[B-Greek] 1 John 4:2 and 2 John 7

George F Somsel gfsomsel at yahoo.com
Thu Dec 30 10:16:20 EST 2010

What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?  This was a question raised by Tertullian 
indicating that philosophy and the Christian faith were two different animals.  
I ask you, "What has Paul to do with 1 John?"  How do you propose to compare 
Paul's use of the phrase with that of the author of 1 John?  One author will not 
infrequently use a word or phrase in a different sense from that of a different 
author.  Nevertheless, in 1 Cor 8.6, εἷς κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς hEIS KURIOS 
IHSOUS XRISTOS **IS** used as a proper name much as I might refer to Judas 
the son of Mattathias as Judas Maccabeus even though Maccabeus was a term 
applied to him signifying "hammer"  just as Charles Martel was similarly Charles 
the Hammer.  Both had these terms applied to them as a result of their military 
exploits.  Similarly, "Christ" was originally a term signifying "the annointed" 
in keeping with the OT practice of anointing priests and kings.  In all 
three cases we tend to use the two terms together as the designation and name of 
one person -- Judas Maccabeus, Charles Martel and Jesus Christ.  It was not 
always thus.  originally "Judas" was a name and "Maccabeus" was a descriptor.  
"Jesus" was a name and "Christ" was a descriptor.  Attention must be paid to 
which author uses it in which way.  The author of 1 John is rather consistent in 
using the two together as a complete name "Jesus Christ" much as I might say 
"Carl Conrad" rather than "Carl the Conrad."  Note how this is handled in 1 Jn 
2.22 where it has ὅτι Ἰησοῦς οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ χριστός hOTI IHSOUS OUK EST hO 
XRISTOS.  There the author explicitly puts the article in to signify that he is 
using χριστός XRISTOS not as a part of the name but as a nominal descriptor of 
the name "Jesus" (similarly in 5.1).  In 4.2, however, we have ὃ ὁμολογεῖ Ἰησοῦν 
Χριστὸν hO hOMOLOGEI IHSOUN XRISTON, not ὃ ὁμολογεῖ Ἰησοῦν ἐστιν ὁ Χριστὸν hO 
hOMOLOGEI IHSOUN ESTIN hO XRISTON.  Attention must be paid to the way a 
particular author uses these terms and to the fact that another author may use 
them differently.  You simply cannot simply equate one author's usage with that 
of a different author.  In the case of 1 Cor 8.6 which you cite, however, Paul 
uses it as does the author of 1 Jn in the sense of "Jesus Christ", not "Jesus 
the Christ."  When the author of 1 Jn wanted to explicate "Jesus Christ" as 
"Jesus is the christ" he has a specific way of doing so.

… search for truth, hear truth, 
learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, 
defend the truth till death.

- Jan Hus

From: Leonard Jayawardena <leonardj at live.com>
To: gfsomsel at yahoo.com
Sent: Thu, December 30, 2010 3:38:04 AM
Subject: RE: [B-Greek] 1 John 4:2 and 2 John 7

Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2010 02:01:01 -0800
From: gfsomsel at yahoo.com
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] 1 John 4:2 and 2 John 7
To: leonardj at live.com; nebarry at verizon.net
CC: b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org

You are being rather idiosyncratic and interpreting the passage contrary to that 
which it clearly must have since there are six occurances of Ιησ* Χριστ* 
IHS* XRIST* in 1 Jn:  1.3; 2.1; 3.23; 4.2; 5.6, 20.  It would seem to 
function as a "joint" name rather than a name and not as a nominal sentence.  If 
you understand Ιησοῦν Χριστόν IHSOUN XRISTON as a nominal sentence "Jesus is 
Christ" here, what distinguishes it from other uses by the same author?


LJ: "[W]hat distinguishes it from other uses by the same author" is that the 
context demands and the grammar permits taking IHSOUN CRISTON in 1 John 4:2 as 
on object-complement double accusative, as explained in detail in my earlier 

If you think that IHSOUN CRISTON in 4:2 should be read just as it is in the 
other passages you cited, i.e., as a personal name (IHSOUN) followed by a title 
(CRISTON), then take a look at 1 Corinthians 8:6: 

The phrase KURIOS IHSOUS CRISTOS occurs many times in the NT, including the 
writings of Paul, in all of which cases it is to be read as "Lord Jesus Christ," 
but in the above passage alone we should read it as "one Lord, Jesus Christ" 
("Jesus Christ" in apposition with "Lord"). If we follow your logic, we should 
read hEIS KURIOS IHSOUS CRISTOS as "one Lord Jesus Christ."

Leonard Jayawardena 
 P.S.: Note to Iver Larsen: If you are reading this, I will reply to your post 


More information about the B-Greek mailing list