Jesus Christ: In The Flesh

“By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God;”
--1 John 4:2 (NASB)

This is a significant verse validating the all important truth of Jesus humanity, as clearly taught elsewhere in the Scriptures. Traditionally, it has been understood as an argument against the docetic gnostics (“docetism" - from docetae, meaning “to appear”), in which it was asserted that Jesus was not truly flesh and blood, but only "appeared" to be human. Since John uses the phrase "in the flesh" and warns, in verse 3, that the spirit of antichrist is already in the world (1 John 4:3), it seems very likely that this is what John was thinking here. However, I suggest that John had something more in mind than an argument against docetism only!

We must not allow pre-conceived notions to define what John means by "Jesus Christ has come in the flesh". The AMP and NCV bibles both slant the verse to make it sound as if John supported the traditional doctrine of incarnation - that Jesus pre-existed in heaven, came to earth, and took on flesh. For example, the AMP says "every spirit that acknowledges ... that Jesus ... has become man and has come in the flesh ..." This translation boldly suggests that Jesus was something other than human prior to being born. The NCV puts it even stronger saying, "... every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ came to earth as a human..." This really goes beyond the bounds of the original lanquage. In both of these bible versions the translators project their own preconceptions about Jesus’ pre-existence onto the Greek text! Thankfully, none of the other major versions take such liberties with the text. Instead, they stick to the simple reading "come in the flesh".

So what does it mean to, "come in the flesh"?

The word "come" is erchomai (perfect tense), denoting something that has been completed in the past, once and for all, not needing to be repeated. In other words, it happened and has not been reversed or changed – it is still in force – Jesus was born human and remains human. This could be a specific reference to Jesus birth. I am not aware of any scholars or commentaries that share this opinion, but that doesn't mean it’s wrong. Just consider what I say here, and you be the judge.

The language employed here (has come) should not be construed as meaning 'has come from heaven'! Yet, this is exactly where most scholarship seems to go. The fact is, to say one "has come" does not have to refer to movement from one place to another. It can be be used metaphorically as well!  For example, the Bible also says that John "came neither eating nor drinking" (Matt 11:18, also see Matt 21:32). It's the same thing! No one understands this to mean that John came from any particular place. It simply refers to the fact that John "showed up" doing what he was called to do (preaching his message of repentance) in a simple an unpretentious way. Further, and perhaps more precisely, John himself uses this kind of language while in prison. Expressing doubt about whether Jesus was the the Messiah that Israel was waiting for, he sent messengers to inquire of Jesus, “Are you the one who is to come, or do we look for another?” (Matt 11:3) This was a way of speaking of the expected Messiah! He was to “come” in the sense that he was a promise to be fulfilled – a man through whom God would work in a mighty way to bring deliverance to Israel.

The fact that John adds the phrase "in the flesh" emphasizes not merely Jesus' human nature, but the fact that his body was really human. This would speak not only to docetic ideas, but other heresies as well, including that of Cerinthus who believed the man Jesus and the Christ were separate entities. The Cerinthian heresy taught that the Christ was the “Divine Spirit” who temporarily entered Jesus, the man, at his baptism and left him at his crucifixion.

It is vital to see that John is not speaking only of Jesus, the man, but of Jesus, the Christ (the Messiah). In the Lexham translation of the Bible, the note on this verse suggests the alternate reading "every spirit that confesses Jesus as Christ who has come in the flesh." This is also the way the NET bible reads and, in my opinion, is the correct rendering because it clearly associates Jesus as the Christ. This goes back to 1John 2:22 where the warning is "who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ?" (Also, see John 9:22) To me, John is clearly saying that Jesus and the Christ are one and the same, and that he was a genuine flesh and blood human being. And I would further suggest that John may have had in mind Jesus’ lineage. The Jews did, after all, expect one to come who would be like Moses, and who would be from the line of David.

In every prophecy foretelling Messiah's coming, it was never suggested or even hinted at, that he would be God. The expectation of Messiah was that he would be a man -  a man chosen by God, anointed of God, without sin, but nonetheless a man (See Matt 11:3; Acts 2:22; 1Tim 2:5; Heb 4:15) Yet, in virtually every commentary on this verse, both classic and modern, it is suggested that John claims Jesus to be both human and Deity. Where exactly does the text say that Jesus is Deity? Where does the bible ever say that Christ and God are the same, or equal? Nowhere!! Christ is not Jesus last name, and it is NOT a synonym for God!

Given John's own stated purpose for writing in John 20:31, "that you may believe that Jesus is the Son of God" (another title for the Christ), It seems unlikely that he would argue from a Trinitarian point of view. John was saying, in a most emphatic way, that the Messiah Jesus, was a real human being with a traceable genealogy. In this way, he argued not only against the docetist’s and other heretical groups such as that of Cerinthus, but perhaps even those ideas which eventually came to be known as orthodoxy, attributing a second (divine) nature to Jesus!

Gnosticism - More Than A Present Threat (Re-Blog)

I recently came across an article having to do with the dangers of Gnostic thought which has infiltrated some Christian teaching. This, among other things, has been a topic of discussion with me and some of my brothers as we have gathered together for fellowship. Although an old religion, it has had a bit of a revival in recent years, especially with the discovery of the Nag Hammadi scrolls. Just "google" gnosticism and a number of sites will come up in the results, featuring current gnostic teachers. The basic idea of Gnosticism (or, those who have knowledge) is that only spirit is good, whereas the physical world is bad - including the body. Hence, the platonic idea of the soul being "freed" from the prison of the body upon death. But there are many facets to this early mix of philosophy and eastern mystic religion, some of which sadly parallels certain popular ideas within Christianity today. 

The following is a reproduction of the article I read from the blog source, focusonthekingdommagazine.org. I hop you will find it to be informative and thought provoking. Enjoy.

"In a recent article (Discernment, May/June 1999, PO Box 129, Lapeer, MI 48446), a writer remarks on the pronounced dangers of a Gnostic approach to salvation and Scripture, currently espoused in some “charismatic” circles. The author’s point is that those who rely heavily on “experience” give themselves over to subjectivity and personal feeling uncontrolled by the text of Scripture.They have faith in their own experience rather that in the promises of God. By “Gnostic” is meant a form of popular religion which originated in New Testament times and probably before. Some “Gnostics” claimed to be Christians andother Christians who opposed them saw the dangers of their allegorical, and often philosophical, approach to the Bible. Gnosticism was a blend of popular spirituality, neo-Platonism and eastern mysticism, producing an attractive “soup” designed to satisfy human spiritualhunger. “Christian” Gnostics simply appended the name of Jesus and Christ to their variety of essentially pagan teachings, and the result seemed to the less well-instructed to be close to the faith of the New Testament. Bible writers often fought the counterfeiting techniques of the Gnostics. 

The author, John Marston, who reflects on current Gnostic tendencies (and there are several prominent writers who also see parallels in contemporary Christianity), points out that one Gnostic characteristic is the failure to take plain words at their face value. This tendency has caused the rift which divides the amillennial Christian from the premillennial Christian. There is much truth in this observation. The literal and natural reading of the words of the Bible is the first choice for the wise student. For example, the noun “resurrection” in the New Testament is found some 40 times to mean the resurrection of the literally dead to life, either in the case of Jesus (the only one yet to have been resurrected) or of the faithful of all ages at the return of Jesus to the earth (see I Cor. 15:23). It would therefore be a major mistake of interpretation to decide that in Revelation 20:5 the noun resurrection cannot mean the raising of the literally dead to life again. Yet this is the grave weakness of amillennialism. 

Amillennialism (readers should not be daunted at all by the technical terms: the ideas involved are very simple) proposes that Satan has already been “bound so that he cannot deceive the nations any longer” (Rev. 20:3) and that the resurrection of the dead mentioned in Revelation 20:5 means the figurative resurrection of a person not literally dead, but dead in sin. Such“resurrection,” amillennialism teaches, happens to the individual when he or she is converted. Premillennialism says no. Resurrection, the noun, should mean what it means in some 40 other passages — the actual coming to life of adead person who has died literally. 

If any of our readers is in doubt on this point, he should consult not only the normal meaning of the noun “resurrection” (which never refers to conversion), but the immediate context in Revelation 20:1-6. Here we read plain words, crystal clear information: “Those persons who had been beheaded came to life…This is the first resurrection.” It would be an amazing misunderstanding to argue that “the coming to life” again of “those who had been beheaded” means anything other than what it says: The literally dead came back to life. Such is the strong advantage of the premillennial understanding of this passage. It takes words at their normal, natural face value. 

Gnostic tendencies are found today also in the widely held belief that man isa bipartite creature with body and immortal soul and that his “soul” departs consciously to heaven or hell at the moment of death. Thus we hear often thatso and so has “gone home to be with Jesus in heaven.” Pleasant as such a viewmay seem, it has no biblical basis. If we want to grasp the biblical view of life after death, I Thessalonians 4 is among many passages which lays it out clearly. Having described how Jesus “died and rose again,” Paul says that dead Christians will rise from death in the future. When Christ returns, Paultaught, the dead, who he says are now asleep, will be woken up from sleep (the word “raised” is the same in Greek as the word “awaken”), caught up to meet the Lord in the air and “thus we shall come to be always with the Lord.” 

Did you catch that? “Thus we shall always be with the Lord.” In this manner —by this process of being woken up at the future coming of Jesus — we shall come into the presence of Christ. By no other means. Pause and reflect. If itis possible to be “with Christ” before the resurrection, Paul would have beenwrong to say “By this means we shall be with the Lord forever.” The words of Paul, coupled with the words of Jesus in John 5:28, 29and Daniel in 12:2, tell us with complete clarity that the dead are asleep until the resurrection day. When they are raised from death (awoken from the sleep of death) they will then come into the presence of Christ and be with him forever. By resurrection, alone, and not by survival as an “immortal spirit,” we will be ushered into Christ’s presence — for the first time, at the resurrection when Jesus comes back to inaugurate his Kingdom on earth (Matt. 5:5; Rev. 5:10). 

Gnostic tendencies affected other major popular Christian doctrines. Origen (died 254 AD) was a philosophically-minded theologian whose allegorical treatment of the Bible caused him to hunt for hidden, so called “spiritual” meanings which were merely the invention of his own imagination. 

Many earnest believers are quite unaware that it was the teaching of the mystically-minded Origen about the “eternal begetting of the Son” which helped to develop the now famous teaching that Jesus is coequal and coeternal with the Father. We strongly urge that Bible students in search of saving Truth examine the roots of some of their central historic teachings. Do they really come from the Bible, or rather from the strong philosophical and Gnostic tendencies which invaded the church soon after the death of the Apostles? Paul warned us, but have we heeded? (Acts 20:28-31; II Tim 4:1ff.)"