[B-Greek] 2 John 7
Steven Lo Vullo
slovullo at mac.com
Sat Aug 21 16:14:07 EDT 2004
On Aug 18, 2004, at 9:06 PM, Mitch Larramore wrote:
> hOTI POLLOI PLANOI EXHLQON EIS TON KOSMON, hOI MH
> hOMOLOGOUNTES IHSOUN CRISTON ERCOMENON EN SARKI
>
>
> What is the significance of ERCOMENON being in the
> Present Tense? John has elsewhere warned against those
> who deny that Jesus CAME (Aorist) in the flesh.
>
> My first thought was the Present Tense was used to
> coincide with hOI hOMOLOGOUNTES, as if those whom John
> is warning against are those who currently do not
> confess 'the coming of Jesus' in the flesh.
Mitch, this is a good question. The usual answer is that ERCOMENON
(present middle participle of ERCOMAI) "treat[s] the Incarnation as a
continuing fact which the Docetic Gnostics flatly denied" (Robertson's
Word Pictures). The main evidence for this understanding is the
similarity to 1 Jn 4.2, where "we have ELHLUQOTA (perfect active
participle) in this same construction with hOMOLOGEW, because there the
reference is to the definite historical fact of the Incarnation"
(Robertson again). However, because of the stative nature of the
perfect, it seems to me that IT would better convey the idea not only
of the "definite historical fact of the incarnation," but also of "the
incarnation as a continuing fact." The present used for such a purpose
seems to me quite awkward, as if a continual coming in the flesh were
meant.
In cases of indirect discourse it is sometimes helpful to think about
what the direct discourse would be. In this case something like, IHSOUS
CRISTOS ERCETAI EN SARKI. This is what John's opponents do not confess,
or deny. I suggest that the most natural way to take this is as a
present with a future sense, a sense that is not at all foreign to
ERCOMAI in the present tense. Robertson seems to indicate that others
hold this view, since he says, "There is no allusion here to the second
coming of Christ." A NET note says, "The present participle could
suggest a reference to the (future) second advent, but based on the
similarity to 1 John 4:2 it is probably best to take it as referring to
the incarnation."
There are two main reasons people hold to the conventional view: (1)
Because of the analogy to 1 Jn 4.2; (2) Because there is no evidence of
an heretical teaching concerning the future coming of Jesus in the
flesh. I think the first begs the question and the second is an
argument from silence. It seems to me that a denial of Jesus coming
again in the flesh is a corollary of the idea that he did not come in
the flesh in the first place, or of the idea that Jesus was really a
human being, but that at his baptism the Christ spirit came upon him,
forsaking him at the crucifixion. This particular misunderstanding or
misrepresentation may have been based on passages such as John
14.16-18, where Jesus promises that the Father will give his disciples
the Spirit, immediately upon which he says, "OUK AFHSW hUMAS ORFANOUS,
ERCOMAI PROS hUMAS (note the future sense of the present). Some may
have misunderstood this as meaning the only future coming of Jesus
would be in the form of the Spirit (or in the form of spirit).
I am not rejecting out of hand the conventional view. It just seems
somewhat forced and awkward to me.
============
Steven Lo Vullo
Madison, WI
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list