1Jn_4:2. Statement of the token by which the
πνεῦμα
τοῦ
Θεοῦ
is to be recognised.
ἐν
τούτῳ
refers to the following sentence:
πᾶν
πνεῦμα
κ
.
τ
.
λ
.
γινώσκετε
is imperative, comp.
πιστεύετε
,
δοκιμάζετε
, 1Jn_4:1.
πᾶν
πνεῦμα
ὃ
ὁμολογεῖ
Ἰησοῦν
Χριστὸν
ἐν
σαρκὶ
ἐληλυθότα
] It is arbitrary not only to change the participle
ἐληλυθότα
into the infinitive
ἐληλυθέναι
, but also to change
ἐν
into
εἰς
(so Luther, Calvin, Piscator, Sander); by
ἐν
σαρκί
the flesh, i.e. the earthly human nature, is stated as the form of being in which Christ appeared. The form of the object is explained by the polemic against Docetism; it is to be translated either: “Jesus Christ as come in the flesh” (Lücke, de Wette, Düsterdieck, Ebrard, etc.); or: “Jesus, as Christ come in the flesh;” the last interpretation has this advantage, that it not only brings out more clearly the reference to the Cerinthian Docetism,[254] but it makes it more easy to explain how the apostle in 1Jn_4:3 can designate the object simply by
ΤῸΝ
ἸΗΣΟῦΝ
. It might, however, be still more suitable to take
ἸΗΣΟῦΝ
…
ἘΛΗΛΥΘΌΤΑ
as one object = “the Jesus Christ who came in the flesh,” so that in this expression the individual elements on which John here relied in opposition to Docetism have been gathered into one; so perhaps Braune, when he says: “the form is that of a substantive objective sentence,” and “in
ἐν
σ
.
ἐλ
. it is not a predicate, but an attributive clause that is added.” That the apostle has in view not only the Cerinthian, but also the later Docetism, which attributed to the Saviour only a seeming body, cannot be proved from the form of expression used here. The commentators who deny the reference of the apostle to Docetism find themselves driven to artificial explanations; thus Socinus, who expands the participle by quamvis, and Grotius, according to whom
ἐν
σαρκί
refers to the status humilis in which Christ appeared, in contrast to the regia pompa in which the Jews expected the Messiah.[255] To exact unbelievers there can here be no reference, as, according to chap. 1Jn_2:2, the false prophets had previously belonged to the Church itself.[256] That John brings out as the token of the Spirit, that is, of God, just the confession of this particular truth, has its ground in the circumstances that have been mentioned; while it is also so very much the fundamental truth, that, as Lücke on ch. 1Jn_2:22 with justice says: “every
ψεῦδος
is contained in this and amounts to this, the denial of that truth in any sense.”[257]
[254] In the first interpretation the antithesis to the Corinthian Docetism lies not merely in the combination of
Ἰησοῦν
Χριστόν
as one name (Ebrard), but also in this, that this subject so described, which contains in it the idea
Χριστός
, is more particularly defined as having come in the flesh.
[255] Socinus: Qui confitetur Jesum Christum i.e. eum pro suo servatore ac domino et denique vero Christo habet, quamvis is in carne venerit h. e. homo fuerit, non modo mortalis, sed infinitis malis obnoxius. Without any ground, Baumgarten-Crusius asserts: “If any force were to be assigned to the predicate: come in the flesh, the infinitive would have been used.”—Brückner thinks that if in ver. 3 the shorter reading (without the apposition) be the correct one, the reference to Docetism is here uncertain and unnecessary; but the uncertain expression is plainly to be interpreted in accordance with the more certain, and not, contrariwise, the latter in accordance with the former.
[257] Augustine peculiarly turns this sentence against the Donatists, whom he reproaches with a denial of their love, on account of their separation from the Catholic Church, when he says that John speaks here of a denial of Christ not merely by word, but also by deed: quisquis non habet charitatem negat Christum in carne venisse; so Bede: ipse est Spiritus Dei, qui dicit Jesum Christum in carne venisse, qui dicit non lingua, sed factis, non sonando, sed amando.