Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Steven Avery · 12-20-2005, 07:58 AM

1 John 4:2 (KJB)
Hereby know ye the Spirit of God:
Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

1 John 4:3
And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ
is come in the flesh is not of God:
and this is that spirit of antichrist,
whereof ye have heard that it should come;
and even now already is it in the world.

2 John 1:7
For many deceivers are entered into the world,
who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh.
This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soul Invictus

But what does it mean to come into the flesh? It sounds like an act occured. What does the Greek origination for our "come" mean. Is it equivalent to our verb "is", or is it more synonymous with a different verb?

Hi Soul .. let me try a bit. Normally if a person in English was just referring to the physical birth and life of Jesus, they would say "came in the flesh" or perhaps "... has come in the flesh". I don't think you would have any grammatical difficulty in that case, correct ?

Yet as Julian showed, there is an unusual grammatical tense construction,
"present tense middle/passive participle "

And my source says
"perfect participle" in the 1 John 4:2 verse.
"perfect participle form" in the 2 John 1:7 verse

(note: 1 John 4:3 is mangled in the modern versions using the
alexandrian versions, so it omits the pertinent phrase )

The King James Bible handles this faithfully, and here are two literal translations worthy of note, Emphasized for two verses since it is based on the alex manuscripts, Young for all three.

Emphasized
"Jesus Christ as having come in flesh"
"Jesus Christ coming in flesh"

Young
"confess Jesus Christ in the flesh having come"
"Jesus Christ is come in the flesh
" Jesus Christ coming in flesh"

And that this shows that "Christ's action" was "more than a temprorary arrangement" (Bechtle)..

A lot has to do with one's soteriology, especially the understanding of the continuing presence of Messiah through His body of believers. This is developed in good commentary through a more complete contexual discussion of the Johannine letters ... a discussion that might be a bit off the normal track on this forum.

Suffice to share for now, the unusual verb tense was deliberate, is significant for exegesis, and is reflected in both the Greek and English texts

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Soul Invictus · 12-20-2005, 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julian

Be careful, the word here should be 'in,' not 'into.' The distinction is important precisely because 'into' indicates a movement from outside to inside, potentially supporting a separationist viewpoint. I think it is clear that the writer means that Jesus came here in the flesh, as a human being. Greek does have a word for 'to be,' of course, which would throw the rest of the sentence into the form of a predicate nominative. No, the word 'coming' is appropriate here and I don't think that it could be read in any other way than a fleshy arrival.

However, it should be noted that gnostics could easily read such a sentence differently using the techniques used by apologists today. For example, I read somewhere that Sophia (wisdom) also came in the flesh, in the sense that all men possess some of it and it is therefore present in the flesh, although Sophia herself is not actually a human being. Yeah, I know... Theology.

Also, I made a small error here in a previous post. The εις Mark attestation is good being B D and F13 according to Swanson, whereas the other variant is not εν as I indicated earlier but επι (επ') which was still done to avoid the unfortunate 'into.'

Julian

Thanks for correcting my imprecision. I really want some clarity on this passage. I'll await additional responses before I proceed with my next question.

Julian · 12-20-2005, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

Yet as Julian showed, there is an unusual grammatical tense construction,
"present tense middle/passive participle "

And my source says
"perfect participle" in the 1 John 4:2 verse.
"perfect participle form" in the 2 John 1:7 verse

Hmmm, what is your source for this?

I don't see how this could be in a perfect tense, considering the first syllable lacks doubling, even though perfect tense does make sense in context, I must admit. And, of course, my Greek is deplorable.

Julian

Chris Weimer · 12-20-2005, 08:41 AM

It is indeed present middle participle. But just to make sure, I checked Perseus, and it agrees with me also.

Chris Weimer · 12-20-2005, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soul Invictus

Gotcha. I should have read further. So depending on your philosophy "come in the flesh" denotes fetus development or conception, yes?

I suppose, but its not limited to those only. Marcion, we can assume, thought that Jesus "came into the flesh" when he descended to Earth.

Julian · 12-20-2005, 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

I suppose, but its not limited to those only. Marcion, we can assume, thought that Jesus "came into the flesh" when he descended to Earth.

I am not sure that he would use that term being a docetist. Since we don't have many docetist materials anymore, I am not completely sure about this. Does any of the Nag Hammadi documents that advocate a docetic view even touch upon the whole flesh issue? I know they speak about him not feeling pain, in one case switching places with Simon of Cyrene and watching and laughing from the sidelines as the wrong guy gets nailed up. Again, I don't remember any use of the word flesh but that could be much more likely ascribed to my deficient memory.

Julian

Soul Invictus · 12-20-2005, 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

I suppose, but its not limited to those only. Marcion, we can assume, thought that Jesus "came into the flesh" when he descended to Earth.

Is Marcion the writer of the passage that I quoted? Also, what is Marcion referencing from his POV for this assumed position regarding what identifies Jesus's descension? His "virgin" birth?

Julian · 12-20-2005, 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soul Invictus

Is Marcion the writer of the passage that I quoted? Also, what is Marcion referencing from his POV for this assumed position regarding what identifies Jesus's descension? His "virgin" birth?

No, Marcion was 2nd century 'heretic,' who founded a branch of christianity that actually became larger and more popular than the orthodox in many areas. He established the first canon. He was a docetic. Here is some more info about him, one of the most interesting people in early christianity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcion

Julian

S.C.Carlson · 12-20-2005, 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

And my source says ... "perfect participle form" in the 2 John 1:7 verse

What source would be that? Both the TR and the modern critical text read �?�?χόμενον (erkhomenon), which is a present participle. Even Scrivener has the present participle.

Stephen

Mathetes · 12-20-2005, 01:51 PM

It's present. The perfect participle would be "�?ληλυθότα �?ν σα�?κί"

So a better translation would be:

Quote:

For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ comes in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-20-2005, 08:41 AM	#14
Chris Weimer Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: none Posts: 9,879	It is indeed present middle participle. But just to make sure, I checked Perseus, and it agrees with me also.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.