” would be to grant to them and their doctrine the honor and respect
that are due only to true Christian faith and practice. It would be to embrace them and their
teaching. It would be providing an endorsement. The phrase, “or give him any greeting,”
carries a strong affection on the basis of shared conviction regarding a commitment to the
apostolic Christ, and it was often accompanied with a kiss.

So what does it mean to us?

First, we must be willing to expose those opposing core doctrinal beliefs. John is not
denying the need to love (cf. Matt 5:43-47), rather he is focused on the need and responsibility
to protect the body, cf. Acts 20:24-32. Despite the strong push of culture, tolerance is not the
supreme virtue. Strong action is appropriate when individuals jeopardize the very integrity of
the church. Consider the teaching of Matthew 18:17 concerning a member sinning seriously
and unwilling to turn. Also, consider 1 Corinthians 5:1-5 for similar teaching. Tolerance must
have its clear limits if the church is to maintain integrity.
How do we decide the importance of issues? How do we determine essential doctrine
vs. disputable matters? Consider the following:

ESSENTIAL DOCTRINE VS. DISPUTABLE

MATTERS
• Christians must be able to distinguish between the
core of our beliefs and more peripheral issues.

• Absolutes

• Convictions

• Opinions

• Questions

It is obvious that some matters are more central than others. As you move outward, the circles
represent matters that are open to more debate. Guidelines must be established to determine
the degree of importance of specific matters. Consider the following:

• Biblical clarity
• Relevance to the character of God
• Relevance to the essence of the gospel
• Biblical frequency (how often in Scripture it is taught)
• Effect on other doctrines
• Consensus among Christians (past and present)
• Effect on personal and church life

The elders of the church, where I serve, have had from time to time to engage issues, which
have arisen in that church. They are not committed to positions. They are committed to
coming to proper understanding of issues and jealously standing for God and his truth. It
matters to the leaders, and they want it to matter to congregation. Church leadership must be
committed to protecting the body and boldly walking into false teaching that arises and seek to
lead those, for whom Christ died, astray.
Second, truth must matter to God’s people. John’s concern is that which was heard
from the beginning. There is clearly a standard, and that truth must be known. The issue of
verse 9, “goes on ahead and does not abide,” is to be avoided. To do so, one must know what
the Bible teaches. We not only abide in Christ, we also abide in the teachings of Christ. We
have much to learn from those who have gone before us and fought theological battles. The
historical creeds are the evidence of those battles for truth.

Implications from Maintaining Purity in the Body

1. The Lord intends that we guard and protect and be jealous for his truth “from the
inside.” False teaching is not to penetrate “into” the body. Shepherds are to guard the
flock “which He (God) purchased with his own blood” (cf. Acts 20:28). This teaching is
clear.

2. It follows, then, that the Lord intends that we guard and protect and be jealous for his
truth as the body “penetrates into” the worldviews which we encounter. This means
that, as we represent Christ as his ambassadors, we do so without compromise in any
way. Truth is to matter to us. We should not feel the least bit apologetic for the truth
that God has given to us. We jealously guard it and offer it to others unapologetically.

3. 2 John is built on the foundation of 1 John, which offers the three tests of being a true
disciple of Christ: 1) belief that Jesus is the son of God who came in the flesh, 2)
obedience to the Lord’s commands, and 3) love for other disciples. Test #1 is to be
guarded. It is absolutely crucial to our faith. It is the grace of God in the face of Christ
that sets Christianity apart from the religions of the world. We proclaim him (cf.
Colossians 1:28) that “he himself might come to have first place in everything” (cf.
Colossians 1:18). Christ needs to be known. We are not passing on a religion, we are
passing on Christ who saves by his atoning sacrificial blood through grace to be received
by faith.

4. John writes to the church. We are “called out” ones. We are to be “set apart” as we
also strive to be “salt” and “light.” We are not “insiders.” Coming to Christ has always
been a “calling out” to come and follow with one’s whole heart.

At issue is when does cultural sensitivity lead to or result from doctrinal impurity? What is the
difference between “living IN the world but not OF it” and “living In the world and OF it”? What
are the absolutes of doctrine that must be embraced in order to maintain purity while still
remaining sensitive to the culture?