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. -- 1 John 4:2, King James Version.
John was simply relating that there were many teachers who were denying that Christ had come in the flesh. Why is this important? Because if Jesus did not come in the flesh, then he never sacrificed his flesh for the life of world; he never made his body an offering to God for our sins. (John 6:51; Hebrews 10:10) Thus, by denying Christ had come in the flesh, one would be denying the very basis of salvation through Jesus.
Regarding 2 John 1:7, Robertson states:
Robertson is not saying that "echomai" -- to come -- appears in 2 John 1:7, but rather that the present middle participle of echomai is found in this verse. The actual form used in 2 John 1:7 is often transliterated as "erchomenon". This participle, however, is actually present middle or passive as can be seen at:
https://biblehub.com/text/2_john/1-7.htm
For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who don't confess that Jesus Christ came in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the Antichrist. -- 1 John 4:2, World English.
Sadly, 1 John 4:2 and/or 2 John 1:7 are often cited as proof that if one does not believe in the trinity dogma, that one is an antichrist. Some misread these scriptures as though they are saying that if one does not believe that Jesus is God Almighty come in the flesh, then such are antichrist. Some even misquote these scriptures as saying such. Some quote the scripture as though it is saying that unless one believes that Christ returns in the flesh, such are antrichrist. Trinitarians however, do not agree among themselves regarding these verses, and they have different explanations related to these verses. Many, however, based on various assumptions that they read into the verses, do make some kind of association with their trinity doctrine in the words recorded in 1 John 4:2 and 2 John 1:7. Whatever method they "see" trinity in these verses, they usually agree that John was saying that if one does not believe in their trinity doctrine, that makes one "antichrist." And yet, there is actually nothing at all in the scriptures being discussed that mentions anything about a triune God, or that God Almighty Himself came in the flesh, etc.
John was simply relating that there were many teachers who were denying that Christ had come in the flesh. Why is this important? Because if Jesus did not come in the flesh, then he never sacrificed his flesh for the life of world; he never made his body an offering to God for our sins. (John 6:51; Hebrews 10:10) Thus, by denying Christ had come in the flesh, one would be denying the very basis of salvation through Jesus.
A few verses after 1 John 4:2, John points out the reason Jesus came in the flesh.
1 John 4:10 World English
In this is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son as the atoning sacrifice for our sins.
Rather than claiming that Jesus is one of three persons of God, John presents God as one person, and confirms that this one person sent Jesus into the world for the purpose of making atonement for our sins. -- Isaiah 61:1; John 17:1,3.
Jesus became flesh (John 1:18) so that he could offer that flesh -- with its blood -- to his God (Ephesians 1:3; 5:2) as the atoning sacrifice for sin. (Luke 22:19; John 6:51; Romans 5:12-19; 1 Corinthians 15:21,22; Ephesians 1:3; 1 Timothy 2:5,6; Hebrews 2:9;10:5,10; 1 Peter 2:24; 3:18; 1 John 4:9-14) Thus, any doctrine that is against this, although it may appear to be in support of Jesus, is actually antichrist, teaching something that is actually instead of Christ, if it sets up another basis for atonement than that which is given by Jesus and his apostles. Those who claim that Jesus is still flesh to day, and that he will return in his flesh, directly are in conflict with the reason why Jesus became flesh, for such teaching, in effect, does deny that Jesus actually sacrificed and made his flesh to be an offering for our sins,
Rather than claiming that Jesus is one of three persons of God, John presents God as one person, and confirms that this one person sent Jesus into the world for the purpose of making atonement for our sins. -- Isaiah 61:1; John 17:1,3.
Jesus became flesh (John 1:18) so that he could offer that flesh -- with its blood -- to his God (Ephesians 1:3; 5:2) as the atoning sacrifice for sin. (Luke 22:19; John 6:51; Romans 5:12-19; 1 Corinthians 15:21,22; Ephesians 1:3; 1 Timothy 2:5,6; Hebrews 2:9;10:5,10; 1 Peter 2:24; 3:18; 1 John 4:9-14) Thus, any doctrine that is against this, although it may appear to be in support of Jesus, is actually antichrist, teaching something that is actually instead of Christ, if it sets up another basis for atonement than that which is given by Jesus and his apostles. Those who claim that Jesus is still flesh to day, and that he will return in his flesh, directly are in conflict with the reason why Jesus became flesh, for such teaching, in effect, does deny that Jesus actually sacrificed and made his flesh to be an offering for our sins,
One has claimed that the Greek word is erchomai = to come.
Our reply: Evidently, it is being thought this would mean a to come in a future sense. The above is actually expressing the infinitive, the basic term, to come. The infinitive can be used to refer to the future as seen by its usage in Matthew 11:14. If the thought is that the infinitive is used in the verses discussed, the infinitive is not used in 1 John 4:2 or in 2 John 1:7.
Westcott & Hort:
1 John 4:2en toutw ginwskete to pneuma tou theou panIN THIS YOU ARE KNOWING THE SPIRIT OF THE GOD; EVERY1722 3778_6 1097 3588 4151 3588 2316 3956pneuma ho homologei ieesoun christon en sarkiSPIRIT WHICH IS CONFESSING JESUS CHRIST IN FLESH4151 3739 3670 2424 5547 1722 4561eleeluthota ek tou theou estinHAVING COME OUT OF THE GOD IT IS,2064 1537 3588 2316 1510_2
Robertson states in his comments on 1 John 4:2:
The correct text (perfect active participle predicate accusative), not the infinitive (εληλυτεναι — elēluthenai B Vg). The predicate participle (see John 9:22 for predicate accusative with ομολογεω — homologeō) describes Jesus as already come in the flesh. Robertson, A.T. "Commentary on 1 John 4:4". "Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament". https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/rwp/1-john-4.html. Broadman Press 1932,33. Renewal 1960.
Robertson clearly shows that the infinitive is not used in this verse, and thus that it is speaking of Christ's already having come in the flesh.
Regarding 2 John 1:7, Robertson states:
Present middle participle of ερχομαι — erchomai treating the Incarnation as a continuing fact which the Docetic Gnostics flatly denied. In 1 John 4:2 we have εληλυτοτα — elēluthota (perfect active participle) in this same construction with ομολογεω — homologeō because there the reference is to the definite historical fact of the Incarnation. There is no allusion here to the second coming of Christ. -- https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/rwp/2-john-1.htmlIn this verse, Robertson applies "coming" to Jesus' being made flesh (which he calls incarnation) but he reads into it that Jesus is still flesh, claiming that it presents "the Incaranation" as a continued fact. In other words, the Incarnation doctrine claims that Jesus as God Almighty added flesh to his Being as God Almighty and thus that Jesus is now and eternally both the Supreme Being and human being. The "Incarnation doctrine" would, in effect, deny Jesus’ sacrifice of his flesh for our sins. Having sacrificed his body of flesh with its blood for our sins, Jesus is no longer in the days of his flesh. -- Hebrews 5:7; 10:10.
Robertson is not saying that "echomai" -- to come -- appears in 2 John 1:7, but rather that the present middle participle of echomai is found in this verse. The actual form used in 2 John 1:7 is often transliterated as "erchomenon". This participle, however, is actually present middle or passive as can be seen at:
https://biblehub.com/text/2_john/1-7.htm
Robertson does agree that that it is not in reference to Jesus' second appearance.
While scholars often place time tenses with certain forms of verbs, many scholars point out that the Koine Greek verbs are more aspectual than they are time-related. The time being referred often has to be understood from the context or other general knowledge. It is obvious that the coming is referring back to the Jesus’ coming in the flesh as spoken of in John 1:18 and Hebrews 2:7.
Nevertheless, the doctrines of the Incarnation and/or alleged dual natures of Christ claim that Christ was resurrected in the flesh as an eternal supernatural body. The thought is presented that Jesus rebuked his disciples for believing that they had seen a spirit after the resurrection, and that Jesus' eating of broiled fish was offered as proof that he was resurrected in the flesh. Thus, it is concluded that Christ was resurrected in the flesh of His eternal supernatural body.
If Jesus is still flesh, as is often claimed, this would mean that Peter was wrong when he wrote that Jesus was put to death in the flesh, but raised in the spirit. (1 Peter 3:18) It would also mean that Jesus never actually offered his body of flesh to God for our sins, and thus we have no redeemer. -- Hebrews 10:10.
One claims: "He rebuked his disciples for believing that they had seen a spirit after the resurrection,"
Our Reply: Yes, Jesus was not a phantom (ghost) spirit as they had at first thought him to be. He was definitely, however, raised, not with a terrestrial body of flesh, but with a celestial body of spirit. (1 Corinthians 15:39-41) Until his ascension, however, he was able to raise up his former body for various appearances. Such appearances do not mean that Peter was wrong, and Jesus was actually raised in the flesh, not in the spirit.
Having discussed the resurrection body of Jesus in much detail elsewhere, we recommend that one prayerfully and diligently examine these studies:
Comments
Post a Comment