Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - 1 John 4:1 - 4:6
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
1Jn_4:1-6
1Jn_4:1. Beloved:—The Apostle begins with ἀãáðçôïß as 1Jn_3:21 [cf. 1Jn_4:7. 1Jn_3:2.—M], in the joyful consciousness of the common blessings of the Divine adoption, and earnestly solicitous of inciting and exhorting those to the exhibition of brotherly love who are loved of God.
Believe not every spirit.—Here, as in 1Jn_2:18-28, the Apostle adverts to the false teachers. Those who are to believe on the name of the Son of God (1Jn_3:23) in the power of the Holy Ghost (1Jn_3:24) given to them and bearing witness to their spirit that they are the children of God (cf. Rom_8:16), must not believe every spirit. The reference is to a plurality, a multitude of spirits ( ðÜíôé ðíåýìáôé ), not to a Dual but to a Plural. Hence, we must understand the expression of the spirits of men to whom the spirit bears witness. Every human spirit has its peculiarity, its special gifts and views, its mode of expression, which the animating, moving Spirit does not change or render uniform. Many a spirit might secure our approbation, sympathy and attention, which is not influenced by the Spirit of God. Hence the warning, to which, because of its great importance, there is forthwith annexed the exhortation:—“But try the spirits whether they are of God.” [Huther: The idea ðíåῦìá is closely connected with øåõäïðñïöῆôáé . The true prophets spoke, as we read 1Pe_1:21, ὑðὸ ðíåýìáôïò ἁãßïõ öåñüìåíïé ; the source of the revelations whose utterers ( ðñüöçìé ) they are, is the ðíåῦìá ἅãéïí or the ðåῦìá ôïῦ èåïῦ , whereby is described, not an affection of their mind, but the Divine Power, different from their own individuality, which animates and influences them ( äýíáìéò ὑøßóôïõ , the synonyme of ðíåῦìá ἅãéïí , Luk_1:35.). This ðíåῦìá speaks by the prophet, entering into his ðíåῦìá and communicating to him the truth to be revealed; and thus the ðíåῦìá of the prophet becomes a ðíåῦìá ἐê ôïῦ èåïῦ . But since every prophet has his own ðíåῦìá , there is, although the ðíåῦìá ἅãéïí is One, a plurality of prophetical spirits. The same relation takes place in an opposite direction, in the case of the pseudo-prophets. They also are under the influence of one spiritual being, to wit, under that of the ðíåῦìá , that ἐê ôïῦ äåïῦ ïὐê ἕóôé , the ðíåῦìá ôῆò ðëÜíçò ; this spirit also is one, but since it penetrates with its lie the ðíåῦìáôá of the pseudo-prophets and makes them like itself, we may say of the ðíåῦìá of each individual prophet that is not of God, that it is not a ðíåῦìá ôῆò ἀëçèåßáò , but a ðíåῦìá ôῆò ðëÜíçò .”—The rationalistic interpretation of Socinus (“sensus hominis aliquo modo inspiratus”) and Episcopius (“doctrina”), and the figurative construction of the word ðíåýìá = ëáëïῦíôåò ἐí ðíåýìáôé of Lücke, de Wette and Calvin (“pro eo qui spiritus dono se præditum esse jactat ad obeundum prophetiæ munus”), are equally irrelevant.—M.].
But try the spirits whether they are of God.—John evidently speaks of a plurality of spirits ( ôὰ ðíåýìáôá ). Instead of a receiving surrender to and of agreeing with them, of the assensus ( ðéóôåýåéí ) John requires a äïêéìÜæåéí , a cautious criticism before the êáôÝ÷åéí (1Th_5:21), and he requires it of all like Paul, Rom_12:2; Php_1:20; Eph_5:10; 1Co_10:15; 1Co_11:13, although some may have a special gift in discerning the spirits (1Co_12:10 : äéáêñßóåéò ðíåõìÜôùí Calvin: “alloquitur—singulos fideles,” as opposed to Lorinus: “Non omnium est probare; unum oportet in ecclesia summum judicem quæstionum de fide moribusque; id est sine dubio Pontifex Maximus.” [This may be conclusive reasoning to Romanists, but will be utterly repudiated by Protestants, as an arbitrary dictum repugnant to Holy Writ.—M.]. The falsity of this exposition is evident both from the object of this text which every man ought to know; åἰ ἐê ôïῦ èåïῦ ἐóôßí , whether they are of, originate in or proceed from God: the confession of Jesus Christ come in the flesh (1Jn_4:2), and from the danger, urging such a test, to which every one is exposed and which necessitates the decision [the Apostle proceeds to specify the reason why this trial is necessary.—M.].
Because many false prophets are gone out into the world.—These øåõäïðñïöῆôáé answer to the ἀíôé÷ñßóôïéò (1Jn_2:18). Cf. Mat_7:15; Mat_24:11; Mat_24:24 (where also øåõäü÷ñéóôïé are specified), 2Pe_2:1 (where øåõäïäéäÜóêáëïé are paralleled with the øåõäïðñïöῆôáé of the Old Testament). The idea of predicting something future is not any more the prominent point here than it constitutes in general the leading characteristic of the prophet; he derives his name from ðñüöçìé , because he has, as it were, behind him the Spirit that inspires him, whose thoughts he speaks out and makes known. The true prophet must be clearly distinguished from the hidden ðíåῦìá influencing him, the true prophet is ὑðὸ ðíåõìÜôïò ἁãßïõ öåñüìåíïò (2Pe_1:21); this ðíåῦìá äýíáìéò ὑøßóôïõ (Luk_1:35). The point at which He unites with the prophet, is the prophet’s ðíåῦìá , which as an organ to be influenced, must be clearly distinguished from the ðíåῦìá ἅãéïí who operates through it; for the ðíåῦìá ἅãéïí is the Source and Principle of the revelation, enters into the prophet’s ðíåῦìá , moves and imparts to the prophet, animates and prompts him, and thus the prophet’s ðíåῦìá becomes a ðíåῦìá ἐê ôïῦ èåïῦ , yet so that thereby the characteristics of the prophet’s spirit are neither obliterated nor annulled, neither as to his temperament, nor as to his mode of utterance, nor as to qualification for specific relations of the spiritual or material worlds. Hence there are as many ðíåýìáôá as there are ðñïöῆôáé , notwithstanding the unity of the efficient principle which influences them. But alongside this ðíåῦìá ἅãéïí , ðíåῦìá ôῆò ἀëçèåßáò , there is a ðíåῦìá ôïῦ ἀíôé÷ñßóôïõ (1Jn_4:3), ôῆò ðëÜíçò (1Jn_4:6), that makes the øåõäïðñïöÞôáò and whose spirit must not be believed. The ðíåῦìá and ðíåýìáôá designate not absolutely øåõäïðñïöῆôáé (Calvin, Lücke, de Wette and others), nor the sensus hominis aliquo modo inspiratus (Socinus), nor doctrina (Episcopius), nor the superhuman principle animating man (Greek Comment., Augustine, Luther, Spener, Bengel (spiritui, quo doctor aliquis agitur), Neander, Düsterdieck and others). Cf. Huther [whose note I have translated above, under “Believe not every spirit.”—M.].—With ἐîåëçëýèáóéí åἰò ôὸí êüóìïí Düsterdieck appropriately compares ãåãüíáóéí 1Jn_2:18. After ἐê ôïῦ èåïῦ we ought to supply a reference to the sending forth, the missionary activity which in the case of the false prophets is an aping of the Apostles and the prophets; they come from, proceed, go out from him that makes them prophets. Cf. Joh_8:42; Joh_13:3; Joh_16:27, etc. cf. Joh_17:18; Mat_13:49. It is therefore neither=in publicum prodire, as Mat_13:3; Mat_26:55; Mar_1:35; Mar_8:11; Act_7:7 (Grotius, Calov, Lücke, al.), nor=ex apostolis et eorum ecclesia, as in 1Jn_2:19 (S. Schmidt), nor=ex sedibus suis 2Jn_1:7. (Bengel).—On åἰò ôὸí êüóìïí cf. Joh_6:14; Joh_10:36. They come into the world, which Christ was sent to redeem, which belongs to Him, in order to destroy it with their áἱñÝóåéò ἀðùëåßáò . (2Pe_2:1).
The standard of the trial. 1Jn_4:2-3.
1Jn_4:2. In this know ye the Spirit of God.— Ἐí ôïýôῳ here evidently points to the following sentence and ãéíþóêåôå is not Indicative, but like ðéóôåýåôå , äïêéìÜæåôå 1Jn_4:1, the Imperative [on the other hand Alford, on account of the very frequent ἐí ôïýôῳ ãéíþóêïìåí , would let analogy prevail and take it as Indicative; but Huther, de Wette, Lücke and most commentators take it as Imperative.—M.].—That ôὸ ðíåῦìá ôïῦ èåïῦ denotes the Holy Spirit is evident both from the expression itself and from the antithesis ôὸ ôïῦ ἀíôé÷ñßóôïõ 1Jn_4:3; the reference therefore is not to a loquens de spiritualibus ex inspiratione divina (Lyra). But the sequel shows that we have to think of the Divine Spirit working in the spirit of the prophets, to wit:
Every spirit which confesseth Jesus Christ come in the flesh, is of God.— Ὁìïëïãåῖí is the oral confession of a doctrinal truth (cf. 2Jn_1:10.), like 1Jn_2:23 (Düsterdieck, Huther and al.); confession with a walk agreeing with a Christian is not indicated here (Greek comm., Augustine, Bede), even though only a confession with the mouth emanating from the faith of the heart under the influence of the indwelling Spirit of God can be meant here, as in Rom_10:9-10; cf. 1Jn_5:11 sq.; 1Jn_2:22 sq.—The object of the confession: Ἰçóïῦí ×ñéóôὸí ἐí óáñêὶ ἐëçëõèüôá . The form is that of a substantival objective-sentence; hence the participial form should be retained, and the rendering avoided which would make it an Infinitive thus: that Jesus Christ is or has come in the flesh; it is not a predicative sentence, but ἐí óáñêὶ ἐëçëõèüôá is added attributively; that which is known is added in the Accusative. The names are taken in their literal sense at 1Jn_2:22; here they stand, as in 1Jn_1:3, in juxtaposition and must not be separated according to 1Jn_2:22, as if they imported: Jesus the Christ who is come in the flesh; so Luther renders wrongly in his Scholia, and Huther inclines in that direction. In like manner ἐí óáñêὶ must be held fast and not be made equivalent to åἰò óÜñêá , as maintained by Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Piscator, Sander and al.; ἐí óáñêὶ denotes the mode of existence, in which He appeared and came; nor is there any ground here to assume here a pregnancy common among the Greeks who conjoin ἐí with verbs of motion in order to describe the result, the rest (cf. Winer, p. 449), to wit, that He had come into the flesh in order to remain and work in the flesh; so S. Schmidt and others.—Jesus Christ came in the flesh from the time of His birth after He óὰñî ἐãÝíåôï and ἐóêÞíùóåí ἐí ἡìῖí (Joh_1:14) cf. 1Jn_1:1, sqq.—The conversatio in carne, inter homines, in vera natura humana, nor the incarnatio, which is pre-supposed as the transition, is meant here; nor is here a limiting reference to innumera mala and ipsa cruenta mors, as maintained by Socinus, who erroneously refers to Heb_2:14; Heb_5:7, and Grotius who adverts to a Hebraism.— Ἔñ÷åóèáé indeed is often used to designate the appearance of teachers, but then it either occurs with a qualifying ἐðὶ ôῷ ὀíüìáôé , Mat_24:5, or ἐí ôῷ ὀíüìáôé , Joh_5:43, or åἰò ìáñôõñßáí , Joh_1:7, or with an indication of the subject as ἐìðáῖêôáé , 2Pe_3:3, or an addition like êáὶ ôáýôçí ôὴí äéäá÷ὴí ïὐ öÝñåé , 2Jn_1:10, or as in Mat_11:18, of John, ìÞôå ἐóèßùí ìÞôå ðßíùí or as in Mat_17:11 of Elias êáὶ ἀðïêáôáóôÞóåé ðÜíôá , so that the context invariably marks either the appearance of the teacher, or distinctly states that he is not exclusively referred to as a teacher, namely in his vocation of teacher. Here also the reference seems not to be exclusively to the office of a teacher or a prophet, which is by no means indicated by ἐí óáñêὶ . But it is important to notice here the tense; for while we have in this place the part. perfecti ἐëçëõèüôá , 1Jn_5:6 gives the part. aor. ὁ ἐëèὼí and 2Jn_1:7 the part. præs. ἐñ÷üìåíïí ; the Present denotes the fact which is not a single act, in a moment, like birth, but has a longer duration which may be seen and represents this in a timeless form; the Aorist denotes an act as purely historical, the Perfect an act which, though historically completed, has present continuance (Winer, Part III. § 40). Thus this confession contains the fundamental truth of the Gospel; ×ñéóôὸò and ἐí óáñêὶ ἐëçëõèüôá indicate the dignity and existence of the Son of God and emphatically assert His humanity as a reality and a historical fact for all time. Bengel excellently remarks: “In carne, est ergo Ipse aliquid præter carnem; hæreses veritatem carnis Jesu Christi negantes præsupponunt et eo ipso confirmant deitatem ejus, quippe cum qua non poterant conciliare carnem, tanquam ea dignam.”
1Jn_4:3. And every spirit which confesses not Jesus, is not of God.— Ôὸí Ἰçóïῦí comprehends what was said in 1Jn_4:2, viz.; ×ñéóôὸí ἐí óáñêὶ ἐëçëõèüôá , it is just the historical Christ and none other.— Ὃ ìὴ ὁìïëïãåῖ =if he does not confess, while ὃ ïὐ÷ ὁìïëïãåῖ would be=who does not confess. From this it is evident that John contemplates not so much distinct persons, as only distinct doctrines. Winer, part III. § 55. [Huther observes that ìὴ denotes the contradiction of the true confession, while ïὐ would express only a simple denial.—M.].
And this is the (spirit) of antichrist, of which ye have heard that it cometh, and now it is in the world already.— Ôïῦôï refers to ðíåῦìá , not to ὁìïëïãåῖí , and ôὸ ôïῦ ἀíôé÷ñßóôïõ is the ( ðíåῦìá ) of antichrist; for ôὸ pre-supposes a substantive or constitutes a substantival idea; were it, as Valla, Episcopius, Huther and al. render, proprium antichristi, matter of antichrist, ôïῦôï would not refer to ðíåῦìá but to ὁìïëïãåῖí ; this would be rather an artificial construction and ôὸ before ôïῦ ἀíôß÷ñéóôïõ would be superfluous. The passages adduced, viz. Mat_21:21; 1Co_10:24; 2Pe_2:22; Jam_4:14, are somewhat different, for they import one and all a substantival idea, ôὸ ôῆò óõêῆò , ôὸ ἑáõôïῦ , ôὸ ôῆò ðáñïéìßáò , ôὸ ôῆò áὔñéïí [that of the fig tree, that of himself, that of the proverb, the event of the morrow—M.], while here the Genitive alone would have been sufficient.— Ἀêçêüáôå refers not to the written word 1Jn_2:18 where we have already ἠêïýóáôå , but to the previous oral instruction they had received. The last clause êáὶ íῦí ἐí ôῷ êüóìῳ ἐóôὶí ἤäç , which emphatically asserts that the spirit of antichrist is already now, at the present time, working in the antichrists, is not governed by ἀêçêüáôå but coördinated with êáὶ ôïῦôü ἐóôßí ôὸ ôïῦ ἀíôé÷ñßóôïõ . Cf. 1Jn_2:18.
Comfortable strengthening and assurance against the false prophets. 1Jn_4:4-6.
1Jn_4:4. Ye are of God, little children.—The Apostle moved, and affectionately confident ( ôåêíßá ) that they all stand in the fundamental truth and are the children of God (1Jn_3:1-2; 1Jn_3:13-14), urgently represents to them ( ὑìåῖò emphatically placed first as in 1Jn_2:24; 1Jn_2:27), what is given to them: ἐê ôïῦ èåïῦ ἐóôÝ , agreeing with the leading thought 1Jn_2:29 and the context: the trial to be made is åἰ ἐê ôïῦ èåïῦ ἐóôßí (1Jn_4:1) and he that confesseth Jesus is ἐê ôïῦ èåïῦ ἐóôßí (1Jn_4:3) and he that confesseth not Jesus ἐê ôïῦ èåïῦ ïὐê ἔóôéí .
And have overcome them.— Áὐôïὺò are the øåῦäïðñïöÞôáò (1Jn_4:1), in whom the ðíåῦìá ôïῦ ἀíôé÷ñßóôïõ is operative and connected with their ðíåῦìá . Hence not: antichristum et mundum (Erasmus); the Vulgate renders falsely eum, which Lyra interprets: mundum, devincendo concupiscentiam, and other Roman Catholics: antichristum or spiritum antichristi in antichristis.—The Perfect íåíéêÞóáôå as at 1Jn_2:13-14, where ôὸí ðïíçñüí is the person overcome. The victory referred to there is inward in their hearts, here it is a victory not only in their hearts but also outward, visible in the life, in the sphere of their church-life, the Church; in the former place the victory is over Satan himself, here over his false prophets. But it is a victory actually achieved, and moreover a victory of continuous duration notwithstanding a succession of conflicts; through these very struggles and conflicts runs the victory already achieved and decisive, ye have overcome! ye have it! by your fidelity they with their seductive arts and temptations have been confounded (Ebrard). Cf. Joh_16:33. ÍåíéêÞêáôå is the Perfect not propter futuritionis certitudinem (Episcopius),=potestis superare (Rosenmüller). Calvin renders not very accurately: “In media pugna jam extra periculum sunt, quia futuri sunt superiores.” The ground of their victory and overcoming lies indeed in them, yet nevertheless above them.
Because He (that is) in you is greater than he (that is) in the world.— Ὁ ἐí ὑìῖí is He of (out of) whom they are, who abideth in them (1Jn_3:24; 1Jn_4:1-2), that is ὁ èåὸò (Greek Comm., Calvin, Bengel, de Wette, Sander, Düsterdieck, Huther); this is also clear from the antithesis; it is understood of Christ by Augustine, Grotius, etc.— Ὁ ἐí ôῷ êüóìῳ = ὁ äéÜâïëïò , whose children ( ôÝêíá ) the antichrists are, 1Jn_3:10 a—God is not only greater than our heart (1Jn_3:20), but also greater than Satan, than all things (Joh_10:29; 2Co_2:14); all things belong to Him (1Co_15:57; 1Co_3:23).—[Huther: “Instead of the more specific ἐí áὐôïῖò the Apostle uses ἐí ôῷ êüóìῳ to intimate that the former, though having been for some time in the Church, belong to the êüóìïò , which is expressly declared in the words following. Socinus: “Quamvis Johannes, non de eo, qui sit in falsis prophetis, sed de eo, qui sit in mundo, verba faciat, tamen necesse est, ut mundi appellatione falsos istos Prophetas comprehendat, vel polius plane intelligat, quod satis aperte declarant sequentia verba.”—M.].
1Jn_4:5. The antithesis as to essence, work and success:
They are of the world.— Ἐê ôïῦ êüóìïõ , quatenus Satanas est ejus princeps (Calvin), hence not ἐî ἡìῶí (1Jn_2:19). Cf. Joh_8:23; Joh_8:44. The reference is not only to worldly lusts and carnal desires but to the ground and source of their life determining the exhibition of their life ( äéὰ ôïῦôï ).
Therefore they speak of the world and the world heareth them.—The substance of what they speak and their success with the world are conditioned by their being of [out of, from—as to origin—M.] the world. This ëáëåῖí ἐê ôïῦ êüóìïõ also is deep-reaching: ex mundi vita ac sensu sermones suos promere (Bengel). Huther capitally distinguishes ëáëåῖí ἐê ôïῦ êüóìïõ from ἐê ôῆò ãῆò ëáëåῖí (Joh_3:31) by the remark that ἡ ãῆ is not an ethical notion like ὁ êüóìïò . Although the separate points made by Oecumenius ( êáôὰ ôὰò óáñêéêὰò ἐðéèõìßáò ), the Scholiasts ( ἐê ôῆò ðïíçñᾶò áὐôῶí ãíþìçò ), Luther (ea quæ mundus intelligit ac probat), Grotius (mundi affectibus congruentia) and others, are correct, yet they shed light only on particular points and not on the whole. The approval and agreement of the world constitute a proof against them on the principle ôῷ ãὰñ ὁìïßῳ ôὸ ὅìïéïí ðñïóôñÝ÷åé . Cf. Joh_8:37; Joh_8:43; Joh_8:47; Joh_18:37. [The false prophets left the Church and went out into the world to which they stood in inward affinity, and proclaimed to it a wisdom that originated in it; therefore the world heard them, i.e. approved and assented to their word; ôῷ ãὰñ ὁìïßῷ ê . ô . ë . (Oecumenius); whereas the believers were hated and persecuted by the world, Huther.—M.].— Áὐôῶí ἀêïýåé denotes hearing attentively with inward delight, while ἀêïýåéí ôéíá signifies hearing in general without determining the sympathy of the hearer.
Inference and conclusion. 1Jn_4:6.
1Jn_4:6. We are of God.—A quickly added contrast of the false prospects without äὲ . After what precedes there are here implied the two thoughts which are not expressed: äéὰ ôïῦôï ἐê ôïῦ èåïῦ ëáëïῦìåí êáὶ ὑìåῖò ἡìῶí ἀêïýåôå , although the latter is indicated by ὁ ãéíþóêùí ôὸí èåὸí ἀêïýåé ἡìῶí . Hence the Apostle understands by ἡìåῖò himself with the Apostles and the teachers in the Church (and not himself and the Church ὑìåῖò ), as opposed to áὐôïὶ (1Jn_4:5) and the øåõäïðñïöῆôáé (1Jn_4:1). This is the view of most commentators in opposition to Calvin, Spener, Lücke and al.
He that knoweth God, heareth us; he who is not of God doth not hear us.—The antithesis ὁ ãéíþóêùí ôὸí èåὸí and ὃò ïὐê ἔóôéí ἐê ôïῦ èåïῦ requires, as is well known, that we should understand in the former clause ἐê ôïῦ èåïῦ åἶíáé and supply in the second ãéíþóêåéí ôὸí èåὸí as the consequence. Hence ἐê ôïῦ èåïῦ åἶíáé must not be taken here differently from 1Jn_4:1-4 and according to the contrast in 1Jn_4:5. It is consequently not a general drawing and impulse towards God (as held by Lücke and Neander), but the state of grace of God’s children, and their understanding of and conduct towards the word of God as preached to them. But nothing is said here concerning the manner how they did come into this state, nor is here any reference to predetermination (Hilgenfeld) or predestination (Calvin); we know also from 1Jn_2:2; 1Jn_4:14; cf. Joh_3:16; Joh_1:10 sqq. 29, that all are desired and may enter into the sonship. [Alford: Here we must remember carefully what the context is and what its purpose. The Apostle is giving a text to distinguish, not the children of God from those who are not children of God, but the spirit of truth from the spirit of error, as is clear from the words following. And this he does by saying that in the case of the teachers of the truth, they are heard and received by those who apprehend God, but refused by those who are not of God. It is evident then that these two terms here, ὁ ãéíþóêùí ôὸí èåüí , and ὃò ïὐê ἔóôéí ἐê ôïῦ èåïῦ represent two patent matters of fact, two classes open and patent to all: one of them identical with the êüóìïò above: the other consisting of those of whom it is said above, ἐãíþêáôå ôὸí ðáôÝñá …. ἐãíþêáôå ôὸí ἀð ’ ἀñ÷ῆò , 1Jn_2:13-14. How these two classes are what they are, it is not the purpose of this passage to set forth, nor need we here inquire; we have elsewhere tests to distinguish them, 1Jn_3:9-10. …; we have a striking parallel, in fact the key to these words, in the saying of our Lord to Pilate, Joh_18:37.—M.].
From this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error (deception).— Ἐê ôïýôïõ refers to hearing, but since the matter in hand relates to the trial of the spirits that teach, the reference is to hearing the false prophets and to hearing the Apostles and the ministers of the Divine word [i.e. to the reception given to both classes.—M.]. Hence we must not think here of the criterion specified in 1Jn_4:2-3, as maintained by the Roman Catholic Comm., Calvin, Hunnius, Calov and Neander.
In ãéíþóêïìåí John includes the Apostles and the Church. On ôὸ ðíåῦìá ôῆò ἀëçèåßáò , cf. Joh_14:17; Joh_15:26; Joh_16:13; from which passages it is evident that the Genitive indicates that which the Spirit gives, testifies, whereto He helpeth and whither He guideth and leadeth; He is that Spirit that proceedeth from God and teacheth the truth to men. In like manner, ôὸ ðíåῦìá ôῆò ðëÜíçò is the spirit proceeding from the devil, deceiving and seducing men (1Jn_1:8; 1Jn_2:26; 2Jn_1:8; 1Ti_4:1; 1Th_2:3; 2Th_2:11.) The latter is certainly in him whom the world hears, the former in Him to whom the children of God give ear.
2. The believing Confession of One Jesus Christ uniting in Himself the Godhead and the Manhood, even the confession of the historical Christ is necessary to salvation and essentially Christian. John, of course, understands ὁìïëïãåῖí as engaging the powers of the whole Christian and not only the oral confession without the heart; for he adverts to the ðíåýìáôá , specifies the antithesis ìὴ ὁìïëïãåῖí and proceeds throughout in a contemplative manner. If this were not so, the true disciples of Jesus would have the same confession as the demons as their distinguishing mark (Luk_4:41; Mat_8:29); hence the contents of the confession are not decisive per se. Cf. Harless, Ethik § 39** p. 174.—But Estius has no warranty for limiting St. John’s direction to the apostolical age and for considering the confession of the Lord’s Supper as the criterion now; on the former confession depends also the latter, for the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper reflects of course the Christology, since the fellowship with Christ is accomplished in the most pregnant manner in the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. Nothing is truly Christian without the living Christ.
3. According to the Johannean mode of expression the contrast brought out here is to be conceived as an error wholly gnostic, spiritualizing and misinterpreting the historic and directed more against the corporealness, i.e. the manhood of Christ than against his Godhead, an error rather Docetical than Ebionite. For óÜñî does not denote merely the human body apart from the human øõ÷Þ , the human íïῦò , the human will or self-consciousness, which could not be done by the preposition ἐí , but it signifies the human nature, the manhood; and this is conceived in the precise manner in which He appeared in the world. Cf. Hofmann, Schriftbeweis ii. 1. p. 76, sq.
4. John does not predicate of man independence, self-glory and perfect freedom in the sphere of his spiritual life; either the Spirit of God or the spirit of Satan determines the spirit of man and conditions his views, inclinations, knowledge, words and deeds. Behind the ðíåῦìá of man stands the directing, determining, operating and fulfilling ðíåῦìá , which through the former and united with it, works on the world and on men.
5. But any disposition of the human spirit for the Spirit of God or the spirit of Satan is no more taken for granted here than that the Spirit of God and the spirit of Satan are or might be supposed to be in a state of coördination. Rather, we should say, does this victory, of which the Apostle discourses in such lofty strains (1Jn_4:4, cf. 1Jn_2:13-14; 1Jn_4:4-5), assert the superiority of the Divine Spirit to Satan and denote both the monarchy of God and the enmity of Satan, at the same time intimating however, that, though men may suffer themselves to be controlled either by God or Satan, all men ought to be and might become God’s.
6. The Apostle contemplates the reality and the possession of the Divine sonship ( åἶíáé ἐê ôïῦ èåïῦ = ãåãåííῆóèáé ἐê ôïῦ èåïῦ ), which is evident from his specification of the marks whereby the existence of this relation may be determined; the reference, therefore, is not to the origin, the beginning of one’s being of God, to the manner how it is attained. The same remark applies to Joh_18:36-37 and also to Joh_8:43-47, as is manifest from Joh_4:30 : ðïëëïὶ ἐðßóôåõóáí åἰò áὐôὸí and Joh_4:31 : ἐὰí ìåßíçôå ἐí ôῷ ëüãῳ ôῷ ἐìῷ . The sonship or state of grace of faith in John 8 is however quite young and only begun, while the case before Pilate and in the passage under notice respects the believing people in His Kingdom and under His Rule. According to the Johannean conception we have to view the sonship or state of grace of believers as complete from the beginning although ever progressing towards perfection and consummation and to the inheritance itself. A young babe or a suckling is surely a perfect man, a rational creature, though only as to the germ, and not yet a man, not yet fully developed in all the powers and gifts wherewith it is endowed.
[7. As supplemental to the exegetical notes on 1Jn_4:3, and No. 3, above, it may be profitable to put together some of the interpretations of this difficult passage.
1. The Socinian.—Socinus: “Jesum Christum, i.e. Jesum qui dicitur Christus, non modo mortalem hominem fuisse, sed etiam innumeris malis et denique ipsi cruentæ morti obnoxium.” Grotius: “Non cum regia pompa et exercitibus, sed in statu humili, abjecto, multisque malis ac postremum cruci obnoxio.” But it has been shown that ἐí óáñêß cannot be construed in this sense.
2. Those assertive and not only implicative of our Lord’s Incarnation. The commentators, most of them orthodox, who give this interpretation, either confound ἐí óáñêß with åἰò óÜñêá (Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Piscator, Sander and al.), or waver between ἐí and åἰò , e.g. Hunnius: “Tunc venire in carne dicitur Jesus Christus quando ëüãïò ex sua velut arcana sede prodiens assumta visibili carne se in terris manifestat. Here we must also name the exposition of Augustine, who introduces in the train of the Incarnation the death and redeeming love of Christ, and makes the confession denial depend on “caritatem habere” (Alford); saying: “Deus erat et in carne venit: Deus enim mori non poterat, caro mori poterat: ideo ergo venit in carne ut moreretur pro nobis. Quemadmodum autem mortuus est pro nobis? Majorem hac caritatem nemo habet, quam ut animam suam ponat pro amicis suis. Caritas ergo ilum adduxit ad crucem. Quisquis ergo non habet caritatem, negat Christum in carne venisse.”—To put the question in his own words: “Arius and Eunomius, and Macedonius and Nestorius own that Jesus Christ came in the flesh, are not they therefore of God?” and then replies that those hierarchs did not in fact confess Christ to have come in the flesh, because whatever they might do by words, they in their works denied Him (Tit_1:16). “They have not charity,” he say “because they have not unity, and therefore all their other gifts are of no avail.” (1Co_13:1-3).—But the Apostle says here nothing of charity, or unity, or of the love of Christ, but he simply asserts the true Manhood of our Lord, and this brings us
3. To the true interpretation which takes ἐí in its proper meaning and applies the passage to the case of the Docetæ who maintained that our Lord had only an apparent and not a real body. See also the extracts from Irenæus and Origen above in Appar. Crit. note 4.—M.].
Starke:—Trust, believe, whom? It concerns not riches and possessions, but your soul and salvation. It is amazing that most men are concerned about false wares, whereby they incur certain and eternal loss. The prudent will make inquiries and not join in with an inconsiderate credit.—Lying spirit, that sayest that the Christian religion is founded on credulity! Gross lies! it requires faith, but rejects credulity.—We ought to believe sincere, experienced and honest teachers, yet so that we look only and solely to God and rest in Him as the author of the wisdom which they proclaim. Teachers should willingly subject their teaching to the trial of others, even to the trial of their own hearers, and consequently not only not deter them from it but also to urge them to it, and direct them away from themselves to God and His Spirit; otherwise they will not make honest Christians but render themselves suspicious.—The government alone has not the power of appointing teachers at its option regardless of the views and wishes of the whole Church (or congregation), whose wishes should be duly consulted, for God has clothed it also with the power and ability to try the spirits. [Such a caution, however relevant on the Continent of Europe, is of course unnecessary in the U. S.—M.].—Whatever obscures and lessens in word or deed the person, office, doctrine and glory of Christ, is heretical.—Be of good courage! though the world and the devil rage, thou hast a strong support, for God, who is with, by and in thee, is greater than all.—Whenever we are victorious, we ought to ascribe the glory of our victory not to ourselves but to God; otherwise if we take the least credit to ourselves, we rouse a new enemy, spiritual pride, most dangerous in this that it enables Satan easily to overcome us.—Like seeks like; the world loves its own but hates those who have gone out from the world.
Heubner:—The Christian spirit of trial is intimately connected with faith. Faith is not credulity.—This trying is a duty which belongs to every age and especially in our age when so many teach against the Scripture and still set up the pretension that they have the Spirit, and consider themselves full of spirit and others spiritless. It is the duty of all Christians; consequently, also the duty of the laity.—The conditions of this trial are simplicity of heart, a firm faith, and prayer to the Lord for clearness of perception (to open our eyes). The deceived have indeed excuses to offer; but there would not be so many of the deceived, if they had a pure mind and would try. Try the more frequently and carefully, the more the spirit of deceivers flatters thee and thy vanity, and the greater the number of these spirits grow.—Everything which lays irreverent hands on the Person of Christ, from any side, is decidedly unchristian.—Should John have given us a false criterion? Maintaining this is already the sign of a bad cause. Whatever is anti-christian shows its true character by its contradicting the Apostles.—The superiority of the Spirit of Christ to the error-spirit of the world gives to the Christian the preponderance; he need not fear any assaults of unbelief. John foretells certain victory. All the shouts of victory on the part of unbelievers are nothing but false alarm. All antichristianity panders to the spirit of the world; it flatters, if not the loose morality, yet the vanity and conceit of the world which finds it burdensome and confounding to believe in the Crucified One.—The false apostles prove the dignity of the true Apostles.
Besser:—Any pupil in a catechism-class, in order to be on his guard against the false prophets, may determine whether the teaching of a prophet has the grape-taste of Christ’s vine or the sloe-taste of the thorn of the flesh and reason.—It is not because of the parts of the truth they hold in common with the Church, but becau