Post by ResLight on Aug 13, 2021 11:52:58 GMT -5
The following is taken from;
The Watch Tower,
March 1887, page 2.
The Watch Tower,
March 1887, page 2.
COMING IN THE FLESH
Rochester, N.Y.
DEAR BROTHER RUSSELL: -- Since removing here I have had my faith in the correctness of your teachings relative to the coming of the Lord a spirit being and not flesh, assailed and shaken by parties who claim that you are Anti-Christ. They base the charge upon what they claim is the literal translation of 2 John 1:7. They render it thus: "Who confess not that Jesus is coming in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist." If they are correct, then to deny that our Lord's second coming will be as before, viz. in the flesh, is wrong. Looking at the word for word translation of the passage in the Diaglott I find the Greek word is there translated coming, though in the regular reading translation in the side column of the Diaglott it is rendered did come. Doubtless the Diaglott's word for word translation gave rise to the application of this Scripture against you here. But no matter, the question is an important one, and I write you to know, if you can solve the difficulty. I called upon Prof. Kendricks of the Rochester College and asked him for the most literal meaning of the Greek word in dispute, and he said that its most literal meaning was coming.
Hoping to hear from you soon I am Yours respectfully C. G__________.
[The above is not the exact wording as our brother's letter got mislaid. We recall the main points from memory. We replied at once as below and now lay it before our readers that all may be armed on this point.]
DEAR BRO. G.: -- Yours of the 23d came duly. I am glad to see the candor with which you approach the question which you present to me, and that before deciding on the matter you write to see what I know of it. This is right, and your course may save you from being stumbled.
The Greek word used in 1 John 4:2, and that of 2 John 1:7, for "is come," are from the same Greek root, and might like our English words came, come, and coming, be used to indicate a past, or present, or future coming according to the way in which it is used. A strict translation of the two words would be (1 John 4:2) came, and coming (2 John 1:7.); but the weight you, and perhaps others, give this fact, is not justified, and probably arises from an imperfect knowledge of the Greek. To make the matter quite plain, let me show you how the English word coming, may clearly refer to a past coming, and let this be an illustration of the Greek: for instance when we say -- It was not the time, but the manner of our Lord's coming, that surprised and deceived the Jewish Doctors of the Law -- or that, He who denies that coming, stands where the Jew stands to-day, and must therefore be an opponent of the truth, a contradictor of the Apostle's testimony, and hence an opponent of the entire work of grace in progress during the Gospel age--Antichrist.
It is after this manner that erchomia is used in 2 John 1:7; and it is repeatedly used similarly elsewhere. Take your Young's Concordance, turn to pages 181 and 182. Note the instances in which this same word is used in the various tenses, past, present and future--came, come, cometh, coming. If you will examine the context you will find that in the majority of cases in which it is used it relates to transactions already past, just as in the cases under consideration--1 John 4:2. and 2 John 7.
You mention the literal word for word translation of the Diaglott in 2 John 7. We agree with it fully, you see, as to the literal meaning of the Greek word standing alone disassociated from the limitations of the sentence. Professor Kendrick answered your question as to the literal meaning of the word, in the same way; so would any Greek scholar. But the translator of the Diaglott, as also Professor Kendrick, and every other person who knows what he discusses, will agree with me that the word can be used to refer to a past coming, just as our English word coming, can; as illustrated in above examples. Furthermore, they will all agree that the construction of the Greek in 2 John 1:7. signifies a past coming.
You will notice that while the Diaglott in its literal translation, gives coming as the meaning of the disputed word, yet when giving the sense of the sentence, it in very unmistakeable terms shows that the coming was in the past, there rendering it did come. The author evidently was guarding the unscholarly against an error to which they would be very liable. Young's Bible gives only the very literal translation, coming, but when posted, any one can see from the construction of the sentence, that a past, and not a future coming is referred to.
Notice too that nearly all Translators would naturally be favorable to the view that our Lord's second coming will be again in the flesh; for they so expect him -- among others, the Author of the Diaglott. Hence it cannot be claimed that they were influenced in their translation in our favor.
Yours in fellowship and service C. T. Russell.
An answer to the above received before going to press, says that Bro. G. called upon Prof. Kendrick again, to inquire concerning the sense of the entire sentence (2 Jno. 7.) referred to above. The Professor fully agreed with us that the reference was to a "coming in the flesh" already in the past, and had no reference whatever to a future event.
========================
My comments:
Most scholars appear to agree that 1 John 4:2 is referring to the past, to Jesus' appearance in the first century.
And every spirit that confesseth not ... - That is, this doctrine is essential to the Christian system; and he who does not hold it cannot be regarded either as a Christian, or recognised as a Christian teacher. If he was not a man, then all that occurred in his life, in Gethsemane, and on the cross, was in "appearance" only, and was assumed only to delude the senses. There were no real sufferings; there was no shedding of blood; there was no death on the cross; and, of course, there was no atonement. A mere show, an appearance assumed, a vision, could not make atonement for sin; and a denial, therefore, of the doctrine that the Son of God had come in the flesh, was in fact a denial of the doctrine of expiation for sin. -- Barnes, Albert. "Commentary on 1 John 4".
"Barnes' Notes on the Whole Bible". www.studylight.org/commentaries/bnb/1-john-4.html. 1870.
"Barnes' Notes on the Whole Bible". www.studylight.org/commentaries/bnb/1-john-4.html. 1870.
Thus, Albert Barnes applies 1 John 4:3 to Jesus' appearance in the first century.
Since there are variant readings in the manuscripts of 1 John 4:2, many scholars believe that the reference to Jesus' coming in the flesh in this verse was not originally written by John.
Adam Clarke stated regarding 1 John 4:3:
Every spirit - Every teacher, that confesseth not Jesus, is not of God - has not been inspired by God. The words ... is come in the flesh, are wanting in AB, several others, both the Syriac, the Polyglot Arabic, Ethiopic, Coptic, Armenian, and Vulgate; in Origen, Cyril, Theodoret, Irenaeus, and others. Griesbach has left them out of the text. -- Clarke, Adam. "Commentary on 1 John 4".
"The Adam Clarke Commentary". www.studylight.org/commentaries/acc/1-john-4.html. 1832.
"The Adam Clarke Commentary". www.studylight.org/commentaries/acc/1-john-4.html. 1832.
Albert Barnes writes concerning 2 John 1:7:
Who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh - Who maintain that he assumed only the appearance of a man, and was not really incarnate. See the notes at 1 John 4:2-3. -- Barnes, Albert. "Commentary on 2 John 1". "Barnes' Notes on the Whole Bible". www.studylight.org/commentaries/bnb/2-john-1.html. 1870.
John Gill writes concerning 2 John 2:7:
who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh;
these were not the Jews who denied that Jesus was the Christ, though they would not allow that Christ was come in the flesh; but these were some who bore the Christian name, and professed to believe in Jesus Christ, but would not own that he was really incarnate, or assumed a true human nature, only in appearance; and denied that he took true and real flesh of the virgin, but only seemed to do so; and these are confuted by the apostle, ( 1 John 1:1 ) ; and upon everyone of these he justly fixes the following character.
these were not the Jews who denied that Jesus was the Christ, though they would not allow that Christ was come in the flesh; but these were some who bore the Christian name, and professed to believe in Jesus Christ, but would not own that he was really incarnate, or assumed a true human nature, only in appearance; and denied that he took true and real flesh of the virgin, but only seemed to do so; and these are confuted by the apostle, ( 1 John 1:1 ) ; and upon everyone of these he justly fixes the following character.
Thus John Gill recognizes that it is referring to Jesus' appearance in the first century, although he speaks of Jesus as having been incarnate, thus referring to the trinitarian idea that Jesus was God Almighty incarnated in the flesh.
Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν ἐρχόμενον ἐν σαρκί] is to be taken just as the words 1 John 4:2, that run almost exactly similarly. The present participle ἐρχόμενον, instead of which ἐληλυθότα is used there, expresses the idea in itself—apart from the idea of time; comp. John 6:14; Bengel incorrectly: qui veniebat, with an appeal to 3 John 1:3, for in this passage ἐρχομένων and μαρτυρούντων, by their close connection with ἐχάρην, are distinctly indicated as imperfect participles; such a connection does not exist here, nor are we to interpret, with Baumgarten-Crusius: “He who was to come;” still more incorrectly Oecumenius takes it as future participle, referring it to the second coming of Christ. -- Meyer's New Testament Commentary: biblehub.com/commentaries/meyer/2_john/1.htm
that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh] This is not quite accurate; nor does R. V., ‘that Jesus Christ cometh in the flesh’, seem to be more than a partial correction. Rather, that confess not Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, or possibly, that confess not Jesus as Christ coming in the flesh. See on 1 John 4:2, where the Greek is similar, but with perfect instead of present participle. These deceivers denied not merely the fact of the Incarnation, but its possibility. In both passages A. V. and R. V. translate as if we had the infinitive mood instead of the participle. The difference is, that with the participle the denial is directed against the Person, ‘they deny Jesus’; with the infinitive it is directed against the fact, ‘they deny that He cometh’ or ‘has come.’ Note that Christ is never said to come into the flesh; but either, as here and 1 John 4:2, to come in the flesh; or, to become flesh (John 1:14). To say that Christ came into the flesh would leave room for saying that the Divine Son was united with Jesus after He was born of Mary; which would be no true Incarnation. -- Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges: biblehub.com/commentaries/cambridge/2_john/1.htm
The above comments refer to Jesus' becoming flesh as being "incarnation," evidently referring to the doctrine of incarnation, which I do not agree with.
Some Related Studies:
1 John 4:2; 2 John 1:7 -- "Is Come" or "Coming"
1 John 4:3 - Jesus Has Come in the Flesh
