Ted titles the next point the "Tradition of Jesus in the Flesh." He is responding to #15 on Doherty's list, which has to do with the way Christians of rival sects around the year 100 were defending their positions. By this time there was a dispute about whether Jesus had "come in the flesh." Some said he had, some said he had not. (The current dispute is over which ones represented original Christianity and which were the latecomers.)
The author of I John is unambiguous: "This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God" (4:2). So what is the problem? What is the author silent about? Doherty tells us:
One would expect that by this time Christians possessed a body of material regarded as proceeding from Jesus himself, transmitted to them over the decades through a chain of authorized apostles and community leaders, a process of transmission through "apostolic tradition." Yet such an idea is nowhere to be found in any of the epistles (cf. 2 Cor. 11:4). We do not encounter even the barest concept of a teaching passed on between generations, arising out of an apostolic past attached ultimately to Jesus. Instead, doctrine comes directly through revelation from God, inspired by the Holy Spirit, though some "spirits" may come from the devil.
Ted's response is a mixture of bluster and irrelevancies. He begins by flatly denying the plain words of Paul and the author of I John: "The tradition that Jesus had lived on earth in the flesh goes back to the apostles who had known and followed Jesus on earth, not a belief guided by a spirit." Then, apparently thinking it will prove this assertion, he quotes two of the gospels. I don't think Ted is an inerrantist, but this is the sort of circular argument, using the Bible to prove the Bible, for which inerrantists are so famous.
Back to I John itself, Ted asks rhetorically, "Does the author appeal to an apostolic tradition or eyewitness testimony?" as if there were any question about that. But in his next sentence, he notes that Doherty infers, from the apparently uncontested fact that "the author doesn't appeal to a tradition" that "there was no such tradition." But that is not exactly Doherty's argument. His argument is not "The author of I John does not appeal to a tradition, therefore there was no tradition." His argument is: "Nobody throughout the first century appeals to a tradition, therefore there probably was no tradition until some time into the second century."
He furthermore observes: "Nor is there any suggestion that the dissidents are renegades rejecting a long-held view, such as would be the case with docetists." Ted counters by quoting some passages that could be interpreted in any of a dozen ways and then concluding that the author's adversaries "could indeed have been dissidents who were rejecting a long-held view." But Doherty didn't say they couldn't have been. All he says is that the author gives us no reason to think they must have been.
Ted simply flounders through his next paragraph. He raises "another possibility" that presumes verse 4:2 "was poorly worded." This is followed by:
Note that verse 3 doesn't say "3and every spirit that does not confess Jesus has come in the flesh is not from God." This verse doesn't have the words "has come in the flesh", as one might expect if the opposing view was rejecting that Jesus had lived on earth, since it is praising the right viewpoint.
There seems to be some dispute among translators about whether the words are actually in there. Here is I John 4:3 according to the KJV:
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.
So, the phrase "is come in the flesh" is there. But, not in the ASV:
and every spirit that confesseth not Jesus is not of God: and this is the spirit of the antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it cometh; and now it is in the world already.
I'm assuming that this reflects a variation among the extant manuscripts of I John. Apparently, some have the phrase and some don't. I also suspect that the ones that don't have it are more likely to be true to what was originally written. It does not follow, though, that verse 2 failed to accurately convey the author's intended point. Ted is suggesting that he would have felt obliged in verse 3 to repeat verbatim what he had said in verse 2. That is assuming entirely too much about his rhetorical habits.
Ted next argues:
The author no where seems concerned with proving through scripture or any other means that Jesus had been of the flesh, nor that he had been the Christ, so it is hard to tell for sure what the antichrists in either chapter (2 or 4) were claiming.
I agree that we cannot know for sure what the author's adversaries were actually claiming. In any debate, that is always the case when the historical record preserves the arguments of only one side. We can never assume that impassioned advocates will accurately present their opponents' viewpoints. But in this case, whatever his adversaries were actually saying, the author is telling his readers that they must believe "that that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh," and the context clearly implies that some people were claiming something to the contrary. Why even bring it up, if there were no dispute of any sort on that particular issue?
So why, then, does the author fail to present any proof "through scripture or any other means"? Because he has none and he knows it, that's why. None, that is, except the knowledge given by the spirit to true believers. The author is saying: "I know I'm right because God told me I'm right, and you'd better believe what I tell you or you'll be sorry come judgment day." That is essentially what Paul told his readers, and it is what countless apologists are still saying almost 2,000 years later.
Elsewhere on his Web site, Doherty observes:
The writer seems to be telling us that some Christians are going about claiming that the heavenly Jesus Christ was not incarnated. Even more startling, in 4:5 the writer reveals that to these deniers of the incarnation "the world listens." In 2 John 7-11, we can see that some Christian circles welcome such "deceivers" into their houses and give them greeting. How could such a radical rejection of traditional belief and history itself gain this kind of hearing?
Ted responds: "The writer of 2 John doesn't say they were welcomed. It says not to welcome such people." Strictly speaking, it is true that the writer "doesn't say they were welcomed." But why waste perfectly good (and expensive) ink and papyrus telling people not to do something if they're not doing it? The author clearly thought it was at least possible that some of his readers would at least consider making these folks welcome. Why would he worry about that if the Christian community was hearing all these stories about Jesus' time on earth, stories that came with assurances that they originated among men who had known the man up close and personal? If those stories were current, why could the author of I John say no more against those who disputed them than, "They are antichrist" and "they don't have the spirit of God"?
According to Ted, the author "doesn't say that he believes that Jesus was of the flesh only because he had the right spirit." Well, no, but he doesn't give any other reason for his believing it, either. Ted follows by quoting nine passages from the first epistle and then observing: "As written, though very poetic and not always clear, there is clearly a strong theme of an earthly Jesus, known from the 'beginning' of the sect, by the author." That is, of course, how orthodox Christianity has interpreted those passages during most of the past two millennia, but it is only an interpretation. Ted's confidence that it is the only interpretation that makes any sense is proof of nothing except the assumptions that he brings to his analysis of them.
Ted then digresses to a response, not to Doherty's "Top 20" but to his separate essay "Solution to the First Epistle of John," hoping to refute Doherty's claim that, in Ted's words, "the epistle actually began as a Jewish writing, and over time insertions were made first to a Paul-like spiritual Son, and later to a flesh and blood Jesus." Since that has nothing directly to do with Doherty's "Top 20" argument, I won't address it here.
Next
Previous
This page last updated on August 4, 2010.