The idea of the pre-existent "son" has no resonance in the NT, because it is a high Trinitarian concept not developed until much later, In the NT, "son" is identified with Jesus, not with a pre-existence Jesus, although that's not to say he didn't prexist, I note the Wiki article is written by High Trinitarians, (deduced from the name "Jerome" in "The New Jerome Biblical Commentary" which is referenced), but which High Trinitarians the epistle may well be directed against, in any case.
I try to understand and also to listen. I never get into debates about the date that the gospel of
John is written, because I don't know the necessary information. It is generally considered canon, and this term uses the term 'Logos'. The way I understand
John it is describing the creation of Jesus ministry and says in the beginning 'Was' (emphasizing past tense) the 'Logos' which was in 'Theos' and was 'Theos'. Then out of that came the life which was the light of men: Jesus or his ministry first begun through the baptist named John, whose name means 'The dove'. My bible margin would agree that the Trinity is a later understood concept: no problem for me. If I take John as the basis of my understanding of Jesus and Christ, then its to me
John's opinion that the pre-existent spirit of the Son comes and rests upon Jesus, and he is declared the adopted Son, much like a convert to Christ. No doubt this puts me into line with most unitarians, however I accept fellowship with trinitarians and consider myself one in a sense though not in the sense that many people do. Let God be true and every man a liar.
I would look at older sources for a more impartial view. This is what
Barnes' commentary has to say:
(1) the persons referred to had been professing Christians, and were now apostates from the faith. This is clear from 1
John 2:19, ‹They went out from us, but they were not of us,‘ etc. They had been members of the church, but they had now become teachers of error.
Let me point out that 1 John 2:1 begins by declaring that if anyone does sin we have an advocate. The problem with these people was that they went out, but before they went out there were signs they did not belong.
Chapter 2 we might consider a description of why they didn't belong:
- vs6 they didn't live as Jesus did.
- vs9 they hated
- vs15 they loved the world's ways
- vs17 they harboured worldly desires
This 1 John equates with the light which causes division, yet that division is do to those who hate their brother and leave. Those who hated their brother stepped out of the light. Verse 11 says accusatively "
...Anyone who hates a brother or sister is in the darkness and walks around in the darkness. They do not know where they are going, because the darkness has blinded them." Notice these people were not kicked out but left.
Returning from
1John to the gospel of
John first three chapters, same topic: That light of Jesus ministry then divides his generation of Jews into two groups: those step into the light are the good and those who do not are those whose deeds are evil. This division is mentioned by the apostle Peter in
Acts. Peter is quoted to speak about his generation as being a corrupt generation of Jews who should repent of their error, but its not that they haven't been trying to do the right thing. They have, but they just don't get the message. There is a light coming, and its dividing people. I understand this. Its a little difficult (or impossible) to put myself into the shoes of that generation or any generation of Jews. According to
John the Pharisee of his day rejects Jesus message: so he names them 'Vipers', which sounds harsh. I think its because Jesus wants them to embrace all of the Romans and just everyone, but they don't think its time, yet. They don't want to forgive that "Prodigal son" brother who took 2/3 of dad's money and blew it on carousing. They think its too early, that more needs to happen, first and that those stinking Romans need to do *something* before they can be welcomed home. Nobody likes the Roman conquerors, and Jesus is just asking for so much of the Jews to whom he preaches who have given so much and tried to hard. Thus his light causes many to stay away.
Now what does this mean for you and I, today? When the seed strikes various soils at random, how should we respond? What if we accidentally prevent a single child from going towards Jesus? Then its as if we'd be better off not having known anything about Jesus ourselves.
I would look at older sources for a more impartial view. This is what
Barnes' commentary has to say:
(1) the persons referred to had been professing Christians, and were now apostates from the faith. This is clear from 1
John 2:19, ‹They went out from us, but they were not of us,‘ etc. They had been members of the church, but they had now become teachers of error.
I mention in the comment above that they have several problems from love of worldy ways to hating their brethren, and then they leave. Teaching is not mentioned as one of their faults, however that is possible. Possibly its mentioned elsewhere in 1John and I don't remember. On the other hand I can understand leaving a church. Sometimes its just very difficult to stay, and you love the people but have to leave. This is not the situation that John is describing is it? He says they hate their brethren. This is what I think is meant by 'Antichrist', but I'm not going to leave that opinion with no support. I will attempt to consider that scholarly information (thanks) posted about the Docetae. They are a strange group.
(2) they were probably of the sect of the “Docetae;” or if that sect had not then formally sprung up, and was not organized, they held the opinions which they afterward embraced. This sect was a branch of the great Gnostic family; and the peculiarity of the opinion which they held was that Christ was only in appearance and seemingly, but not in reality, a man
The opinions of the “Docetes” are thus represented by Gibbon: “They denied the truth and authenticity of the Gospels, as far as they relate the conception of Mary, the birth of Christ, and the thirty years which preceded the first exercise of his ministry. He first appeared on the banks of the Jordan in the form of perfect manhood; but it was a form only, and not a substance; a human figure created by the hand of Omnipotence to imitate the faculties and actions of a man, and to impose a perpetual illusion on the senses of his friends and enemies.
The rage of the Jews was idly wasted against an impassive phantom, and the mystic scenes of the passion and death, the resurrection and ascension of Christ, were represented on the theater of Jerusalem for the benefit of mankind.” - Decl. and Fall, vol. iii. p. 245, Ed. New York, 1829. Compare vol. i. 440.
The Docetans sound like a nightmare in that description. Gibbons description of the Jews is poor though. He's a man of another time, so I will give him a pass on that. Gibbons in his introduction to the
Decline and Fall... says he doesn't like it when historians pretend to be perfect and unbiased and prefers that we make up our own minds about historians including himself. I respect him for saying so. His biases are plain, and its refreshing that he admits them instead of trying to pretend he's a fair judge of all things. Let me consider the comment about these Docetans, and I appreciate your studiousness in bringing them up.
That these views began to prevail in the latter part of the first century there can be no reason to doubt; and there can be as little doubt that the author of this Epistle had this doctrine in his eye, and that he deemed it to be of special importance in this Epistle, as he had done in his Gospel, to show that the Son of God had actually “come in the flesh;” that he was truly and properly a man;
Is there truly no reason to doubt that these views began to prevail? What, really, do we have that establishes it? Let us assume so for conversation's sake and also that its completely untrue. Docetans are just pulling stuff from the backside and serving it up, and its corrupting everything and is the spirit of antichrist at work. This seems to me an assumption, however though it be supported by Gibbon's comment.
...continued next post
