A Question concerning 2 John 1:7

[Pancho Frijoles]

Would that exclude the Father?

It cannot exclude the Father because "The Father" and "God" are two names of the same person.
Jesus said that The Father was the Only True God.
Paul said that for us there is only one God, The Father.

"God", then, is a category that belongs only to One Person, The Father.
For all practical purposes, God is One Person, and that's why it is treated in the Bible as One Person.
Indeed, that's why you and me relate to God, love God, pray to God, speak about God, as One Person.
We say He is God. Not "They are God" or "It is God".

 

[Dizerner]

---"Well, I think God can create a stone so heavy as to hit your head with it and wake you up!"

That's pretty funny. From a technical standpoint the answer is, "God cannot do that which is undefined as it has no meaning."

There are things that are intrinsic to the idea or definition of God. So, there is no logical contradiction in saying that God cannot be or do X or Y when X or Y are incompatible with the attributes of God. For example, since being good is intrinsic to God, God cannot do evil. Since being truthful is intrinsic to God, God cannot lie. Since immortality is intrinsic to God, God cannot die, etc.

However, God has free will, and freely chose to be good and truthful, rather than being forced to. God is maximal in every way, and to be maximally virtuous he cannot have been forced to do the right thing by his nature, as choosing to do right is always an added virtuous thing.

Well... to humble means to recognize that truth of being less, or at least at the same level, than something or somebody else. Humbleness implies that being less or at least equal to X is true. Otherwise it would not be humbleness, but stupidity or concealed vanity. For example, when Lionel Messi was the best soccer player in the world, it was perfectly right for him to consider himself the best. If he had said otherwise, trying to appear "humble", he would have lied. So, since God is supreme above everything and everyone else, and that is true, God cannot humble himself, by definition.

You've thought things through more than the average person and I can appreciate that. There is another aspect of humility though, that you did not consider here. There is a humility that acknowledges you are less than something else, but there is also a humility that is a willingness to take less than you deserve, to go associate with those beneath you, to help those who are unworthy of your help. And in this sense one of the attributes of God is, surprisingly, humility. If you think about it, it was an act of humility for God to create anything and allow such a greatness as himself to even be shared when he had utter and perfect contentment. But God goes so much farther, God becomes one of us to save he, God is willing to be with us when we are offensive and undeserving of him, and give to us when we do nothing in return, and forgive us when we cannot adequately repay him; he lowers himself to become a created thing, and even more, so much more, to put upon himself our very own sin and wear it as his own, and take the death penalty that we ourselves deserve on our behalf. God, being maximally great and maximally supreme, also has one more accolade to his name: he is the most humble thing in existence.

There are some people confuse God's humility with him giving up his authority, power and glory, and this is a mistake and a presumption, a sin we simply must not commit, or we have lost all true respect and reverence for God. And this fact makes us all the more amazed, and all the more grateful at God's humility, since it was completely unnecessary and uncoerced. This is also part of the reasons Muslims and Calvinists really hate to think of God as humble, they see it as God giving something up, which they would be unwilling to give up if they were God; they want God to be like them.

 

[Fred]

"God", then, is a category that belongs only to One Person, The Father.

F

Post in thread 'The Bible does not teach to pray to Jesus'

Sep 26, 2024

These ones:

(Rom 9:5) To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.

Which proves the Lord Jesus (God) is the Creator.

The Creator = God
Romans 1:25
the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
Romans 9:5
who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.

Romans 1:25
ton ktisanta hos estin eulogētos eis tous aiōnas amēn
Romans 9:5
ho ōn epi pantōn theos eulogētos eis tous aiōnas amēn



Not only that it also proves the Lord Jesus (God) is...

• Fred

 

[mikesw]

It cannot exclude the Father because "The Father" and "God" are two names of the same person.
Jesus said that The Father was the Only True God.
Paul said that for us there is only one God, The Father.

"God", then, is a category that belongs only to One Person, The Father.
For all practical purposes, God is One Person, and that's why it is treated in the Bible as One Person.
Indeed, that's why you and me relate to God, love God, pray to God, speak about God, as One Person.
We say He is God. Not "They are God" or "It is God".

How come you cannot seem to ever match with what Christians find obvious in scripture? It is not like you are correcting any idea in a convincing way.

 

[Dizerner]

Of course it does make him less divine than His Father, Joe.

• God doesn't speak what other person asks Him to speak, nor does what other person asks Him to do.
• God is not the Messenger or Ambassador of anyone.
• God can't say that He doesn't do things on his own authority.
• God can't say there is another greater than Him, nor that He doesn't know things that other knows.
• God is not sent by anyone, nor raised by anyone, nor exalted to heaven by anyone, nor invited to sit at the right of anyone. On the contrary, God is who sends, raises, exalts and invites to site at his right.
• God does not intercede for men before any other authority, because He is The Authority.

Actually, God can do all those things.

You may attempt to bring a logical contradiction, but by so doing, you will have lessened and limited God.

 

[civic]

The quotation there does not mean that God makes Himself less than or equal to his creation. You know it. We all know it. So don't play games here of things we both know !

The word "humbles himself" is just a poetic way to say that God "is graceful enough", "corteous enough" as to take care of the little things that could never compare to Him. Two examples of this:

• We can say that God "humbles himself" to feed the birds. This doesn't mean that God degrades his status to the level of a bird, or an ornithologist, or an aviary caregiver.
• If Lionel Messi accepted to play soccer with you and me for 30 min, we would say that Messi "humbled himself" to play with us. It does not mean that Lionel Messi degraded his status as the best soccer player in the world.

There is nothing degrading or negative about humility it’s a quality of God.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Actually, God can do all those things.

You may attempt to bring a logical contradiction, but by so doing, you will have lessened and limited God.

As I have said, we don’t limit God when we say He can’t be what He is not.

Otherwise, we could call “God” a cup of coffee. What prevents God from becoming a cup of coffee that smells like coffee and tastes like coffee ?
If God can be anything He wants, then we could say that both pantheists and theists are right… that Trinitatirans and Unitarians are both right…Because God can be personal and impersonal, triune and One at the same time… that God can be everything, something specific and nothing at all… whenever He wants.

In summary, we all know that God’s essence is beyond our imagination, but in the context of a God revealed, believed, loved, worshiped by men, His attributes should be minimally intelligible to man. Otherwise, what’s the point of revelation?

So, when I say that God cannot be the Messenger of anyone else, or that He can’t say there ie someone greater than Him, I’m just stating the obvious, my friend.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

There is nothing degrading or negative about humility it’s a quality of God.

There is nothing negative or degrading in sexual arousal, but God cannot feel sexual arousal.
God cannot experience sexual arousal because He does not need any similar Being to reproduce.

By the same token, God cannot be humble because humbleness implies that God is less than or at least equal to another thing or person.
Please let’s be consistent with concepts. Humbless cannot mean just anything we want. Same with justice or love or mercy.

 

[mikesw]

There is nothing negative or degrading in sexual arousal, but God cannot feel sexual arousal.
God cannot experience sexual arousal because He does not need any similar Being to reproduce.

By the same token, God cannot be humble because humbleness implies that God is less than or at least equal to another thing or person.
Please let’s be consistent with concepts. Humbless cannot mean just anything we want. Same with justice or love or mercy.

scripture says he experienced all the temptations that we all face. This allowed him to be a heartfelt priest to all that we encounter in life. It helps to be familiar with such passages when you want to deny what God has done for our sake.
Heb 4:14-15 (NKJV)
Seeing then that we have a great High Priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin.

Pancho Frijoles shares philosophical preferences rather than a knowledge of the true God. God was confronting pride among Jews and gentiles. The best way he was able to confront that was by humbling himself to be among humanity. That is a good and gracious God who is able to do that for us, especially around people who deny who God is.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

There is another aspect of humility though, that you did not consider here. There is a humility that acknowledges you are less than something else, but there is also a humility that is a willingness to take less than you deserve, to go associate with those beneath you, to help those who are unworthy of your help.

Yes. Beautiful and uplifting thought.

And in this sense one of the attributes of God is, surprisingly, humility. If you think about it, it was an act of humility for God to create anything and allow such a greatness as himself to even be shared when he had utter and perfect contentment.

Yes, Absolutely, my friend.
As a footnote to your comment, in Islam this is the meaning of being Ar-Raham, The Most Merciful. God’s mercy is said to penetrate and bless all creation.

But God goes so much farther, God becomes one of us

Now you went too far. God’s “associative humility”, that you have so vibrantly described, is possible precisely because He is Supreme.
God can interact with flesh, wood or stone, but can’t become flesh, wood, or stone
God can interact with dependent and mortal beings, but can’t become dependent and mortal.
Such a thing would be Paganism.

Paul explained this concept to the Pagan Greeks in the Areopagus. For them, The line between gods and humans had been always blurred. The Gods could, for example, have sex with mortals and beget demigods.
“God who made the world and all things in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by hands. Nor is He served by men’s hands, as though He needed anything, since He gives all men life and breath and all things… we ought not to suppose that the Deity is like gold or silver or stone or an engraved work of art or an image of the reflection of man.” (Acts 17:24,25, 29)
Having established the trascendence of the One and True God, Paul then introduces Jesús calling Him a Man: “For He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by a Man whom He has appointed…”

 

[civic]

There is nothing negative or degrading in sexual arousal, but God cannot feel sexual arousal.
God cannot experience sexual arousal because He does not need any similar Being to reproduce.

By the same token, God cannot be humble because humbleness implies that God is less than or at least equal to another thing or person.
Please let’s be consistent with concepts. Humbless cannot mean just anything we want. Same with justice or love or mercy.

Comparing humility a character trait to sex a function of man for procreation is comparing apples to oranges. Your analogies are horrible to say the least

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Comparing humility a character trait to sex a function of man for procreation is comparing apples to oranges. Your analogies are horrible to say the least

I was comparing two things that are incompatible with the essence of God.
There are many more examples we could think of.
For example, God doesn’t need to learn Aramaic and carpentry even when learning those things may be good for men.
He can’t learn them because He already knows them.
God doesn’t need oxygen, water, proteins, and other nutrients to survive… that’s incompatible to the nature of God.

Jesus had to learn Aramaic when he was a toddler, and perhaps carpentry when he grew up. His survival depended on the provision of oxygen, water and nutrients. So He cannot be God, by definition.

In short, God cannot become flesh literally, because then He would be finite and mortal, which is incompatible with his essence.

 

[dwight92070]

The number one test to distinguish truth for error and the Spirit of God from that of the spirit of antichrist is the confession of our divine Lord Jesus Christ. Every spirit that confesses Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God. There is one thing the spirit of antichrist will deny and that is they will deny He is God in the flesh- that He is fully God and fully man. They will deny God in human flesh. They will always deny the Incarnation which was permanent. When a person affirms that Jesus Christ is God in flesh that equates to divine truth. Every spirit that confesses meaning to continually confess or agrees with saying the same thing as John declares in his writings is from God. This is the person who is taught by the Spirit of God according to John. The first test that you want to have for any teacher is their Christology, check out what they say about Christ. This becomes a litmus test that is very easy to spot among the false teachers. If you have somebody who denies the deity of Christ you have a clear indication they are of the spirit of antichrist , a false teacher like these gnostics in Johns day that were already in the early church.

If we go back to the beginning of 1 John, we read that which we he beheld, and actually touched concerning the Word of life. That is a term expressing the very deity of Christ. Christ emanates from God as His living Word. He was with the Father in the beginning in 1:2. Jesus was One with the Father sharing the same essence with the Father in heaven with Him before the foundation of the world. John says He was manifested to us. John's language then starts out with the fact that Jesus Christ emanates from God as the very living Word of God. Jesus is the living Word of God,the One John says that was from the beginning that we heard, we saw and we touched. Jesus the Word of life was the eternal One who was with the Father prior to His Incarnation and was then manifested to us in the flesh that we could see and hear and touch according to John. Therefore, we can clearly see Jesus is the very Word of God Incarnate. He is the eternal life who became flesh. The Word who was with God, the Word who was God, was the One who John says was manifested to us. This is how we can tell the spirit of truth from the spirit of antichrist. Can you confess Jesus is God Incarnate?

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

2 John 1:7
For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist.

Erchomenon the present participle in 2 John 1:7- Below here are just a few of many Greek Scholars/ Theologians have to say is the meaning.


Alford- the present tense is timeless(pg 274 RNTC on 2 John)

Brooke- the Incarnation is not only an event in history, it is an abiding truth(pg 274 RNTC on 2 John)

Stott- the two natures manhood and Godhood were united already at His birth, never to be divided. In 1 John 4:2 and here in 2 John 7 emphasizes this permanent union of the natures in the One Person ( TNTC pages 209-210) He who denies the Incarnation is not just a deceiver and an antichrist but “the deceiver and the antichrist”. There is in this heresy a double affront: it opposes Christ and deceives men.(stott TNCT page 210)

Marshall- the use of the present and perfect tenses becomes significant if the point is that Jesus Christ had come and still existed “in flesh”. For him(John) it was axiomatic that there had been a true Incarnation, that the word became flesh and remained flesh. It is a point that receives much stress in 1 John 2:18-28;4:1-6;5:5-8. (NICNT pages 70-71)

Smalley- the present tense emphasizes the permanent union of the human and Divine natures in Jesus. Gods self disclosure in Jesus took place at a particular moment in history , but it has continuing effects in the present and into the future(Word Biblical Commentary page 317)

Nicoll- the continuous manifestation of the Incarnate Christ(Expositors Greek Testament Volume 5 page 202)


Akin- Much has been made of the fact that John uses the present tense in this Christological confession. Literally the verse reads, “Jesus Christ coming in flesh.” “Coming” is a present active participle. This stands out in remarkable contrast to the affirmation of 1 John 4:2, where the text states that “Jesus Christ has [emphasis mine] come in the flesh.” There the perfect active participle is used. The key, it seems, is to discover what John is affirming. Here in 2 John the emphasis falls on the abiding reality of the incarnation. First John 4:2 teaches that the Christ, the Father’s Son (v. 3), has come in the flesh. Second John affirms that the wedding of deity and humanity has an abiding reality (cf. 1 Tim 2:5). The ontological and essential nature of the incarnation that would receive eloquent expression one thousand years later in the writing of St. Anselm (1033–1109) in his classic Cur Deus Homo is already present in seed form in the tiny and neglected letter of 2 John.


Lenski- In 1 John 4:2 we have ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθότα, the perfect participle, “as having come in flesh” (incarnate, John 1:14); here we have ἐρχόμενον ἐν σαρκί, “as coming in flesh,” although the participle is present in form it is really timeless.of Christ as "still being manifested." See the note at 1 John 3:5. In 1 John 4:2 we have the manifestation treated as a past fact by the perfect tense, ‎eleeluthota ‎"has come

Robertson- That Jesus Christ cometh in the flesh ‎Ieesoun ‎‎Christon ‎‎erchomenon ‎‎en ‎‎sarki‎. "Jesus Christ coming in the flesh." Present middle participle of ‎erchomai ‎treating the Incarnation as a continuing fact which the Docetic Gnostics flatly denied. In 1 John 4:2 we have ‎eleeluthota ‎(perfect active participle) in this same construction with ‎homologeoo‎, because there the reference is to the definite historical fact of the Incarnation.


Vincent- Is come ‎erchomenon‎. Wrong. The verb is in the present participle, "coming," which describes the manhood

hope this helps !!!

The number one test to distinguish truth for error and the Spirit of God from that of the spirit of antichrist is the confession of our divine Lord Jesus Christ. Every spirit that confesses Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God. There is one thing the spirit of antichrist will deny and that is they will deny He is God in the flesh- that He is fully God and fully man. They will deny God in human flesh. They will always deny the Incarnation which was permanent. When a person affirms that Jesus Christ is God in flesh that equates to divine truth. Every spirit that confesses meaning to continually confess or agrees with saying the same thing as John declares in his writings is from God. This is the person who is taught by the Spirit of God according to John. The first test that you want to have for any teacher is their Christology, check out what they say about Christ. This becomes a litmus test that is very easy to spot among the false teachers. If you have somebody who denies the deity of Christ you have a clear indication they are of the spirit of antichrist , a false teacher like these gnostics in Johns day that were already in the early church.

If we go back to the beginning of 1 John, we read that which we he beheld, and actually touched concerning the Word of life. That is a term expressing the very deity of Christ. Christ emanates from God as His living Word. He was with the Father in the beginning in 1:2. Jesus was One with the Father sharing the same essence with the Father in heaven with Him before the foundation of the world. John says He was manifested to us. John's language then starts out with the fact that Jesus Christ emanates from God as the very living Word of God. Jesus is the living Word of God,the One John says that was from the beginning that we heard, we saw and we touched. Jesus the Word of life was the eternal One who was with the Father prior to His Incarnation and was then manifested to us in the flesh that we could see and hear and touch according to John. Therefore, we can clearly see Jesus is the very Word of God Incarnate. He is the eternal life who became flesh. The Word who was with God, the Word who was God, was the One who John says was manifested to us. This is how we can tell the spirit of truth from the spirit of antichrist. Can you confess Jesus is God Incarnate?

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

2 John 1:7
For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist.

Erchomenon the present participle in 2 John 1:7- Below here are just a few of many Greek Scholars/ Theologians have to say is the meaning.


Alford- the present tense is timeless(pg 274 RNTC on 2 John)

Brooke- the Incarnation is not only an event in history, it is an abiding truth(pg 274 RNTC on 2 John)

Stott- the two natures manhood and Godhood were united already at His birth, never to be divided. In 1 John 4:2 and here in 2 John 7 emphasizes this permanent union of the natures in the One Person ( TNTC pages 209-210) He who denies the Incarnation is not just a deceiver and an antichrist but “the deceiver and the antichrist”. There is in this heresy a double affront: it opposes Christ and deceives men.(stott TNCT page 210)

Marshall- the use of the present and perfect tenses becomes significant if the point is that Jesus Christ had come and still existed “in flesh”. For him(John) it was axiomatic that there had been a true Incarnation, that the word became flesh and remained flesh. It is a point that receives much stress in 1 John 2:18-28;4:1-6;5:5-8. (NICNT pages 70-71)

Smalley- the present tense emphasizes the permanent union of the human and Divine natures in Jesus. Gods self disclosure in Jesus took place at a particular moment in history , but it has continuing effects in the present and into the future(Word Biblical Commentary page 317)

Nicoll- the continuous manifestation of the Incarnate Christ(Expositors Greek Testament Volume 5 page 202)


Akin- Much has been made of the fact that John uses the present tense in this Christological confession. Literally the verse reads, “Jesus Christ coming in flesh.” “Coming” is a present active participle. This stands out in remarkable contrast to the affirmation of 1 John 4:2, where the text states that “Jesus Christ has [emphasis mine] come in the flesh.” There the perfect active participle is used. The key, it seems, is to discover what John is affirming. Here in 2 John the emphasis falls on the abiding reality of the incarnation. First John 4:2 teaches that the Christ, the Father’s Son (v. 3), has come in the flesh. Second John affirms that the wedding of deity and humanity has an abiding reality (cf. 1 Tim 2:5). The ontological and essential nature of the incarnation that would receive eloquent expression one thousand years later in the writing of St. Anselm (1033–1109) in his classic Cur Deus Homo is already present in seed form in the tiny and neglected letter of 2 John.


Lenski- In 1 John 4:2 we have ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθότα, the perfect participle, “as having come in flesh” (incarnate, John 1:14); here we have ἐρχόμενον ἐν σαρκί, “as coming in flesh,” although the participle is present in form it is really timeless.of Christ as "still being manifested." See the note at 1 John 3:5. In 1 John 4:2 we have the manifestation treated as a past fact by the perfect tense, ‎eleeluthota ‎"has come

Robertson- That Jesus Christ cometh in the flesh ‎Ieesoun ‎‎Christon ‎‎erchomenon ‎‎en ‎‎sarki‎. "Jesus Christ coming in the flesh." Present middle participle of ‎erchomai ‎treating the Incarnation as a continuing fact which the Docetic Gnostics flatly denied. In 1 John 4:2 we have ‎eleeluthota ‎(perfect active participle) in this same construction with ‎homologeoo‎, because there the reference is to the definite historical fact of the Incarnation.


Vincent- Is come ‎erchomenon‎. Wrong. The verb is in the present participle, "coming," which describes the manhood

hope this helps !!!

1 John 4:2 If Christ has come in the flesh, then what was He before? Obviously something other than flesh - a Spirit. This verse implies that He did preexist and that His preexistence was NOT in the flesh. And since He preexisted, then He had to be God, because no man has ever preexisted before he was born on earth.

Hebrews 2:14 "Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, and might free those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives."

If Jesus "partook" of "flesh and blood", then what was He before He was flesh and blood? Again we see preexistence here, an eternal Spirit, and One who is God. The fact that Jesus' death had such a devastating affect on Satan and a powerful freeing affect on us, also displays His Deity. No man has that kind of power.

 

[dwight92070]

I was comparing two things that are incompatible with the essence of God.
There are many more examples we could think of.
For example, God doesn’t need to learn Aramaic and carpentry even when learning those things may be good for men.
He can’t learn them because He already knows them.
God doesn’t need oxygen, water, proteins, and other nutrients to survive… that’s incompatible to the nature of God.

Jesus had to learn Aramaic when he was a toddler, and perhaps carpentry when he grew up. His survival depended on the provision of oxygen, water and nutrients. So He cannot be God, by definition.

In short, God cannot become flesh literally, because then He would be finite and mortal, which is incompatible with his essence.

 

[dwight92070]

"There is one thing the spirit of antichrist will deny and that is they will deny He is God in the flesh- that He is fully God and fully man. They will deny God in human flesh. They will always deny the Incarnation which was permanent."

 

[dwight92070]

The number one test to distinguish truth for error and the Spirit of God from that of the spirit of antichrist is the confession of our divine Lord Jesus Christ. Every spirit that confesses Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God. There is one thing the spirit of antichrist will deny and that is they will deny He is God in the flesh- that He is fully God and fully man. They will deny God in human flesh. They will always deny the Incarnation which was permanent. When a person affirms that Jesus Christ is God in flesh that equates to divine truth. Every spirit that confesses meaning to continually confess or agrees with saying the same thing as John declares in his writings is from God. This is the person who is taught by the Spirit of God according to John. The first test that you want to have for any teacher is their Christology, check out what they say about Christ. This becomes a litmus test that is very easy to spot among the false teachers. If you have somebody who denies the deity of Christ you have a clear indication they are of the spirit of antichrist , a false teacher like these gnostics in Johns day that were already in the early church.

If we go back to the beginning of 1 John, we read that which we he beheld, and actually touched concerning the Word of life. That is a term expressing the very deity of Christ. Christ emanates from God as His living Word. He was with the Father in the beginning in 1:2. Jesus was One with the Father sharing the same essence with the Father in heaven with Him before the foundation of the world. John says He was manifested to us. John's language then starts out with the fact that Jesus Christ emanates from God as the very living Word of God. Jesus is the living Word of God,the One John says that was from the beginning that we heard, we saw and we touched. Jesus the Word of life was the eternal One who was with the Father prior to His Incarnation and was then manifested to us in the flesh that we could see and hear and touch according to John. Therefore, we can clearly see Jesus is the very Word of God Incarnate. He is the eternal life who became flesh. The Word who was with God, the Word who was God, was the One who John says was manifested to us. This is how we can tell the spirit of truth from the spirit of antichrist. Can you confess Jesus is God Incarnate?

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

2 John 1:7
For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist.

Erchomenon the present participle in 2 John 1:7- Below here are just a few of many Greek Scholars/ Theologians have to say is the meaning.


Alford- the present tense is timeless(pg 274 RNTC on 2 John)

Brooke- the Incarnation is not only an event in history, it is an abiding truth(pg 274 RNTC on 2 John)

Stott- the two natures manhood and Godhood were united already at His birth, never to be divided. In 1 John 4:2 and here in 2 John 7 emphasizes this permanent union of the natures in the One Person ( TNTC pages 209-210) He who denies the Incarnation is not just a deceiver and an antichrist but “the deceiver and the antichrist”. There is in this heresy a double affront: it opposes Christ and deceives men.(stott TNCT page 210)

Marshall- the use of the present and perfect tenses becomes significant if the point is that Jesus Christ had come and still existed “in flesh”. For him(John) it was axiomatic that there had been a true Incarnation, that the word became flesh and remained flesh. It is a point that receives much stress in 1 John 2:18-28;4:1-6;5:5-8. (NICNT pages 70-71)

Smalley- the present tense emphasizes the permanent union of the human and Divine natures in Jesus. Gods self disclosure in Jesus took place at a particular moment in history , but it has continuing effects in the present and into the future(Word Biblical Commentary page 317)

Nicoll- the continuous manifestation of the Incarnate Christ(Expositors Greek Testament Volume 5 page 202)


Akin- Much has been made of the fact that John uses the present tense in this Christological confession. Literally the verse reads, “Jesus Christ coming in flesh.” “Coming” is a present active participle. This stands out in remarkable contrast to the affirmation of 1 John 4:2, where the text states that “Jesus Christ has [emphasis mine] come in the flesh.” There the perfect active participle is used. The key, it seems, is to discover what John is affirming. Here in 2 John the emphasis falls on the abiding reality of the incarnation. First John 4:2 teaches that the Christ, the Father’s Son (v. 3), has come in the flesh. Second John affirms that the wedding of deity and humanity has an abiding reality (cf. 1 Tim 2:5). The ontological and essential nature of the incarnation that would receive eloquent expression one thousand years later in the writing of St. Anselm (1033–1109) in his classic Cur Deus Homo is already present in seed form in the tiny and neglected letter of 2 John.


Lenski- In 1 John 4:2 we have ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθότα, the perfect participle, “as having come in flesh” (incarnate, John 1:14); here we have ἐρχόμενον ἐν σαρκί, “as coming in flesh,” although the participle is present in form it is really timeless.of Christ as "still being manifested." See the note at 1 John 3:5. In 1 John 4:2 we have the manifestation treated as a past fact by the perfect tense, ‎eleeluthota ‎"has come

Robertson- That Jesus Christ cometh in the flesh ‎Ieesoun ‎‎Christon ‎‎erchomenon ‎‎en ‎‎sarki‎. "Jesus Christ coming in the flesh." Present middle participle of ‎erchomai ‎treating the Incarnation as a continuing fact which the Docetic Gnostics flatly denied. In 1 John 4:2 we have ‎eleeluthota ‎(perfect active participle) in this same construction with ‎homologeoo‎, because there the reference is to the definite historical fact of the Incarnation.


Vincent- Is come ‎erchomenon‎. Wrong. The verb is in the present participle, "coming," which describes the manhood

hope this helps !!!

So according to your post, we have several antiChrist's right here on this forum.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

"There is one thing the spirit of antichrist will deny and that is they will deny He is God in the flesh- that He is fully God and fully man. They will deny God in human flesh. They will always deny the Incarnation which was permanent."

What the Bible says is that the antichrist denies (present tense, not future tense) that Jesus Christ (not God) came in the flesh.
I say this because many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist. (2 John 1:7)

In those times, certain people of Gnostic leanings believed that Jesus Christ could not have contaminated himself with a human body, because material things and the material world were evil. As a consequence, they promoted a life of ascetism that denied the family and society.

 

[civic]

So according to your post, we have several antiChrist's right here on this forum.

Yes They had them in the church in John’s day and we gave them in our day. Wolves in sheeps clothing. Tares among the wheat. But there is a theological , doctrinal test to expose them.

 

[dwight92070]

Pancho,
I gave you 26 exhibits, A to Z, proving scripturally that Jesus is God. Then you challenged me to go through the entire New Testament to show where He is said to be God. I was doing that, going through each book, but apparently you grew tired of being proven wrong so many times, that you backed out of your challenge.