Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - 1 John 4:3 - 4:3
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
1Jn_4:3. In the reading: ὁ μὴ ὁμολογεῖ τὸν Ἰησοῦν , the article (which is not, with Lücke, to be deleted) must not be overlooked, for it indicates Jesus as the historical person who is Christ. The false teachers did not confess Jesus when they ascribed the work of healing, not to Jesus, but to the Aeon Christ. The particle μή indicates the contradiction of the true confession, whilst οὐ would only express the simple negation. At the words: καὶ τοῦτό ἐστι τὸ τοῦ ἀντιχρίστου , almost all commentators (even Brückner and Braune) supply with τό the word πνεῦμα ; but Valla (with whom Zegerus agrees) interprets: et hic est antichristi spiritus, vel potius: et hoc est antichristi i.e. proprium antichristi; if this latter interpretation be correct, then τοῦτο refers to μὴ ὁμολογεῖν , and τὸ τοῦ ἀντιχρίστου is “the antichristian nature.” As it is not easy to see why John should have left out πνεῦμα , this interpretation is to be preferred to the usual one (so also Myrberg; Ewald similarly interprets: “the work of Antichrist;” the same form of expression in Mat_21:21; 1Co_10:24; 2Pe_2:22; Jam_4:14).[258]
ὃ ἀκηκόατε ὅτι ἔρχεται ] compare chap. 1Jn_2:18. Stephanus, groundlessly, would read “ ὅν ” instead of ὅ ; the relative does not refer to ἀντιχρίστου , but to τὸ τ . ἀντιχρ .
καὶ νῦν ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ ἐστὶν ἥδη ] i.e. in the false prophets; comp. 1Jn_4:1. John does not say here that Antichrist, but only that the antichristian nature (or the spirit of Antichrist) is already in the world; ἤδη is doubtless added, not merely to intensify the νῦν , but to point to the future time of the appearing of Antichrist, which is already being prepared for. According to Ebrard, the last sentence depends on ὅ ; this, however, is not likely, as ὅ is the accusative; it is rather connected, as an independent sentence, with the preceding one.
[258] Braune thinks that in these passages it was of importance to form a substantive conception, but that here the simple genitive would have been sufficient; it is plain, however, that the substantive idea τὸ τοῦ ἀντιχρ . is here also more significant than a mere genitive connected with ἐστίν .