I John 4:3 & 2 John 1:7 - Greek help.

[nikolai_42]

I need some assistance from someone who knows NT Greek. Relatively well. First, I'll post the verses in question :

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.
I John 4:3

For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.
II John 1:7

I've underlined the portion of interest in each case. In the first instance, BLB says that the word translated "is come" (erchomai - Strongs #2064) is in the second perfect tense (with active voice. In the second instance, BLB says that the word translated "is come" (also erchomai - Strongs #2064) is in the present tense (with middle/passive deponent voice).

There may not be an issue here, but I have heard it said that at least one of the implications of this is that the spirit of antichrist denies that Christ not only came in the flesh, but (as possibly implied by II John 1:7) also comes in the flesh. The idea being that when Paul says, for example, "Christ in you the hope of glory", he is expressing a vital Christian doctrine that Christ is "in you and with you" (as Jesus Himself said to His disciples). With John's expression here, does the Greek uphold the possibility that the spirit of antichrist denies "Christ in our flesh" as Christ put it (i.e. not in the New Age pantheistic way)? Could it even be that the New Age pantheism is defined as antichrist by this verse, or is that doing something to the Greek that is not warranted?

Any insight is greatly appreciated. Thank you.

[James Peter]

I need some assistance from someone who knows NT Greek. Relatively well. First, I'll post the verses in question :

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.
I John 4:3

For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.
II John 1:7

I've underlined the portion of interest in each case. In the first instance, BLB says that the word translated "is come" (erchomai - Strongs #2064) is in the second perfect tense (with active voice. In the second instance, BLB says that the word translated "is come" (also erchomai - Strongs #2064) is in the present tense (with middle/passive deponent voice).

There may not be an issue here, but I have heard it said that at least one of the implications of this is that the spirit of antichrist denies that Christ not only came in the flesh, but (as possibly implied by II John 1:7) also comes in the flesh. The idea being that when Paul says, for example, "Christ in you the hope of glory", he is expressing a vital Christian doctrine that Christ is "in you and with you" (as Jesus Himself said to His disciples). With John's expression here, does the Greek uphold the possibility that the spirit of antichrist denies "Christ in our flesh" as Christ put it (i.e. not in the New Age pantheistic way)? Could it even be that the New Age pantheism is defined as antichrist by this verse, or is that doing something to the Greek that is not warranted?

Any insight is greatly appreciated. Thank you.

I think you're making too much of a very minor point. That fact is John often switches words and tenses with no real significance. People have wasted entire forests trying to work out the significance of using two synonyms rather than using the same word twice. Ultimately it is just a matter of the author's style and I'd translate both verses 'has come' without any reservations.

[nikolai_42]

I think you're making too much of a very minor point. That fact is John often switches words and tenses with no real significance. People have wasted entire forests trying to work out the significance of using two synonyms rather than using the same word twice. Ultimately it is just a matter of the author's style and I'd translate both verses 'has come' without any reservations.

Thank you for that response. I hadn't intended to imply that the more obvious meaning didn't still hold. Really, I was just trying to see if the difference was significant (which you have addressed). Of note, the BLB (via Strong's?) says that the difference can even be accounted for by the "fact" that the present tense of II John1:7 is also capable of being interpreted as looking at a past event from the standpoint of one viewing a panorama of history. So, while the event is past and accomplished, because it is in view at the time, it is spoken of as happening at that point in time. Is this an accurate assessment of how you would interpret it? I'm being detailed - perhaps unnecessarily so - primarily because I have no grounding in NT Greek.

[James Peter]

That is one way of explaining it. To be honest koine greek grammar is pretty fluid. Although there is a 'standard' meaning/explanation of a tense there are pretty much always others. In many languages the present is used of past events because it is more evocative and that certainly happened in greek too.

In this particular case though I wouldn't suggest that is what is happening. I'd be inclined to say that it is because they 'confess not' (present tense - they have denied it since it happened and continue to deny it and will continue to deny it) that the present is also used of the 'coming'. Ever since they first said 'Jesus hasn't come in the flesh (now)' (which although a past in english can be a present in greek) they have continued to say that.

[Rdr. Arsenios]

I need some assistance from someone who knows NT Greek. Relatively well. First, I'll post the verses in question :

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.
I John 4:3

The word in question ["is come'[ is a perfect participle, and indicates a past action with present consequences. Here is a more literal translation, wooden, yet honoring John's usage of tenses. John is one of the NT writers whose usage of tenses is especially revealing of his understanding...

"And every spirit, who is not confessing Jesus Christ in flesh has come, is not from God,
And this is that of the antichrist which you have heard that is coming and even now is."

For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.
II John 1:7

Because many corrupters came into the world, those not confessing Jesus Christ coming in the flesh. This one is the corrupter and the antichrist."

I've underlined the portion of interest in each case. In the first instance, BLB says that the word translated "is come" (erchomai - Strongs #2064) is in the second perfect tense (with active voice. In the second instance, BLB says that the word translated "is come" (also erchomai - Strongs #2064) is in the present tense (with middle/passive deponent voice).

Yes.

There may not be an issue here, but I have heard it said that at least one of the implications of this is that the spirit of antichrist denies that Christ not only came in the flesh, but (as possibly implied by II John 1:7) also comes in the flesh. The idea being that when Paul says, for example, "Christ in you the hope of glory", he is expressing a vital Christian doctrine that Christ is "in you and with you" (as Jesus Himself said to His disciples). With John's expression here, does the Greek uphold the possibility that the spirit of antichrist denies "Christ in our flesh" as Christ put it (i.e. not in the New Age pantheistic way)? Could it even be that the New Age pantheism is defined as antichrist by this verse, or is that doing something to the Greek that is not warranted?

The present participle does simply affirm Christ coming in the flesh, and this certainly does have the range of possibility of interpretation you are looking for, yet not exegetically - eg it is not implied, but does indeed suggest it...

Any insight is greatly appreciated. Thank you.

Hope that is helpful... There is a definite sense that Christ is still coming in the flesh via His Body, the Church, and the members thereof... Especially the ones that have the gifts of the Spirit, such as healing and prophesy... [eg the saints]

Arsenios