by peacefulpete 35 Replies latest watchtower bible
Pete
1John 4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: verse3 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.
These verses seem to teach against this teaching as well.
D Dog
Not all agree that these statements in 1 John and 2 John are anti-docetic. In particular, Terry Griffith has made an interesting analysis of the text which argues that the polemic is actually against those claiming that the Messiah has not yet come in the flesh (e.g. Jews rejecting Jesus as the Messiah); in other words, those who reject the fact of the incarnation rather than the manner of the incarnation. It's an interesting theory. Griffith's book is KEEP YOURSELVES FROM IDOLS: A NEW LOOK AT 1 JOHN (2002). In support of the traditional interpretation, of course, there is the testimony of Polycarp through Irenaeus who describes John the Presbyter's chief adversary as the docetic gnostic Cerenthus.
Leolia
That sounds like a stretch don't you think, in light of the verse in 1Jo 2:19 "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out , that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us." What does he say about this verse?
Who is Terry Griffith anyway? I've never heard of him. Mabe I can find his book.
D Dog
About the Epistles of John there is another explanation. I remember reading it with much interest in an article in the late 80's (unfortunately I cannot find it now). It was later endorsed by French scholar François Vouga.
Actually, in "Jesus Christ coming in the flesh" (2 John) or "Jesus Christ having come in the flesh" (1 John), neither the subject ("Jesus Christ", not the logos) not the tenses of the verb (in the first case, present participle implying a a current, not a past action; in the second, perfect participle implying the permanent result of a past action) suit well the orthodox reference to a past historical event (which would rather require the aorist), i.e. "incarnation". The reference is rather to the current union with Christ which the Johannine community claims to enjoy in its own "flesh". Fwiw.
Deputy Dog....Terry Griffith's book is in the esteemed Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series, vol. 233 (Sheffield Academic Press). He now is pastor at Trinity Baptist Church, Bexleyheath, Kent.
Recall also 1 John 2:22 which says: "Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist--he denies the Father and the Son". The focus here again is not on docetism but on Jesus' Messiahship. Regarding 2:19, Griffith says:
I wish to argue that 2.19 describes a situation where ehtnic Jews who had become Christians were returning to the synagogue and thereby denying their formerly held belief that the Messiah was Jesus. The perceived threat to the community would not hten be cast in terms of christological error, but in terms of pressure to deny the faith. Just this kind of scenario is attested in Justin's Dialogue with Trypho in the mid-second century CE. In ch. 47 Justin describes groups of Christians who are adopting or maintaining Jewish practices to a greater and lesser degree. Trypho has asked whether Jews who believe in the crucified Messiah, but who also wish to maintain sabbath observance, circumcision, feasts, and the lkike are also saved (46.1-2; 47.1). Justin answers that such Jewish Christians will be saved as long as they do not require Gentile Christians to require these practices (47.2). However, Justin says that he does not recognize those Jewish Christians who require Gentile Christians to live according to Moses (47.3). In additional to this group, Justin mentions in 47.4 two other groups of Jews who are definitely not saved. The first group (unless they repent before death) "once professed and recognized that this is the Christ, and for some cause or other passed over into the life under the Law, denying that this is the Christ". Note the close similarity between this denial and 1 Jn 2.22. The second group are those of "the seed of Abraham who live after the Law, and believe not on this our Christ before the end of their life, especially those who in the synagogues have anathematised, and still anathematise, those who believe on that very Christ". The first group are precisely those who have renounced their Christianity and who have returned to Jewish observance. The second group testifies that the church-synagogue conflict was still a lively issue well after the time that the Johannine corpus was written. Therefore, this kind of scenario cannot be excluded on a priori grounds for 1 John.
There is therefore sufficient independent evidence to show that 2.18-23 makes very good sense as a description of the defection of Jewish Christians back to Judaism. Indeed, the origin of the term anikhristos may best be accounted for in a situation that presupposes an external conflict with Judaism. It may then be better to speak of the 'anti-Messiah', or perhaps the 'substitute-Messiah', which would be the Johannine equivalent of the term pseudokhristos. If the confession in 2.22 is best construed as 'the Messiah is Jesus,' as the evidence here suggests it is, then one vital test of the correctness of this reading is whether it is consistent with the confession in 4.2-3 and helps make sense of it." (pp. 175-179)
Griffith then goes into a detailed discussion of 4:2-3 and explains what "come in the flesh" should be interpreted to mean. Again, I don't suggest that Griffith's interpretation is the correct one, but it is an interesting and viable current theory.
Against Griffith's thesis (which I have not yet read) the following objections come to mind:
1) The lack of any anti-Pharisaic argument in the Epistles of John (after 70 AD, Pharisaism is Judaism).
2) The lack of interest in messianism in Hellenistic diaspora Judaism and Johannism: the "Christ" of Johannism is very far from any known version of the Palestinian Messiah; the pseudochristoi of the Synoptic Gospels belong to a Palestinian political situation, the antichristoi of the Johannine Epistles are Johannine pagano-Christians who forsake Johannine Christianity for something which is probably closer to Johannism than Pharisaic Judaism. Either (a) full-fledged Gnosticism (according to a majority of scholars) or (b) the post-Pauline and proto-Catholic Church (Vouga's thesis).
I've been having ISP problems sorry for not expresssing thanks for the replies before now. I've enjoyed the comments so far. Leolaia wasn't Cerinthus properly labeled a Separationist? That is he and others saw the man Jesus as having been 'possessed' by the heavenly Christ at his baptism. These Christians separated the man Jesus from the Spirit being that in dwelled in him. The orthodoxy The Catholic polemics of 1rst and 2nd John seem tailored to refute both Docetic and Separationist Christians.
Good points. I think Griffith would say that the Fourth Gospel (which is closely linked literarily with 1 John) has a strong polemic against "the Jews", designated in a general sense but also named as Pharisees, and the most vivid description of the hatred between Jews and Christians is found in John 15:18-16:4, with its descriptions of hatred, murder, and being put out of the synagogue (and ch. 13-17 is the section that most resembles 1 John). "And yet the language used to describe these Jewish opponents is non-specific. The Jews are simply referred to under the rubric of 'the world' (15:18-19). This is precisely the language that is found in 1 John" (p. 207). But this may not be convincing. It's an interesting thesis, but again I'd like to compare it with others such as Vouga as you mentioned, which are attractive for other reasons.
PP....Yes I'm aware of this, I had previously subsumed "seperationist" as a subspecies of docetism (as "Christ" had no body of his own aside from his host, and does not have a physical body after being raised), but yes it isn't "illusionist" in that his chosen "vessel" was indeed corporeal, according to Cerenthus.
Sorry if that sounded like splitting hairs but I thought it bore on the subject. Anyway I found some comments by B. Ehrman interesting. He takes the position that 1 JOhn was connecxted with the Johannine community and that the remarks at 2:19 require then that the separationists have been formerly associated and alingned with them. This would seem to make the Jewish Christian angle unlikely. Rather he proposes that the Johannine separationist had evolved a higher Christology that presaged formal Docetism.
The "come in the flesh" expression seems to mean just what it says rather than be idiomatic. Ignatius used the very expression precisely to refute Docetic notions. (Ign Smyrn 1:1-2, 3:1, 4:2, Trall 9:1-2) The author of 1 John is consistant in declaring the physical nature of Jesus by opening the book with assertions that the Christ could be seen heard and touched.(1:1-3) Furthur the the formula that insisted Jesus Christ came "in water and BLOOD" seems to be consistant with his theme of refuting Docetic christololgy.
So Erhman takes the opinion that the work specifically was a Johannine community effort to reign in Docetic ideas that bloomed from within the group. Separationists likewise were indirectly refuted but the object does not seem to be them. Nor does the idea that they were combatting a Jewish revival within the group seem evident.
Even if the book was not from the Johannine community at all (my earlier statement) but Proto Catholic/Catholic most of this argumentation still seems to hold water.
PP: On the other side of the argument, the reference to "water and blood" in 1 John 5:6-8 (cf. 19:34) suits a sacramental interpretation perfectly:
This is the one who came by (dia) water and blood, Jesus Christ, not with the water only but with (en) the water and the blood. And the Spirit is the one that testifies, for the Spirit is the truth. There are three that testify (marturountes, present participle): the Spirit and the water and the blood, and these three agree (to hen eisin, "are [present] one").
When you think of it, it is a very strange way to speak about a past event or historical person, as anti-docetic polemics would imply. I still feel it is best explained by a present experience / practice of the Johannine community (of which we admittedly know very little).
The "trinity" of "Spirit, water and blood" obviously refer to the following texts of GJohn, the symbolic meaning of which is underlined (and clearly understood by the Johannine community):
no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit
one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once blood and water came out. He who saw this has testified so that you also may believe. His testimony is true, and he knows that he tells the truth.
