The apostle John was the final New Testament author in the canonized scriptures. He wrote the book of Revelation, the gospel according to John and First, Second and Third John possibly in that order. His final writings are estimated to have taken place approximately 85 to 95 A.D. depending on the scholar. All scholars agree that John was the last author.

The fact that John wrote his books at least 20 years AFTER any previous apostle and the fact that he wrote the final words of God's New Testament economy should cause readers to soberly and carefully consider what John wrote and how John wrote. I would go so far to say that the Lord gave John the opportunity to conclude His divinely inspired words to man. Therefore, what John says is at the peak of the divine revelation. Possibly we should consider all writings through the essence John portrayed to all of God's children in the realm of faith, grace and love.

We decided to get into the other writings of John to see is there is anything corresponding to the words to the churches in Revelation 2 & 3. Many scholars think that Revelation may have been the first of John's books, so what he saw from the Lord most likely would have had a great influence on what he wrote elsewhere ... in his epistles and gospel.

On one hand, interestingly enough, John says little about "the church" in all of his writings. In the gospel, building is pictured and implied ("destroy this temple..." [ch.2]) and in his third epistle he says that he wrote something to the church, but he never talks about church practice, government, or other "practical" things, as some would say. This could be because of what he saw of the churches' condition in Revelation 2-3. On the other hand, John makes a huge issue of loving the brothers.

There seems to be quite a danger in trying to make the church "practical." The church, the gathering together of the Lord's people, is a spiritual reality. Any time the spiritual reality is gone, the church, in reality, is gone. Surely John realized this. He emphasized fellowship with God and loving the brothers rather than outward teachings, practices, and following the leadership. These two pillars (fellowship with God and loving the brothers) are the essence of the church: believers united with God and brothers living together in love issuing from their union and communion with God. The church is not an entity separate from the individual believer's personal walk, pursuit, and growth in Christ. Neither is it something that can be organized; it is a spiritual entity--a dwelling place of God in spirit (Ephesians 2:22). To think that the church can be practiced, or practical, tends to take it from the heavenly realm to the earthly which allows entrance of the flesh, the natural man, the old man, the fallen man, etc.

In contrast to the flesh, natural man, old man and the fallen man, John emphasizes the "anointing" and its teaching. 1 John 2:20 follows his mentioning of "antichrist" in verse 18. Verse 22 says that the antichrist denies that Jesus is the Christ. "The Christ" is "the Anointed One." Hence, antichrist is literally, "anti-anointing." People may think of the Antichrist of Revelation when John mentions the "spirit of antichrist". Actually, the word "antiChrist" is not even used in the book of Revelation (which John wrote). John's epistle is the only place he uses that word.

1 John 2:26 says, "these things I have written to you concerning those who lead you astray." Obviously, there were some leading the saints astray. The context implies that the saints were probably being led astray from the anointing. That is why John calls the ones who lead astray the "anti-anointing" or "antichrist." He says in 2:18 that many "antichrists" have come. Antichrists--anti-anointings-- come in many forms: teachings, movements, practices, the law, etc. In a sense, anything that gets us away from the "anointing" of the Anointed One, Christ, is 'antichrist.'

The implications of such writings by John are powerful and mind renewing. We are so used to following teachings, practices, spiritual men, emotions, fleshly urges, etc. So called "churches" and denominations have formed by holding onto those aforementioned things. John writes that the only thing we can really hold onto is the anointing in our spirit. Only the anointing teaches us all things. Only the anointing brings us into healthy practices. Only the anointing gives us the discernment of what teaching to grasp for our spiritual pursuing. Only the anointing leads us to submit to particular people and saints for our growth and perfecting in the divine life. Only the anointing separates the flesh and the soul life from the spirit (Hebrews 4:12). Only the anointing brings us to Christ in our spirit so we can be renewed day by day (2 Corinthians 4:16).

Without such a fresh, constant contact with the "Anointed One" through the "anointing" we could never attain to what the apostle Paul spoke of in Philippians 3:12-14: "Not that I have already obtained or am already perfected, but I pursue, if even I may lay hold of that for which I also have been laid hold of by Christ Jesus. 13 Brothers, I do not account of myself to have laid hold; but one thing I do: Forgetting the things which are behind and stretching forward to the things which are before, 14 I pursue toward the goal for the prize to which God in Christ Jesus has called me upward." So many believers are caught, stuck, or immobilized in past "anointings". They accept former things to replace present anointing, not allowing Christ to grant them fresh anointing every day. This could very well be a root of so much division in the Body of Christ. Surely God's will is for One harmonious Body of believers. However, today's situation is filled with enmity, strife, exclusivity, condescension, superiority, jealousy and division. Where is the LOVE among all of God's children based on our union and communion with the ONE Father (John 13:35)? Where is the spiritual pursuing of the anointing so that each one of us is in the divine flow of life?

Can we see how the enemy's strategy is always to get us away from the anointing in whatever way he can? I believe God's enemy undermines the normal, healthy anointing of every believer and John described this as the "spirit of antichrist." In John's time there were already "thieves" coming into to damage the Body (John 10). John did not panic and set up practices, teachings and creeds to protect the saints. On the contrary he wrote of the the true Shepherd who gives life to the full (John 10:10). It is Christ and the divine life as the anointing that will truly protect the saints. He wrote that the good shepherd knows us and we know Him (John 10:14). He said the Shepherd knows the Father and the Father knows Him (10:15). Eventually John wrote the words of this Shepherd in 14:20: "In that day, you will know that I am in the Father, and you are in Me and I am in You." Isn't this the anointing? Isn't this the means to follow God's New Testament Economy?

Believers may get frustrated in their present "church" life or "church" setting because decisions of a few "spiritual ones" replace the saints' personal freedom and privilege to follow the Lord. Saints are then taught to follow the decisions of so called 'leading ones' in the name of "keeping the oneness." As a result, the liberty of the Spirit is annuled and in this way saints can actually be led astray from the anointing in the name of "oneness." Many gifted brothers have proclaimed "I have an anointed from the Holy One." This is fine as long as it is in his or her spirit. However, to attribute a personal anointing to the assembly is going against what John wrote ... "we ALL have the anointing and we have need that NO ONE teach us, but the anointing teaches us all things." (1 John 2:27) John wrote that we all have an anointing from the Holy One and ALL of us know the truth. (1 John 2:20) We all need to trust and follow the good Shepherd ... and He is in each and every one of us who believe! (1 John 2:27)

The apostle John does not mention the "church" in either his epistles or gospel, except briefly in 2 John. Surely, this is not because he did not see the Body of Christ. He not only "saw" the revelation of the Body of Christ, but he may have succinctly wrote to all future readers the topmost essence of attaining the oneness in the Body of Christ that the apostle Paul wrote so much about. John did not stress any outward teachings regarding the church or the Body of Christ. Yet his writings all emphasize the divine union, communion and incorporation with the Triune God and the matter of loving the brothers. These two matters are the essence of the church, the fundamental building blocks of the Body of Christ.

With this in mind, why did Paul write so many things about how a person should "conduct" themselves in the house of God? 1 Corinthians, for example, is filled with teachings about division, immorality, lawsuits between saints, marriage, food sacrificed to idols, personal rights of a servant of God, head covering, bread breaking, speaking in tongues, spiritual gifts, corporate gatherings, etc.. Paul seemed to contradict himself because he wrote so much of following the Spirit in all of his epistles, yet he gave so many specific, outward teachings for churches to follow. On one hand, he seemed to be promoting the Spirit and on the other hand, he seemed to promote systematic theology. The difficulty is that denomination after denomination has personally defined Paul's writings as well as other New Testament authors to promote their own way of following Christ at the exclusion of most other believers.

Was Paul being contradictory as one who wrote the majority of books in the New Testament? Could Paul have, in his zealousness to build and protect the churches, usurped the saints' personal pursuing of Christ by giving so many teachings and practices that are "God inspired"? I do not think Paul was contradictory. I believe Paul wrote under the inspiration of the Spirit to meet particular needs at a particular time through the anointing of the Spirit. When Paul wrote to churches, he was simply addressing specific problems that existed in that place at that time. For instance, Paul may have addressed the matter of head coverings to the Corinthians because of certain issues that existed in that locality; or simply because they may have asked his opinion in the matter (1 Corinthians 7:40). If Paul was addressing a specific situation, unique in time and place, then his word was not intended to be a universal maxim for the next 2000 years of church history.

Unfortunately, Christians and Christian groups have taken Paul's specific words to specific saints at a specific time, and applied them universally, for all time. But Paul may have never intended his reply to be a universal, one-verse-fits-all statement. Remember that Paul wrote to actual people that he knew. Many of whom he preached the gospel to and they received Christ. He then acted as a true spiritual father in raising them up. Whatever book Paul wrote, he wrote to those whom he knew and had an intimate relationship with.

In today's quagmire of Christianity, there are many "guides" but so few fathers. Paul spoke of this matter in 1 Corinthians 4:15. A spiritual father does not demand, nor dictate spiritual pursuing. They should not use their maturity in life or position before the saints to coerce apart from the Spirit's leading. A spiritual father NURTURES the younger ones to pursue Christ (Ephesians 6:4). Paul did seem to give a lot of outward teachings and even endorsed many practices in a corporate or personal setting. Church history shows that clinging to such things are a major source of division in the Body of Christ. I believe Paul desired saints to come to Christ themselves. I believe he wrote and taught so that saints would have confirmation in their spirit when they went to the Lord for His leading. However, most likely, so many took the way of outward teaching and practice rather than the way of the inner anointing. Paul's writings are not the anointing. Christ in our spirit is. Whenever a group, or an individual, takes Paul's or anyone's writings or teachings or practices as universal, they go beyond the intention of the Spirit's inspiration.

Problems arise among Christians when any of us insist on imposing our own speaking from the Lord on others. Fellowship should not be dictatorship, but a flow of the divine life within ourselves and God and between fellow believers. John only emphasized the essence of the church -- fellowship and love -- experienced through the inner anointing. He kept matters of outward teaching, following certain spiritual men, and practices, entirely out of the realm of the divine life. If we are honest, we might have to admit that when we stress teachings, following "so and so" or insist on practices, our personal fellowship with Christ is diminished and our love for one another begins to vanish. Maybe this is why John wrote of the church in Ephesus FIRST in Revelation 2. These saints had deeds, works and endurance ... yet they had left their FIRST LOVE!!!!!! How tragic. They thought they were pursuing Christ, yet He rebuked them for their lack of pursuing Him in love. Surely love includes the brothers as well.