1 John 4:1-6: We Shall Be Like Him

Beloved, do not every spirit believe [2Pl Pres Act Impv] but test [2Pl Pres Act Impv] the spirits whether from God it is [3S Pres Act Indic], for many false prophets have emerged [3Pl Perf Act Indic] in the world. 2In this you know [2Pl Pres Act Indic] the Spirit of God: every spirit which confesses [3S Pres Act Indic] Jesus Christ in flesh having come [MS Acc Perf Act Part] from God it is [3S Pres Act Indic], 3 and every spirit that does not confess [3S Pres Act Indic] Jesus from God is not [3S Pres Act Indic], and this is [3S Pres Act Indic] the of-the-antichrist, which you have heard [2Pl Perf Act Indic] that is coming [3S Pres Mid Indic], and now in the world is [3S Pres Act Indic] already. 4You from God are [2Pl Pres Act Indic], little children, and 2Pl Perf Act Indic] you have overcome them, for greater is [3S Pres Act Indic] the in-you-one than the in-the-world-one. 5They from the world are [3Pl Pres Act Indic], for this from the world they speak [3Pl Pres Act Indic], and the world to them listens [3S Pres Act Indic]. 6We from God are [1Pl Pres Act Indic], the knowing-God-one [MS Nom Pres Act Part] listens [3S Pres Act Indic] to you, the one not is [3S Pres Act Indic] from God does not listen [3S Pres Act Indic] to us. From this we know [1Pl Pres Act Indic] the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error.
4:1

4:1: For the first time since 2:7, John addresses his readers as beloved. Instead of giving instructions on loving one another, though, he gives this warning: do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have come into the world. The word spirit here is important, especially since John ended the last chapter with this verse: And the one keeping his commandment abides in him and he in him; and in this we know that he abides in us, by the Spirit whom he has given us. We know the God abides in us by our fellowship with his Holy Spirit. And, because our relationship with the Spirit is so necessary for the benefit of our spiritual confidence, health, and vitality, John warns us against going after other spirits which are not from God. John also says that the problem is not merely ethereal spirits floating around the world, but that, in fact, these spirits have recruited prophets to perpetrate their lies. These many false prophets have already come into the world, and John intimates that his readers are around these false prophets all the time in their daily activities and lives. Burdick helpfully organizes this whole section around the word dokimazo: dokimazo, to test, was commonly used for such tests as the testing of calves for sacrifice, the testing of officials for public office, and the testing of coins to see if they were valid.The term suggests that there is an objective standard by which to put the suggested test into effect. This standard is described in verses 2-3. The verb dokimazo is a present tense imperative used in the progressive sense, urging the [page] readers to make it a practice to put any and all prophets to the test.1 According to this understanding of testing, he organizes the section like this: After issuing a warning concerning false prophets (v. 1), the author sets up the Christological test (vv. 2-3). This is followed by the test of listening (vv. 4-6).2 4:2-3: So John gives us the criteria for discerning between the spirits: In this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses Jesus Christ having come in the flesh is from God. 3And every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; and this is the spirit of antichrist, which you have heard that he was coming, and now is already in the world. Burdick gives even more clarity here to what is being confessed: (3) The whole expression may function as direct object, which would be translated, confesses Jesus-Christ-come-in-flesh. The third view provides the most natural and most direct treatment of the Greek test. The KJV, NASB, and NIV all translate this confession as follows: that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh. The weakness of this rendering is that the Greek text does not have the word hoti that, and it is doubtful that it should be supplied in the English translation. Actually, to supply the word hoti is not an incidental matter, for it alters the vary nature of the confession. With hoti the confession is propositional in nature. It is a declaration about what Jesus Christ did; without hoti the text contains a confession of Jesus as a person rather than a confession of a proposition about the Person. Brooke puts it aptly when he declares, It is a confession not of the fact of the incarnation, but of the Incarnate Christ (A.E. Brooke, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Johannine Epistles, ICC, p. 109.).3

Donald Burdick, The letters of John the Apostle : an in-depth commentary (Chicago: Moody Press, 1985), 292-93. Donald Burdick, The letters of John the Apostle : an in-depth commentary (Chicago: Moody Press, 1985), 291. 3 Donald Burdick, The letters of John the Apostle : an in-depth commentary (Chicago: Moody Press, 1985), 295.
2

More than that, Burdick points out the significance of confession ton Iesoun in v. 3: Many commentators fail to take into consideration the significance of the article ton before the name Iesoun.Although it was common in Greek to use the article before proper names, there is good reason for understanding the article in ton Iesoun as indicating previous reference. John insists that it is this Jesus who must be confessedthe Jesus of verse 2 who came in flesh (en sarki eleluthota).4 And by the way, the world in this verse may seem at first to be here used in its ethical sense of that evil order consisting of all the persons, practices, attitudes, and mechanisms controlled by sin. However, he no doubt uses the word in a more inclusive sense to refer to the sphere in which people (saved and unsaved) live and where both the Spirit of God and the spirit of antichrist are present and at work.5 The litmus test for spirits, as to whether or not they are from God, hinges on whether they confess Jesus Christ as having come in the flesh. Certainly, much of this deals with the Gnostic heresies that John was dealing with, as many false prophets were preaching a Christ who had not really come in the fleshhe had seemed to come in the flesh, or the Spirit of Christ had descended on the man Jesus for a time, but he hadnt really come in the flesh as the God-Man. Burdick confirms this characterization of the Gnostics: The Gnostic could not make such a declaration [Jesus Christ incarnate] because of his basic philosophy of dualism where spirit and matter could not exist in the intimate union involved in an incarnate state. The second-century Gnostic avoided this incongruity either by docetism (Christ did not possess an actual body) or by adoptionism (the Divine Christ only came upon the human [page] Jesus) . This latter was the teaching of Cerinthus, which 1 John seems to have intended to refute. This confession of the incarnate Christ, then, was a touchstone that served infallibly to identify the false teacher.6 And thus John reveals the issue at stake: the incarnation of Jesus Christ. In 2:18-27 he had confronted the false teaching of antichrists who did not confess the Father and the Sonthat is, who rejected the eternal relationship of the Father and the Son along with the Holy Spirit, one God in three Persons now and forevermore, world without end. In 4:1-6, John addresses those who reject the idea that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, having been made human like us. This spirit, John says, is already in the world. Since the days before Jesus death, resurrection, and ascension to his Father, people have always rejected the doctrine of the incarnation. The Jews wanted to stone Jesus for uttering blasphemies by claiming to be one with his Father. Today, Jews and Muslims still take offense at the idea that a mere mortal could claim to be God, while the pagan world simply finds the idea silly. John Stott points out the significance of the textual variant in v. 3: This interpretation is consistent also with the interesting variant reading of verse 3, which instead of me homologei (confesseth not) has the verb luei. This could be translated destroys (as in iii. 8) or looses. Its attestation, which is slight, is summarized in full by Brooke (pp. 111-114). It is found in the Vulgate as solvit, in other Latin versions, in Latin translations of Irenaeus and Origen, and in Tertullian and Augustine. It is preserved in the RV margin as annuleth. Doubtless it was an early scribal gloss, and is not authentic; but it is significant as showing that not to confess Jesus was regarded as to loose Him, that is, to divide Jesus from the Christ, instead of identifying them. Later the verb luein came to be used almost technically for the
Donald Burdick, The letters of John the Apostle : an in-depth commentary (Chicago: Moody Press, 1985), 298. Donald Burdick, The letters of John the Apostle : an in-depth commentary (Chicago: Moody Press, 1985), 299. 6 Donald Burdick, The letters of John the Apostle : an in-depth commentary (Chicago: Moody Press, 1985), 306-07.
5 4

Gnostic heresy which separated Jesus from the Christ; and this variant reading was used in argument against the Nestorian heresy. 7 But the incarnation is the foundation of our faith. If Jesus Christ was not both God and human, then he could not have saved humanity. Only God saves, but only a human can deal with the curse laid on humanity. 4:4: Burdick writes this: This victory did not consist of driving the heretics out physically, although the latter had left the congregation of believers (2:19). Instead it was a victory of rejecting their heretical message and continuing to hold fast to the truth as taught by the apostles. It was a doctrinal victory rather than a moral one, although it was bound to have a moral effect. 8 On this basis, it would seem to make sense that John is not writing so much about fears concerning what the world might do to those within the church, but about fears that believers might be lured out of the church to go along with those who preach from the spirit of antichrist. This makes a lot of sense, actually, and it illuminates Johns message in 5-6: you cannot be drawn away, because you know God, and therefore you listen to those who preach the Spirit of truth. You have overcome the world in the sense that Gods truth is more powerful than the worlds lies, and your faith (cf. 5:4-5) will be preserved by the power of Almighty God! John Stott puts it this way: This overcoming is not so much moral (as in ii. 13, 14, where the same word occurs) as intellectual. The false teachers have not succeeded in deceiving you. Not only have you tested them and found them wanting, but you have conquered them. You have not succumbed to their blandishments or believed their lies. Hence, no doubt, they had found themselves obliged to depart (Ebrard), as ii. 19 declares. And the cause of your victory is not hard to find. He that is in you is likely to be the Spirit of truth (6), the anointing which abideth in you (ii. 20, 27), while he that is in the world is the devil, the spirit of error (6). We may thank God that, although (it is implied) the evil spirit is indeed great, the Holy Spirit is greater, and that by His illumination we too may be sure to overcome all false teaching. Here, as in ii. 18-27, protection against error or victory over it is ascribed both to an objective standard of doctrine and to the indwelling Spirit who illumines our minds to grasp and apply it, for unless the Spirit of wisdom is present, there is little or no profit in having Gods Word in our hands (Calvin).9 4:5-6: John moves from identifying the false spirits/false prophets (4:1-3) to comforting those who fear the false spirits/false prophets (4:4), and now he begins to explain the disconnect between Christians and the world. Why is it that Christians find Christianity so reasonable, but the world looks at it with scorn, disdain, and confusion? John essentially describes two languages, one spoken by those born of God and one spoken by those of the world. Those of the world cannot understand our language, but only the language of the world. So, whoever knows God listens to us; whoever is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error. I dont think that John is merely being tribalistic here. He isnt drawing dividing lines for their own sake, but he is doing something biggerhe is describing the way in which we come to recognize the truth, which is that we do so by knowing God.

John Stott, The Epistles of John, an introduction and commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), 156. Donald Burdick, The letters of John the Apostle : an in-depth commentary (Chicago: Moody Press, 1985), 301. 9 John Stott, The Epistles of John, an introduction and commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), 157.
8

If we dont know God, we do not listen to the Spirit of truth, nor those who speak in the Spirit of truth. Of course, this problem is self-perpetuating, since if we only listen to the spirit of the world (the spirit of error), then we will never come to know God, and therefore we will not listen to the Spirit of the truth. And by the way, the Spirit of truth undoubtedly refers to the Holy SpiritJesus uses this name for the Holy Spirit in John 14:17. Another important point here is that this isnt to be taken individually: These statements sound the height of arrogance. So they would be if uttered by an individual Christian. No private believer could presume to say: whoever knows God agrees with me; only those who are not of God disagree with me. But this is what John says. The fact is that he is not speaking in his own name, nor even in the name of the Church, but as one of the apostles, who were conscious of the special authority bestowed upon them by Jesus Christ.10

10

John Stott, The Epistles of John, an introduction and commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), 158.