First John 4.2

November 21, 2011 by Samuel Frost

15 Comments 15 Comments

Paul Gates of Preterist Blog has written a tremendous article. He alerted me to a verse that I never caught before. I have not noticed this until today. Let me state a little background. While a Full Preterist, I denied that Jesus retained his incarnate body. That is, the man, Christ Jesus, who ascended into heaven, somehow “shed” his incarnate body and was absorbed again into the Godhead. The reasoning was obvious since I held to a “corporate body view” of resurrection. If Jesus retained (and still retains) the body of his incarnation, now glorified in heaven where it remains, the problems for my Full Preterism this would cause were unthinkable.

Since I have left Full Preterism, I have engaged in a study of the Incarnation and its relationship to the “human nature” of Christ. “Human nature” is defined as that union that comes from body and soul. This is the way it was applied in the trinitarian formulations over against the Gnostics and the Doceticists. Jesus’ “body of glory” (Phil 3.21) is his current glorified body of his incarnation. This is the definition of “glorification.”

Paul Gates has found I John 4.2,3 which reads, “Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: 3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God.” Now it may be argued that the Full Preterist does not deny that Jesus came in the flesh, and this would be correct. However, the Greek reads, “ἐν τούτῳ γινώσκετε τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ Θεοῦ· πᾶν πνεῦμα ὃ ὁμολογεῖ Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθότα, ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐστι· 3 καὶ πᾶν πνεῦμα ὃ μὴ ὁμολογεῖ τὸν Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθότα, ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ οὐκ ἔστι·” The word of emphasis here occurs twice: ἐληλυθότα which is a perfect active participle. The perfect means, “present state produced by past action” (Wallace, 574). Ross (NICNT, First John) notes, “Further, John does not say that the confession is to be of a Christ who came, but of a Christ who is come, who came and who abides in the flesh – the perfect tense is being used” (ital. his). In commentary after commentary they acknowledge the perfect tense here and the abiding reality of the flesh of Christ, now glorified. To deny, then, that Christ is no longer in the same body of the incarnation, glorified, and in heaven is “not of God.” There can be no clearer statement.

To further read Gates’ blog, go here: http://www.preteristblog.com/?p=5497 He provides more commentary and quotes. The “glorious body of Christ” means only one thing: the glorification of the incarnate body. Full Preterists must pay careful heed here to Scripture, for Scripture has spoken. To deny it brings one in peril, for such a confession is “not of God.”

http://miniondominion.thereignofchrist.com Jason Bradfield

Devastating. Good work, Paul!
http://miniondominion.thereignofchrist.com Jason Bradfield

For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist. Watch yourselves, so that you may not lose what we have worked for, but may win a full reward. Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works. (2 John 1:7-11 ESV)

Ouch. How’s that for some website moderation advice? lol.

Jamison, Faussett and Brown – He who denies Christ’s coming in the flesh, denies the possibility of the incarnation; he who denies that he has come, denies its actuality. They denied the possibility of a Messiah’s appearing, or coming, in the flesh [Neander]. I think the Greek present participle implies both the first and the second advent of Christ. He is often elsewhere called the Coming One (Greek), Mt 11:3; Heb 10:37. The denial of the reality of His manifestation in the flesh, at His first coming, and of His personal advent again, constitutes Antichrist.
PaulT

Jason,

Given the light of some current conversations I thought Dr. Smalley’s comment particularly germane. Dr Smalley writes,

“It is significant when John describes the character of the person who is not “derived from God”, he does so in terms of a straightforward failure to acknowledge “Jesus”…John is not insisting on the “flesh” alone, nor indeed on his divine status in isolation from his human character; he is hold both together in tension. To deny either is to demonstrate a spiritual origin that is “not from God”.”

I’m wondering if Dr. Smalley is a “Clarkian”.

God Bless,
http://thereignofchrist.com Samuel Frost

I do have to post this amidst the hellish comments. Dave Green does try to salvage himself:

“For consider the One HAVING ENDURED such
contradiction of sinners against Himself, lest ye be
wearied and faint in your minds” (Hebrews 12:2-3)

The Greek word for “endured” in Hebrews 12:3 means “stay under” or “abide,” and is a perfect active participle. Therefore, according to the standard of the above Talbotian reasoning, the writer of Hebrews 12:3 does not merely say that Christ remained under the shame of the Cross, but that He remained under it and continues in a present state under it – “the perfect tense is being used.” And the perfect means, “present state produced by past action” (Wallace, 574). This is “the abiding reality” of Christ’s eternal state of remaining under the shame of the Cross. “There can be no clearer statement.” :)

…And whether or not Jesus still exists in His 1st-century flesh-body, Jesus does not still exist in that flesh-body HERE, the place to which He came “in the flesh.” He came in the flesh, but He’s not here anymore in the flesh. Therefore the perfect active participle of “come” in 1 John 4:2 does not mean, “came to us in the flesh and now abides with us in the flesh.”

Hebrews 5:7 further contradicts this misinterpretation of 1 John 4:2:

“Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered
up prayers and supplications with strong crying
and tears unto him that was able to save him from
death, and was heard in that he feared”

And lastly, Talbotism inadvertently teaches, by its own standard, the very concept it is attempting to condemn. Talbotism teaches that Jesus became sub-human (not “fully human” because He wasn’t flesh) for three days and nights. Talbotism also inadvertently teaches that our dead loved ones in Christ are sub-humans (not “fully human” because they aren’t flesh), and therefore ontologically alienated from Christ, until the end of world history.”

wierd response, eh? Hardly even coherent. Disjointed at best. John does not say, “abides with us in his flesh.” Note Dave’s complete fumbling here. It’s clear that he has to dodge this verse. So, he quotes Hb 12.3. The verse says, he “endured”, which is indeed perfect participle. He endured (past action) with present benefits (your salvation). It does NOT mean what Green says. He is not still “enduring” (that would be a present indicative, Dave). But, rather, his PAST endurance, has PRESENT results. Like the perfect in I Cor 15, “Christ has been raised” (perfect. Raised, and REMAINS raised with current benefits). Try again, Dave. Jesus has a glorified body. Deal with it.
http://thereignofchrist.com Samuel Frost

Let’s see what “spin” they will put on it next…..Oh and by the way, it isn’t “Talbotian”. Gates quoted scholars who are now dead. They said it, not Talbot. Ross said it. Orr says it. Unless you are willing to grant to Talbot the awesome powers over these commentators, some of who are now dead, then great. Stupid, but great. Talbot is omnipotent!
http://thereignofchrist.com Samuel Frost

William L. Lane (Word Biblical Commentary) is most just here. A far cry from Green trying to salvage FP from I John 4.2 and its implications. Green denies that Christ is “in” his self same body of incarnation. He is “not of God.”
http://alternate-readings.blogspot.com/ C. Stirling Bartholomew

A little over twenty years ago Norman Geisler tried to convince whoever was willing to listen that Murray J. Harris was a heretic. The controversy was over the nature of the resurrected body of Jesus Christ. You can find several JETS articles on this by searching for Murray J. Harris & Resurrection.

The text under discussion 1Jn 4:2-3 here doesn’t have anything to do with the resurrection. The strongest reading does not repeat ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθότα in verse three, but the omission has no exegetical significance since the words are present by inference. In other words ὁμολογεῖ τὸν Ἰησοῦν in verse tree represents the full expression found in verse two.

On the tense/aspect of ἐληλυθότα Martin M. Culy (1,2,3 John Handbook 2004) compares it to ἐρχόμενον in

2John 7 Ὅτι πολλοὶ πλάνοι ἐξῆλθον εἰς τὸν κόσμον, οἱ μὴ ὁμολογοῦντες Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν ἐρχόμενον ἐν σαρκί· οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ πλάνος καὶ ὁ ἀντίχριστος.

The difference between the perfect and the present (according to Culy) is the focus falls on the on subject with the perfect transitive verb and on the object with the present transitive. I haven’t looked at this after a cold shower and a double latte early in the morning so I remain in a state of suspended judgment. Culy cites S.E. Porter’s infamous dissertation in support (Verb Aspect 1989, 273-81) and that is enough to make me skeptical. Moule (Idiom Book, p101) claims that the perfect 1Jn 4:2-3 and the present of 2John 7 are equivelent. But Moule was not playing with the same toys[1] as Porter and Culy.

In regard to syntax, Culy (a guru on syntax) suggests that the participles ἐρχόμενον and ἐληλυθότα “function as a complement in a double accusative object complement construction. In plain english: the verb ὁμολογοῦντες takes two accusatives and the second accusative is a object complement. If I understand this (?) Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν is construed as a single accusative object and ἐρχόμενον is the accusative complement to the object.

This isn’t the only way to read this. See B.F. Westcott (1,2,3 John) for other suggestions as well as an additional note on the text of 1Jn 4:2-3 which is very interesting.

[1] Culy is a linguist and S.E. Porter also I guess, but not using the same framework. On Porter you should read Randall Buth’s assessment and makeup up your own mind.
PaulT

I’m not sure I follow how the Giesler/Murray dispute enters into the discussion. Dr. Harris doesn’t discuss 1 John 4:1-3 in his book “Raised Immortal”. And I don’t think anyone is making the argument the text is dealing with the resurrection. I believe the argument is over the idea of the incarnation, whether it is temporary or not. If the incarnation is permanent and the man Jesus lives then so does His body.

God Bless,
http://thereignofchrist.com Samuel Frost

I knew in the back of my head someone would bring up Harris. I think it can all be dismissed, however, when you have so many in disagreement with Harris. Porter is equally controversial. Thus, it would stand that the exegesis is correct unless it can be demonstrated as indubitably false. And I don’t see that happening any time soon.
PaulT

FWIW, I did find in “From Grave to Glory” Dr. Harris’ book written in response to Dr. Geisler a comment related to 1 John 4:2. Dr. Harris writes,

“Was this humanity [referring to Jesus] jettisoned at the Resurrection? Did Jesus cease to be fully human when he rose? Certainly not. The “flesh” he assumed at his conception was glorified at the Resurrection, so that Christians now have in heaven a merciful High Priest who is able to sympathize with our weaknesses precisely because he himself shared in our nature of “flesh and blood” (Heb 2:14, 17-18, 4:14-15; 6:19-20).

This comforting doctrine of the permanent humanity of Christ finds specific explressions in both Paul and John.

“In him [Christ] there dwells the whole fullness of deity in bodily form, (Col 2:9). The two crucial terms are the verb…”dwells,” and the adverb…”in bodily form,” “embodied,” “bodily.” In Greek these two words are not side by side, as the translation “dwells embodied” (NEB) might suggest. Their separation points to two distinct affirmations:

(1) That the complete fullness of the Godhead dwells (timeless present tense) in Christ eternally;

(2) (2) that this fullness now permanently resides in the incarnate Christ in bodily form.”
(From Grave to Glory, Murray J. Harris, Zondervan, pg. 414)

It certainly appears as though Dr. Harris is affirming 1 John 4:2 is conveying Christ Jesus “IS” God incarnate, not “WAS” as the Docetics claim.

God Bless,
http://thereignofchrist.com Samuel Frost

Paul, been doing some boning up on the old Geisler-Harris debate. You can, as our friend here pointed out, simply google Geisler Harris debate and a ton comes up. The late Randall Otto, a Full Preterist who wrote for Ed Stevens’ outfit IPA (and was, perhaps, one of the only FP’s with a respectable doctorates from Westminster). Otto covers this in his article here:http://www.quodlibet.net/articles/otto-sproul.shtml go down a little bit to the “nature of the resurrection” and you will pick it up. Jarring my memory, the debate does NOT effect I John 4.2. Both Harris and Geisler recognize the force of the perfect here: Jesus continues to abide in the body of his incarnation, glorified. This, of course, is what a large (King, Preston, Green) amount of FP’s deny.

Otto, quoting Harris, writes, “As was mentioned above, the issues involved in the Geisler-Harris debate are not limited to any particular eschatological perspective. Nonetheless, full preterists have found much in Harris’s work to support their view of the resurrection body. “The resurrection of Jesus was not his transformation into an immaterial body but his acquisition of a ‘spiritual body’ which could materialize or dematerialize at will. When, on occasion, Jesus chose to appear to various persons in material form, this was just as really the ‘spiritual body’ of Jesus as when he was not visible or tangible. . . . After the forty days, when his appearances on earth were ended, Jesus assumed the sole mode of being visible to the inhabitants of heaven but having a nonfleshly body.” [31] From my own study of the glory of God revealed to humanity in the theophanies of Scripture and consummately in the person of Christ, I must concur with Harris. Since it is not possible for anyone to see God’s glory and live, a glory which Christ in his resurrection resumed (John 17:5), Christ must have been immaterial and invisible most of the time following his resurrection, save at times to reveal himself in often unrecognizable ways to the disciples, who were sometimes ensconced behind closed doors, for the purpose of verifying his resurrection. When he did so materialize, he would also have veiled the glory which no one can see and live.”

It’s a good article in that Otto is precise in stating what he believed. He held to Harris’ view. The problem for Preston/Green/King is that the “immortal bdy view” (Ed Stevens, Kelly Birk, the late, great Patrick Stone) is in flat contradiction to thier “corporate view”. Harris would fit in more with the idea of Stevens, but not entirely. One can argue “form” and “substance” without arguing “atom” and “DNA”. However, Harris is NOT arguing “re-embodiment” as Stevens does. Jesus was not re-embodied. He was “entirely” transformed. Geisler emphasized continuity, Harris argued for discontinuity. But, either way, with the quote you provided above, it does not effect that power of I John 4.2 over the FP position. The debate is centered on “when” Jesus was “glorified”. Most have it at his ascension, when the glory cloud came and took him away. “took him away” much like we find with Elijah or Enoch. The man, Christ Jesus, remains local, spatial and incarnate either way as a human being (human nature), while all the time retaining the unaffected divinity of the Son (Logos) which shares in the incommunicable attributes of the Godhead. This, FP (as mentioned) would deny, too. Puts them in deep, deep, troubled waters.
http://thereignofchrist.com Samuel Frost

Scot McKnight offered this in 1990: “In an admirable, restrained, irenic tone, Murray J. Harris has finally essayed to respond to Norman L. Geisler’s criticisms of his positions and legitimate status in the Evangelical Free Church of America (=EFCA). (Harris is a tenured professor at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.) Geisler has surely called into question the theological examination given by Trinity to prospective faculty members. Harris has, as he clearly states, refused to respond to Geisler, not because he was afraid or because he thought Geisler an unworthy opponent or because he sensed that the issues being raised were unimportant. Rather, Harris declined to refute the criticisms because he recognized that time and time again Geisler failed to present his views accurately in context and so created many misunderstandings, the correction of which would have taken Harris more time and space than was prudent. But to avoid further slander of the EFCA Harris has finally taken pen to hand. His book is good and readable and should finally show all concerned that Harris believes, and always has believed, “in the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, and also in the bodily resurrection of believers” (p. XXV).1 Harris is quick to point out, however, as does W. C. Kaiser, Jr., in the foreword, that his exegetical positions are not the official views of the EFCA or of others at Trinity.”
http://thereignofchrist.com Samuel Frost

The further it is denied what this text plainy, plainly says (with the qoutes of Greek scholars), and the further and further they deny it, makes them all the more “not of God.” End of story. When you have someone like Harris even admitting it…..
http://thereignofchrist.com Samuel Frost

Let me go over Hebrews 12.2,3 again, for I may have misspoke (or not spoke clear enough). In Hebrews 12.3 we have “endured” in the perfect: “endured, with continuing implications of that enduring.” Verse, in the aorist tense, has the same word “he endured the cross.” Aorist. Simple past. “Endurance” by the way is a major theme in Hebrews. Then he writes, “Consider him who endured from sinners such hostility against himself, so that you may not grow weary or fainthearted.” “so that” is making the case for them to consider Him. He endured the cross, and he endured hostility (and continues to endure hostility, does he not?). How many railers, like the hyperpreterists who even deny his present incarnation in the heavenlies, does Jesus have today? When they persecute you, they persecute Him. Thus, the past action of Jesus’ endurance (aorist, v. 2) was meant to set the stage as a continuing encouragement of their endurance which is winning for them the prize of salvation. Some are trying to say the Greek in I John 4.2 (without a shred of support) means the perfect is saying completely opposite of what it is. The text there is clear. In the words of the Historic Christian Faith: Christ remains incarnate. We now know that the heretics deny this.
Pingback: The Continuing Incarnation of Christ

Share with your friends!