Ah-Ha Moment in 2 John 9

There are certain verses that I've quoted so much that I've memorized them from the repetition. In battling such a lackadaisical attitude towards God's authority, 2 John 9 is one of those verses.

"Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son."

Despite the 100s-1000s of times I've cited this verse, I had an ah-ha moment this morning as I worked to prepare class material on 2-3 John. As I reread this verse, I noticed something that I have never noticed before and let me tell you, this revelation is revolutionary!!!

Obviously, this verse consists of two contrasting clauses. The first clause is stated in the negative while the second clause is stated in the positive. The negative: If you fail to abide in the doctrine of Christ, the consequence of your disobedience is a loss of fellowship with the Father. The positive: If you are obedient to the teachings of Christ, you have fellowship with the Father but also with the Son.  The addition of "the Son" is added to the positive clause in 2 John 9. I had noticed this before, but this morning, as I restudied this verse, something clicked and I reached a revolutionary conclusion...

If a person is disobedient to the doctrine of Christ, they don't have fellowship with the Father but the inference is (based on the second clause) that they DO have fellowship with the Son. After all, why else would John add "the Father and the Son" to the second clause. The fact that the second clause contains this subtle difference must alter the meaning of the first clause, right? What this means is that if you're obedient, you gain full access to the divine fellowship - Father and Son. However, if you're disobedient, you only have a partial relationship with the so-called "Trinity," or Godhead; you lose the benefits of the Father, but you maintain the benefits of the Son (i.e. salvation). Don't you see how this must be the conclusion based on the subtle addition in the second clause?

Oh...what's that? Did you say something?

Hmmm. So we can't have a relationship with the Son without obeying the will of the Father (Mt. 7:21-23)? And we can't come to Christ without the Father's approval (Jn. 6:44-45)? And if one knows the Son, they know the Father also (Jn. 8:19; 14:7)? Oh, did you say something else? What about Jesus' prayer in John 17? We can't be one with the Son without being one with the Father, for the Son and the Father are one (Jn. 17:20-21)? Well...hmmm. And if we acknowledge Christ, we have God, too (1 Jn. 2:22-23)?

So what you're saying is that my revolutionary revelation, my "ah-ha" moment in 2 John 9, is wrong? And you're suggesting that I shouldn't pit the second clause against the first? Are you trying to tell me that the subtle addition of "and the Son" ought not be abused to formulate a theory that contradicts the rest of the scriptures? Oh...well, okay. That makes sense.

But if I am wrong in my analysis of the structure of 2 John 9, then what of the common explanation of Mark 16:16 in regards to baptism. You know the verse...

"He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned."

Denominational folks often say that because the two clauses are different, that the second clause changes the meaning of the first. In other words, because Jesus doesn't say "but he who does not believe and is not baptized will be condemned" that Jesus is actually emphasizing faith alone as being the means of salvation and thereby contradicting the first clause which demands both faith and baptism. So if my analysis of the structure of 2 John 9 is incorrect, what about this analysis of Mark 16:16? In both verses, there are two clauses stipulating conditions along with the rewards/consequences of meeting those conditions. In both verses, there is a subtle addition or subtraction from the first clause to the second. You can see the similarities, I'm sure.

In Mark 16:16, you're saying that the second clause doesn't contradict or change the meaning of the first clause just as the second clause in 2 John 9 doesn't change the meaning of the first clause. Okay. I can see that. Then what is Jesus' point in Mark 16:16? Come again? Gotcha. Belief precedes baptism, and therefore in the absence of faith, baptism either won't happen or will be ineffective. Okay. Yeah, that makes sense. After all, Jesus does say "He who believes and is baptized will be saved," which is consistent with the rest of the New Testament (John 3:5; Ac. 2:38; 22:16; Rom. 6:3-8; 1 Cor. 12:12-13; Gal. 3:27; Col. 2:11-12; 1 Pet. 3:21).

Thanks for straightening me out on that before my ah-ha moment in 2 John 9 turned into a full-fledged doctrine that caused division in the Lord's body. Shew. That would've been bad.