1 JOHN 4 COMMENTARY EXPLAINED

1 JOHN 4 COMMENTARY
EDITED BY GLENN PEASE
On Denying the Incarnation
1 Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but
test the spirits to see whether they are from
God, because many false prophets have gone
out into the world.
1.BARNES, “Beloved, believe not every spirit - Do not confide implicitly in everyone
who professes to be under the influences of the Holy Spirit. Compare Mat_24:4-5. The true and
the false teachers of religion alike claimed to be under the influence of the Spirit of God, and it
was of importance that all such pretensions should be examined. It was not to be admitted
because anyone claimed to have been sent from God that therefore he was sent. Every such
claim should be subjected to the proper proof before it was conceded. All pretensions to divine
inspiration, or to being authorised teachers of religion, were to be examined by the proper tests,
because there were many false and delusive teachers who set up such claims in the world.
But try the spirits whether they are of God - There were those in the early Christian
church who had the gift of “discerning spirits,” (see the notes at 1Co_12:10), but it is not certain
that the apostle refers here to any such supernatural power. It is more probable, as he addresses
this command to Christians in general, that he refers to the ability of doing this by a comparison
of the doctrines which they professed to hold with what was revealed, and by the fruits of their
doctrines in their lives. If they taught what God had taught in his word, and if their lives
corresponded with his requirements, and if their doctrines agreed with what had been
inculcated by those who were admitted to be true apostles, 1Jo_4:6, they were to receive them as
what they professed to be. If not, they were to reject them, and hold them to be impostors. It
may be remarked, that it is just as proper and as important now to examine the claims of all who
profess to be teachers of religion, as it was then. In a matter so momentous as religion, and
where there is so much at stake, it is important that all pretensions of this kind should be
subjected to a rigid examination. No one should be received as a religious teacher without the
clearest evidence that he has come in accordance with the will of God, nor unless he inculcates
the very truth which God has revealed. See the Isa_8:20 note, and Act_17:11 note.
Because many false prophets are gone out into the world - The word prophet is often
used in the New Testament to denote religious instructors or preachers. See the notes at
Rom_12:6. Compare the notes at 2Pe_2:1. Such false teachers evidently abounded in the times
here referred to. See the notes at 1Jo_2:18. The meaning is, that many had gone out into the
world pretending to be true teachers of religion, but who inculcated most dangerous doctrines;

and it was their duty to be on their guard against them, for they had the very spirit of antichrist,
1Jo_4:3.
2. CLARKE, “Beloved, believe not every spirit - Do not be forward to believe every
teacher to be a man sent of God. As in those early times every teacher professed to be inspired
by the Spirit of God, because all the prophets had come thus accredited, the term spirit was used
to express the man who pretended to be and teach under the Spirit’s influence. See 1Co_12:1-12;
1Ti_4:1.
Try the Spirits - ∆οκιµαζετε τα πνευµατα· Put these teachers to the proof. Try them by that
testimony which is known to have come from the Spirit of God, the word of revelation already
given.
Many false prophets - Teachers not inspired by the Spirit of God, are gone out into the
world - among the Jewish people particularly, and among them who are carnal and have not the
Spirit.
3. GILL, “Beloved, believe not every spirit,.... The apostle having mentioned the word
"spirit" in the latter part of the preceding chapter, takes an occasion from thence to return to
what he had been suggesting in the "second" chapter, concerning the many antichrists that then
were, and whom he points out, and here cautions against. By "every spirit" he means, either
every doctrine that is pretended to come from the Spirit of God, or every teacher, who professes
to be qualified and sent by him, and to have his light, knowledge, and doctrine from him. Every
true minister of the Gospel has the Spirit, and the gifts of the Spirit, more or less, to qualify him
for his work; he is separated, and called to it by him, and receives his spiritual light find
knowledge from him; it is he that teaches him sound doctrine, and leads him into all truth, as it
is in Jesus, and brings every necessary truth to his remembrance; and who succeeds his
ministrations to the good of souls: but there are some who call themselves the ministers of the
Gospel, who, though they may have some natural abilities, and a share of human learning, and a
notional knowledge of things, yet have never received either grace or gifts from the Spirit; nor
have they been ever called by him; nor are their ministrations according to that divine word
which is inspired by him, nor attended with his demonstration and power; wherefore, though
some professing to have the Spirit of Christ are to be believed, yet not everyone; and though the
Spirit is not to be quenched in any, nor prophesying to be despised, yet care should be taken
what is heard and received: some persons are so obstinate and incredulous as not to believe
anything that is declared, be the evidence what it will; as the Jews would not believe Christ and
his apostles, though what they said agreed with Moses and the prophets, and was confirmed by
miracles; and others are too credulous; at once receive every teacher, and embrace every upstart
doctrine: this they should not do,
but try the spirits whether they are of God; not by human reason, especially as carnal and
unsanctified; for though the doctrines of the Gospel are not contrary to true reason, they are
above it, and not to be judged of by it, and are disapproved of and rejected by carnal reason; but
by the word of God, which is the standard of all doctrine; and whatever agrees with that is to be
received, and what does not should be rejected. And so to do is very commendable, as appears
from the instance of the Beraeans, who on this account are said to be more noble than those of
Thessalonica, Act_17:11; and from the commendation of the church at Ephesus, Rev_2:2. And

this is what every believer, every private Christian should do; to them it belongs to read and
search the Scriptures, and prove all things, and judge for themselves of the truth of doctrine;
and to such a probation or trial of the spirits, spiritual light, knowledge, judgment, sense,
experience, and divine guidance are necessary, which should be asked of God, and an increase
thereof; and all such diligent searchers, and humble inquirers, are capable of making judgment
of persons and doctrines, whether they are from the Spirit of God or not, for the Spirit of God
never speaks contrary to his word: and the reason why such a trial should be made is,
because many false prophets are gone out into the world: such who pretended either to
a revelation of future things, and to foretell things to come; or rather to a gift of prophesying, or
preaching in Christ's name, to be "prophets" and spiritual men, and ministers of the word, but
were "false" ones; who either predicted what did not come to pass, or rather preached false
doctrine, by corrupting the word, and handling it deceitfully, and so imposed upon and ruined
the souls of others, as well as deceived their own: and there were not only one, or two, or a few of
these, but "many", as our Lord had foretold, Mat_24:11; and which makes the reason the
stronger for not believing every spirit, but trying them; and the rather, since they were not sent
of God, hot called out by his churches, but were "gone out" of themselves; of their own heads,
and without any mission from God or man: and "into the world" too; they were in every part of
it, and especially where there were any churches of Christ; into which they first crept in privily,
and at unawares, but afterwards became public preachers of the word, and then separating from
them, set up openly in the world for themselves.
4. HENRY, “
The apostle, having said that God's dwelling in and with us may be known by the Spirit that he
hath given us, intimates that that Spirit may be discerned and distinguished from other spirits
that appear in the world; and so here,
I. He calls the disciples, to whom he writes, to caution and scrutiny about the spirits and
spiritual professors that had now risen. 1. To caution: “Beloved, believe not every spirit; regard
not, trust not, follow not, every pretender to the Spirit of God, or every professor of vision, or
inspiration, or revelation from God.” Truth is the foundation of simulation and counterfeits;
there had been real communications from the divine Spirit, and therefore others pretended
thereto. God will take the way of his own wisdom and goodness, though it may be liable to
abuse; he has sent inspired teachers to the world, and given us a supernatural revelation, though
others may be so evil and so impudent as to pretend the same; every pretender to the divine
Spirit, or to inspiration, and extraordinary illumination thereby, is not to be believed. Time was
when the spiritual man (the man of the Spirit, who made a great noise about, and boast of, the
Spirit) was mad, Hos_9:7. 2. To scrutiny, to examination of the claims that are laid to the Spirit:
But try the spirits, whether they be of God, 1Jo_4:1. God has given of his Spirit in these latter
ages of the world, but not to all who profess to come furnished therewith; to the disciples is
allowed a judgment of discretion, in reference to the spirits that would be believed and trusted
in the affairs of religion. A reason is given for this trial: Because many false prophets have gone
out into the world, 1Jo_4:1. There being much about the time of our Saviour's appearance in the

world a general expectation among the Jews of a Redeemer to Israel, and the humiliation,
spiritual reformation, and sufferings of the Saviour being taken as a prejudice against him,
others were induced to set up as prophets and messiahs to Israel, according to the Saviour's
prediction, Mat_24:23, Mat_24:24. It should not seem strange to us that false teachers set
themselves up in the church: it was so in the apostles' times; fatal is the spirit of delusion, sad
that men should vaunt themselves for prophets and inspired preachers that are by no means so!
5. JAMISON, “1Jo_4:1-21. Tests of false prophets. Love, the test of birth from God, and the
necessary fruit of knowing His great love in Christ to us.
Beloved — the affectionate address wherewith he calls their attention, as to an important
subject.
every spirit — which presents itself in the person of a prophet. The Spirit of truth, and the
spirit of error, speak by men’s spirits as their organs. There is but one Spirit of truth, and one
spirit of Antichrist.
try — by the tests (1Jo_4:2, 1Jo_4:3). All believers are to do so: not merely ecclesiastics. Even
an angel’s message should be tested by the word of God: much more men’s teachings, however
holy the teachers may seem.
because, etc. — the reason why we must “try,” or test the spirits.
many false prophets — not “prophets” in the sense “foretellers,” but organs of the spirit
that inspires them, teaching accordingly either truth or error: “many Antichrists.”
are gone out — as if from God.
into the world — said alike of good and bad prophets (2Jo_1:7). The world is easily seduced
(1Jo_4:4, 1Jo_4:5).
5B. PULPIT, “ THE INTRODUCTION. It declares the writer's authority, based on personal experience;
announces the subject-matter of his Gospel, to which this Epistle forms a companion; and states his
object in writing the Epistle.
These opening verses help to raise the reader to the high frame of mind in which the apostle writes.
Emotion, suppressed under a sense of awe and solemnity, is shown by the involved construction through
which his thoughts struggle for utterance. We are reminded of the introduction to the Gospel, especially in
the first clause. Both announce to us the subject of the writing which follows—the Word who is the Life.
Both set before us, in the simplest language, truths of profoundest meaning. But while in the Gospel he
seems to lose sight of his readers in the magnitude of his subject, here the thought of his "little children" is
uppermost.
The construction of the first three verses may be taken in more ways than one; but almost certainly the
main verb is ἀπαγγέλλοµεν , and the clauses introduced by ὅ give the substance of the ἀπάγγελία . The
sentence is broken by the parenthetical 1Jn_1:2, after which the main part of 1Jn_1:1 is repeated for
clearness. Reduced to a simple form, the whole runs thus: "That which was from the beginning, which we
have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon, and our hands handled,
concerning the Word of life, we declare to you also, that ye also may have communion with us."
1Jn_1:1
The first clause states what or how the object is in itself; the next three state St. John's relation to it;
"which," in the first clause nominative, in the others is accusative. The neuter ( ὅ ) expresses a collective
and comprehensive whole (Joh_4:22; Joh_6:37; Joh_17:2; Act_17:23, etc.); the attributes of
the Λόγος rather than the Λόγος himself are indicated. Or, as Jelf expresses it, "the neuter gender

denotes immaterial personality, the masculine or feminine material personality." In the beginning is not
quite the same as in Joh_1:1; there St. John tells us that the Word was in existence before the world was
created; here that he was in existence before he was manifested. Thus far all is indefinite; the
philosopher, about to expound a law of nature, might begin, "That which was from the beginning declare
we unto you." What follows is in a climax, making the meaning clearer at each step: seeing is more than
hearing, and handling than seeing. The climax is in two pairs, of perfects and of aorists; the aorists giving
the past acts, the perfects the permanent results. Together they sum up the apostolic experience of that
boundless activity of Christ, of which the world could not contain the full account
(Joh_21:25). Beheld ἐθεασάµεθα is more than have seen ἑωράκαµεν . Seeing might be momentary;
beholding implies that steady contemplation, for which the beloved disciple had large and abundantly
used opportunities. In our hands handled we may see a reference to Luk_24:39, where the same verb is
used ψηλαφήσατε ; and still more to Joh_20:27, where the demanded test of handling is offered to St.
Thomas, provoking the confession of faith to which the whole Gospel leads up, "My Lord and my God!"
Had St. John merely said "heard," we might have thought that he meant a doctrine. Had he merely said
"heard and seen," we might have understood it of the effects of Christ's doctrine. But "our hands handled"
shows clearly that the attributes of the Word become flesh are what St. John insists on, and probably as a
contradiction of Docetism. "Those who read his letter could have no doubt that he was referring to the
time when he saw the face of Jesus Christ, when he heard his discourses, when he grasped his hand,
when he leaned upon his breast" (Maurice). Between the first clause and what follows lies the
tremendous fact of the Incarnation; and St. John piles verb on verb, and clause on clause, to show that
he speaks with the authority of full knowledge, and that there is no possible room for Ebionite or
Cerinthian error. The first clause assures us that Jesus was no mere man; the others assure us that he
was really man. Precisely that Being who was in existence from the beginning is that of whom St. John
and others have had, and still possess, knowledge by all the means through which knowledge can have
access to the mind of man. (For "seeing with the eyes," cf. Luk_2:30; for θεᾶσθαι of contemplating with
delight [Stark Luk_16:11, Luk_16:14], Joh_1:14,Joh_1:34; Act_1:11.) Concerning the Word of
life. "Concerning" περί may depend on "have heard," and, by a kind of zengma, on the other three verbs
also; or on the main verb," we declare." "The Word of life" means "the Word who is the Life," like "the city
of Rome, the Book of Genesis;" the genitive case is "the characterizing or identifying genitive."
The περί is strongly against the interpretation, "the word of life," i.e., the life-giving gospel. Had St. John
meant this, he would probably have written ὅν ἀκηκόαµεν τὸν λόγον τῆς ζωῆς
ἀπαγγέλλοµεν (Joh_5:24, Joh_5:37; Joh_8:43; Joh_14:24); περί is very frequent of persons
(Joh_1:7, Joh_1:8, Joh_1:15, Joh_1:22, Joh_1:30, Joh_1:48, etc.). Moreover, the evident connexion
between the introductions to his Gospel and Epistle compels us to understand ὁ Λόγος in the same sense
in both (see on Joh_1:1 in this Commentary, and in the 'Cambridge Greek Testament' or 'Bible for
Schools'). What St. John has to announce is his own experience of the Eternal Word incarnate, the
Eternal Life made manifest (Joh_14:6); his hearing of his words, his seeing with his own eyes his
Messianic works, his contemplation of the Divinity which shone through both; his handling of the body of
the risen Redeemer.
6. BI, “The test of truth—confessing Christ
In the Word of God we are warned against sitting in judgment on others.
Especially are we enjoined not to cultivate a censorious and uncharitable spirit. But in the text
Christians seem to be enjoined to exercise their powers of judgment and discrimination in
another way. They are called upon to try the spirits whether they are of God. To try a spirit is not
to try an individual; it is not to try even a community of men; rather is it to put to the test of
enlightened reason some principle they follow as true, some institution they uphold as right.
I. The scientific false prophet; or antiChrist in the schools, especially in connection with the
study and interpretation of nature. There are three points in the scientific world that appear to
be prominent. These points are—first, that our highest business here is to study nature—that
nature at least in relation to this present life is supreme; second, that natural or physical law is

absolutely uniform or unbending, and has been so since the creation of the universe; third, that
the human race is to be elevated, regenerated, or truly developed from the basis of nature, and
in accordance merely with natural laws. Now, if it really were so, we can have no hesitation in
saying that the position and claims of the Christian religion are quite incompatible with it. If the
dream of such thinkers were destined to be realised, Christianity must slowly fade from the
earth, with other superstitions. It is only too evident what the spirit and hope of such systems is.
Take the first position—that nature or the visible material scene around us is the supreme
influence and power in relation to our life upon the earth. That involves the denial of a Divine
revelation. Take the second position—that for incalculable ages Nature has been undeviating in
her course. That law maintains its slow, grand march through millions of years, without
deviation, acceleration, or interruption. That may be thought a grand idea; but as it is advanced
in certain systems, it is not a true one; for it is a shutting out of the miraculous altogether. Take
the third position—that man is saved by obedience to natural law, and that the human race will
be elevated and ennobled only as men study the laws of nature, and conform themselves to
them. That is a doctrine put forth by some. It looks with a sinister and disparaging eye on
Christianity and the Church. It does not hesitate sometimes to say that all religions have been a
misfortune to the world. When the plague comes this spirit declares that prayer is useless, and
that the only thing that can save us is to perfect our sanitary arrangements. This is a spirit of
antichrist, for it is the denial of a moral government in the Scriptural sense of the word.
II. The secular false prophet; or antichrist in the kingdoms of the world. In as far as the
kingdoms of the world are necessary to maintain order, to suppress violence, and repel invasion,
they are the ordinance of God, but in so far as they perpetuate injustice and wrong, of course
they cannot be of God; they are babels and antichrists, standing in the way of His kingdom who
has the absolute right to rule. Now it is the duty of everyone to whom the light of the gospel
comes to become a subject of the kingdom of Christ. That light will show him what is wrong in
existing systems. It will show him that some of them are fundamentally wrong, but it will not
teach him to remedy that wrong by violence and revolution. The eternal moral principle that
truth and justice cannot be permanently advanced by mere physical force, enters into the
foundation of Christ’s kingdom. And if anyone asks, How then are we to hold our own in the
world? the only answer that can be given is, that it is our duty to do as Christ did. Because God
lives all those who have faith in Him will live also.
III. The literary false prophet; or antichrist in the world of letters. This is a time of great
thinkers, great writers, great bookmakers. We do not speak of individuals. We have no right to
judge them; but their works we may judge, and the spirit of their works we may try whether it is
of God or no. Now we know that some of the greatest works in the world are books written in
defence of Christianity; but it is also true that some writers of considerable power have taken up
positive ground against Christianity and have sufficiently shown that they do not believe that
Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. They do not believe in Him as the eternal Son of God, and the
only Saviour of men. Some of them have written books expressly to deny this. But this is not so
much what the text suggests. There are other writers of great power and influence in both
hemispheres of the world who occupy rather a negative and undefined position in relation to
Christ and Christianity. They have written upon almost every subject of human thought—upon
government and the Church, upon history and biography, upon morals and destiny. They have
gone round the world to find heroes and representative men, and have said many true and
striking things about them; but, strange to say, they have never clearly informed the world as to
what they think of Christ. They are unaccountably reticent upon a subject that is the most
important of all.
IV. The religious false prophet; or antichrist in the ecclesiastical world. The antichrist of an
atheistical, political system; of a poor, blind, hero worship—the worship of mere intellectual

ability and unfathomable cunning; and the antichrist of a barren Protestantism which has a
name to live while it is dead—such forms as these are little better than the Papacy.
V. The social false prophet; or antichrist in the work of everyday life. That is the most deadly
form of antichrist which professes great respect for Christianity, but lives in continual
opposition to its principles; and we cannot shut our eyes to the fact that a great amount of the
Christian profession of this country seems little more than a mere profession. This is called a
Christian country, but look at the woes that are festering in the midst of us; think of the rank
worldliness and heartlessness that is baptized into the name of Christ. Is this not the reason why
prayer seems unanswered, and troubles are thickening upon the land? (F. Ferguson, D. D.)
Our righteousness exercised in trying the spirits; the test, confessing that Jesus
Christ is come in the flesh
I. It properly belongs to the Spirit to “confess that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh.” He had
much to do with the flesh in which Jesus Christ came. He prepared for Him a body in the
Virgin’s womb, so as to secure that He came into the world pure and sinless. And all throughout
His sojourn on earth the Spirit ministered to Him as “Jesus Christ come in the flesh”; He could
not minister to Him otherwise. It is the flesh, or humanity, of Jesus Christ that brings Him
within the range of the Spirit’s gracious care. It was His human experience that the Spirit
animated and sustained; and it is with His human experience also that the Spirit deals when He
“takes of what is Christ’s and shows it unto us.” His object is to make us one with “Jesus Christ
as come in the flesh.” That practically is His confession to us and in us. Let us see what it
implies.
1. He identifies us with Jesus Christ in His humiliation. In our Divine regeneration He
brings us to be subject to the authority and commandments of God—willingly subject—our
nature being renewed into the likeness of His.
2. The Spirit identifies us with Jesus Christ, not only in His humiliation, but in its conditions
and liabilities. His coming in the flesh is His consenting to be crucified for us; the Spirit in us
confessing Him as come in the flesh makes us willing to be crucified with Him. “In my flesh I
shall see God” was the hope of the patriarch Job. It is made sure by Jesus Christ come in the
flesh, and by the Spirit confessing in us that He is come.
II. This accordingly is the secret of our present victory over anti-Christian spirits and men: “Ye
are of God, little children, and have overcome them” (verse 4).
1. The victory is a real victory got over the false prophets or teachers, who are not of God,
whom the spirit of antichrist inspires. And it is a victory over them personally; not over their
doctrines and principles merely, but over themselves—“ye have overcome them.” It is the
actual “coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh,” and His actual accomplishment, in the flesh, of
all that in the flesh He came for, that they resent and resist. It is that which Satan, the
original spirit of antichrist, would fain have set himself to hinder; moving Herod to slay
Jesus in His childhood, and Judas to betray Him in his manhood; tempting Jesus to make
shipwreck of His integrity. And it is your actual personal participation with Him, as “Jesus
Christ come in the flesh”; your being really one with Him in that wondrous humiliation, in
its spirit and its fruit; that, so far as you are concerned, they seek to frustrate. In realising
that, you get the better of them; confessing thus Jesus Christ come in the flesh, you have
overcome them.
2. Your having overcome them is connected with your “being of God” (verse 4); which again
is intimately connected with your “confessing that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh” (verse
2). Your being of God is the intermediate link between your confessing thus Jesus Christ is

come in the flesh (verse 2), and your having overcome them who reject that truth (verse 4).
The essential characteristic of the spirit of antichrist is that it is “not of God.” It does not look
at the Saviour and the salvation as on the side of God; rather it takes an opposite view, and
subjects God to man. It subordinates everything to human interests and human claims;
looks at everything from a human and mundane point of view; measures everything by a
human standard; submits everything to human opinion—in a word, conceives and judges of
God after the manner of man. This, indeed, may be said to be the distinctive feature of all
false religions, as well as of all corruptions of the true religion. They exalt man. They dislike
such representations as bring in the element of God’s holy name and righteous authority,
and lay much stress upon that element as one of primary consideration in the plan of saving
mercy. Hence they naturally shrink from owning explicitly Jesus Christ as come in the flesh
to make atonement by satisfying Divine justice. But “ye are of God, little children,” in this
matter; in the view that you take, and the conception that you form of Jesus Christ come in
the flesh; of the end of His coming, and the manner in which that end is attained. You look at
that great fact, first and chiefly in its relation to God, and as on the side of God. It is from
God and for God that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. So He always taught; and so you
firmly believe. You sit at the feet of Jesus Christ come in the flesh. You stand beside His
Cross. You do not now stumble at the mystery of its bloody expiation; or quarrel with the
great propitiation sacrifice through unbelief of its necessity. Nay, being “of God,” on His side
and in His interest in the whole of this great transaction, you can meekly, in faith, commit to
Him and leave in His hands even the most terrible of those ultimate and eternal
consequences, involving the aggravated guilt and final ruin of many, that you cannot but see
to be inseparably mixed up with the confession that “Jesus Christ is come in the flesh.” (R. S.
Candlish, D. D.)
Testing false teachers
I. The general counsel—“Beloved, believe not every spirit,” etc. Those who are called “spirits” in
the first part of it are denominated “prophets” in the last. They are the ministers of the Word,
whether they write or preach it. They are supposed to be under the dominion of other spirits.
These may be good, or they may be evil. Such being the position of the teachers of the Church,
we must at once perceive the propriety of the counsel which is given respecting them. “Believe
not every spirit.” You are not to suppose because a man is a minister he must be sound in his
views, or faithful in his office, or exemplary in his life. All professing ministers must be tested by
members of the Church. Nor let us fail particularly to notice what is to be tried in the matter of
all ministers of the Word. It is “whether they are of God.” How solemn the duty! Has God sent
them? Do they bear their credentials from Him? Do they speak His truth? Do they maintain His
cause? Do they promote His glory? A reason is assigned for this duty, “Because many false
prophets are gone out into the world.” It was so even in the days of the apostles. All their
influence, and zeal, and fidelity could not prevent it. The opponents of the truth were many—
many in numbers, many in their forms of error, and many in the spirit and practices of enmity
which they discovered. It is, therefore, no strange thing that happens if the same be found in all
subsequent ages. Nor let us overlook the powerful motive by which the members of the Church
are urged to fidelity in the duty here required of them. Compassion for false teachers should
operate on them. Their guilt is great and we should earnestly seek to deliver them from it. What
is the crime of the man who sets up a false light on the dangerous shore? Such is that of the false
teacher. But it is not he only that is concerned. Our Lord has said, “If the blind lead the blind,
both shall fall into the ditch.” In like manner they who mislead the members of the Church draw
them with themselves to destruction. Above all, if we encourage false teachers we are held
accountable with them and shall be partakers in their condemnation.

II. Having given this general counsel the apostle proceeds to give a particular illustration of both
the error that might be introduced and of the duty of opposing it in the subsequent verses—
“hereby know ye the spirit of God,” etc. There are signs by which the minister who is under the
teaching and influence of the Spirit of God may be known. What are they? They are both positive
and negative. “Every spirit that confesseth,” etc.
1. To confess that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is to own the Divinity of His mission.
2. To confess that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is to own the Divinity of His person.
3. To confess that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is to own the grace of both His mission
and His person (2Co_8:9).
4. Finally, to confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is to own Him to be an all-
sufficient Saviour. (J. Morgan, D. D.)
The springs and motives of false pretences to the Holy Spirit; with the rules and
marks of trying and detecting them
These words very plainly pointed at the false pretenders to the Spirit, appearing in those early
days.
I. From what springs or motives the false pretences to the spirit generally proceed. Vainglory, or
a thirst after fame, is often the most prevailing motive. But to go a little deeper; self-love, of
some kind or other, is the general root of all. Who does not wish to be one of the favourites of
heaven, and to be extraordinarily illuminated, or conducted by God’s Holy Spirit? When the
pleasing delusion is once indulged thus far, the man begins presently to fancy himself a kind of
saint upon earth, or perhaps an apostle. It is not to be doubted but that persons of this unhappy
complexion must have some appearances whereby to deceive their own hearts.
II. By what rules or marks any pretences of that kind may be tried, and detected to be false and
vain.
1. Boasting and ostentation are a flat contradiction to the very supposal of the ordinary
graces boasted of; because humility and modesty are the very chief graces upon which all the
rest hang.
2. Another sure, mark of a false spirit is disobedience to rule and order, contempt of lawful
authority, and especially any intruding into what does not belong to them.
3. Another sure mark of a false spirit is the laying down deceitful rules or tokens whereby to
judge, whether or when a man has the spirit of God. There have been many who have laid
great stress upon I know not what sensible emotions, or violent impulses, coming upon them
at times.
III. How much it concerns us to be upon our guard in such cases. Religion, like all other weighty
concernments, is best carried on in the calm, regular, and sedate way; and there fore great care
should be taken to keep up the old and well-tried methods, rather than to change them for new
devices, which will never answer. (D. Waterland, D. D.)
Rules for trial of the spirits
I. What rules they had in the apostles’ days to try the spirits, and to distinguish the false
prophets or teachers from the true.

1. The miraculous gifts which were then bestowed upon the true prophets or teachers.
2. Their obedience and subjection to the apostles of our Blessed Saviour, as the great
directors of their ministry.
3. The agreement of their doctrine with the doctrines taught by Christ and His apostles.
II. What rules there are in our days, to know and distinguish them so as that the honest and
well-meaning Christians may not be imposed upon by false prophets or teachers.
1. If men pretend to come to us with an extraordinary message from God, or boast of an
extraordinary inspiration, such as the apostles had, we may justly require of them to give the
same, or the like extraordinary proof of it.
2. If they pretend to no more than a common and ordinary assistance of God’s Holy Spirit,
such as any good man may lay claim to, then are they subject to Christ and His apostles, and
obey those orders and injunctions they have left us in the New Testament.
3. If anyone, though never so regularly called to the office of the ministry, should preach a
doctrine contrary to the doctrine of the gospel, such a teacher is not to be heard—his spirit
cannot be from God.
Conclusion:
1. From what has been said we may learn to make a true judgment of those who take upon
them the office of preachers.
2. We should take care that the wild notions and practices of these men do not create a
prejudice in us, and possess us with a less esteem for religion in general, or any particular
doctrines of Christianity; for there is nothing so good but may be mistaken or abused, and an
ill use made of it.
3. That God assists good men, both in the knowledge and practice of their duty, by the secret
operation of His Holy Spirit, is a plain and certain doctrine of Christianity; but that the
motions of the Holy Spirit are to be distinguished from the natural workings of our own
minds, or the suggestions of the evil spirit by anything to be felt in these motions
themselves, does not appear from Holy Scripture. The only way we have to distinguish them
is to bring them to the standard of truth, and those rules of right and wrong, of good and
evil, which are fixed and certain. (Chas. Peters, M. A.)
The duty of testing the spirits
I. The faith of the Christian rests upon inward conviction, not on outward authority.
1. Scripture proof of this.
(1) We are commanded to test the doctrines delivered to us. (1Th_5:21; 1Co_2:10;
1Co_2:14-15; 1Co_10:15).
(2) The foundation of our faith is declared to be such (Joh_6:45; Joh_14:26; Joh_16:13;
Eph_2:18; Eph_4:21; 1Th_4:9; Heb_8:10-11; 1Jn_2:27; also Rom_14:5; Col_2:2;
1Th_1:5).
2. The occasions on which the apostles spoke with authority of their own had to do with
minor matters. The gospel they had to deliver was entrusted to them from above, (1Co_9:16;
Gal_1:8-9). Over that they had no power, (Eph_3:2-3; Col_1:25; 1Ti_1:11).

II. Yet outward authority has its own function in the Church of God. It deals, not with the truths
of Christianity itself, but with rules and ordinances, which touch, not the essence of the Church’s
life, but its details.
III. The true limits of outward authority. Every society must have its rules. Our conscience must
be satisfied that there is nothing wrong in principle in these rules.
IV. By what test are we to try the spirits?
V. There are many errors abroad. St. John warns the Christians of his day against error. The
warning is equally necessary now. It needs not to specify instances. They fall under four heads:
(1) traditional corruptions of the faith, whether in a Roman or a Protestant direction;
(2) new revelations, such as Swedenborgianism, Irvingism, or Mormonism;
(3) neglect of portions of revealed truth, such as has often led to the formation of sects;
and
(4) denial of all revelation, as in the various forms of infidelity. (J. J. Lias, M. A.)
The true and false spirits
In this world there appears to be no truth without its counterfeit, no religion without hypocrites,
no gold without tinsel, nor good wheat of God unmixed with tares. Christ is mimicked by
Antichrist. Indeed, the more active is religious thought and life in any period, so much the more
numerous and plausible are likely to be the forms of religious delusion and imposture. St. John
has set forth in his last paragraph (1Jn_3:19-24) the grounds of a Christian man’s assurance; he
has traced it to its spring in the gift of the Spirit, who first kindled the life of God within
ourselves. But, alas! even on this point deception is possible, and a warning is necessary.
“Beloved,” he interjects, “don’t be believing every spirit, but test the spirits, to see whether they
are of God.” It is a common but perilous mistake occurring even in books of Christian evidence,
to treat the supernatural as synonymous with the Divine. One is amazed at the facility with
which many religious minded people fall into the meshes of spiritualism. Let them be persuaded
that they are witnessing manifestations from another world, and they bow to them at once as
Divine revelation, without considering their intrinsic character, their moral worth, their
agreement with Scripture and established truth. Let it be proved to me that certain phenomena
are “spiritual,” and I say, “Very possibly; but there are many spirits abroad in the world—some
of them from the pit!” The Apostle Paul had had to deal with a similar opposition at Corinth,
with spiritual and prophetical manifestations that contravened his teaching. And he speaks in
1Co_12:10 of the “discerning of spirits,” the power to distinguish genuine from spurious
inspiration, as a supernatural grace bestowed upon certain members of the Church. On the same
point he wrote to the Thessalonians earlier (verses 19, 20). Our Lord Himself foretold in His last
discourses the rise of “false Christs and false prophets” to deceive the Church. “The false
prophet” figures side by side with “the wild beast” in his visions in the Apocalypse, representing
a corrupt form of religion abetting a cruel and persecuting worldly power. Elymas, the Jewish
sorcerer of Paphos, was a specimen of this kind of trader in the supernatural (Act_13:6). In the
later Old Testament times such upstarts were numerous, men who professed to speak by
revelation in Jehovah’s name, and who brought a more popular message than the true prophets,
and for gain flattered the rulers and the multitude to their destruction. This last feature appears
in St. John’s false prophets: “They are of the world”—animated by its spirit and tastes;
“therefore they speak of the world (they utter what it prompts; they give back to the world its
own ideas, and tickle its ear with its vain fancies), and the world heareth them.” Along with their
worldly spirit, it is false doctrine rather than miracles or lying predictions that supplies the chief

mark of the class of men denounced by our apostle. Accordingly, he puts them through a
theological examination: he uses for their touchstone the Incarnate Deity of Jesus. In this way
the apostle comes round again to the subject of 1Jn_2:18-29, and the great conflict there
announced between Christ and Antichrist. It is evident, from the whole Epistle, that the burning
question of controversy just then was the nature of Jesus Christ—the reality of His bodily form,
and the consistency of His seeming fleshly life with His higher Divine origin and being.
1. St. John’s crucial test of Christian belief lies, then, in the true confession of Christ Himself.
“In this,” says the apostle, “you may know the Spirit of God.” One may repeat a creed glibly
enough, and yet be very far from “confessing Jesus Christ.” We can only apprehend Him,
and lay hold of the person of Christ with a realising mental grasp, by the aid of the Spirit of
God: “No man can say Jesus is Lord,” declared the other theological apostle, “except in the
Holy Ghost” (1Co_12:3; Mat_16:17). But mark the precise form given to this proof question
by St. John: “Every spirit that confesseth Jesus Christ come in flesh.” The content of this
confession is variously construed by interpreters. Some read it, “confesseth Jesus Christ as
come in flesh”—that is, “as the incarnate Messiah.” I do not think that either grammatical
usage or the doctrinal situation points to this construction. Others, “confesseth Jesus Christ
to be come in flesh;” but this makes “Jesus Christ” the specific name of Godhead, equivalent
by itself to “the Son of God” (else it is no antithesis to “come in flesh”); and this is not at all
obvious, nor John-like. We must read the expression as one continuous object: “Confesseth
Jesus Christ come in flesh.” To “confess Jesus Christ” is to confess the human Jesus, known
in the gospel history, as the declared Messiah of God; and to confess Him “come, in flesh,” is
to confess the Godhead in the humanity, to acknowledge Him as indubitable man, but more
than man—to confess, in short, “the Word made flesh.” For, of course, when you speak of
one as “come (arrived) in flesh,” it is assumed that he has issued from some other, spiritual
region, and that his flesh is the garb of a higher nature; otherwise the words are pointless
(Joh_16:28). St. Paul’s watchword of confession in 1Co_12:3, belonged to the stage of
conflict with original Jewish unbelief. As the Messiahship of the Nazarene was preached, the
spirit of evil cried out—and Paul had frequently been thus interrupted in the Jewish
synagogue—“Jesus is anathema, accursed of God! He was justly crucified; He is the
abhorred, and not the elect of Israel!” But it is a more developed and subtle kind of error,
bred within the Church, that is here unmasked. “Christ” is no longer, in St. John’s Ephesian
circle, the disputed title of the crucified Jesus; it is His accepted designation; and the words
Jesus Christ have coalesced by this time into the familiar name of the Redeemer. The rising
Gnosticism of John’s day separated the words in a new fashion, by metaphysical analysis,
not by historical distinction. The new prophets recoiled not from a crucified Messiah, but
from a humanised God. Now St. John’s formula is precisely opposed to this popular heresy
of Asia Minor, which tradition imputes to Cerinthus, the apostle’s personal antagonist. To
“confess Jesus Christ come in flesh” is to declare the oneness of His Divine-human person as
an abiding certainty, not from His baptism, but from His birth and onwards. (Note the force
of the Greek perfect eleluthota, “arrived, come for good and all.”) The bearing of the
expression is indicated by the marginal reading of the Revised Version in verse 3, which is
probably a very ancient gloss upon the text: “Every spirit which dissolveth Jesus is not of
God.” In this latter negative clause (verse 3a) it is to be observed the apostle writes “Jesus”
with the Greek definite article, as much as to say “this Jesus”—“the Jesus thus defined—
Jesus as the Church knows Him, as the apostles preached Him.” He it is whom the spirit of
error rejects, and whose Person it would dissolve and destroy.
2. This brings us to St. John’s second test of true doctrine in the Church, the general consent
of Christian believers. The teaching he denounced was repudiated by the Church; it found
acceptance only in the outside world. The seductions of the false prophets are “overcome” by
John’s “little children,” because they are born “of God”; there is in them a Spirit “greater

than” the spirit that lives “in the world.” Plausible as the new teaching was, and powerful
through its accord with the current of prevailing thought, St. John’s readers, as a body, had
rejected it. They felt it could not be true. They had struggled with the network of error flung
about them, and broken through the snare. They had received an “anointing (the ‘chrism’
which makes Christians) from the Holy One,” in virtue of which they “know the truth,” and
detect, as by an inner, instinctive sense, the “lie” which is its counterfeit (1Jn_2:20).
Admittedly this test, taken by itself, is not easy to apply. The orthodoxy that prevails in any
one Church, or at any given moment, is not necessarily the orthodoxy of the Spirit of God.
You must take a sufficiently large area to get the consensus of Christian faith, and you must
take the central and primary truths, not questions such as those of “the three orders” in
Church government, or the refinements of the Quinquarticular controversy. The danger lies
with us, not in the difficulty that attends a formal adoption of this confession of Christ, but
in the ease with which men accept it in words but deny it in heart and life.
3. St. John in verse 6 clinches the two previous tests of the true or false spirits at work in the
Church by a third—that of agreement with the apostolic testimony. “You are of God,” he
declared in verse 4; but now adds, speaking for himself and his brother witnesses who had
seen and handled the Word made flesh (1Jn_1:1-3), “We are of God: and men are shown to
be of God or not of God by the sole fact of their hearing or refusing us.” This was an
enormous assumption to make, a piece of boundless arrogance, if it was not simple truth.
But the claim has now the endorsement of eighteen centuries behind it. “He that knows God”
(ho ginoskon, verse 5) is, strictly, “he who is getting-to-know”—the learner of God, the true
disciple, the seeker after Divine truth. Is it not to the teaching of the New Testament that
such men, all the world over, are infallibly drawn when it comes within their knowledge?
They follow it, they listen to the Gospel and the Epistles, as the eye follows the dawning light
and the intent ear the breaking of sweet music and the famished appetite the scent of
wholesome food. The soul that seeks God, from whatever distance, knows when it hears the
words of this Book that its quest is not in vain; it is getting what it wants! (G. G. Findlay, B.
A.)
A caution against fanaticism
There is in the human mind a strong propensity: to believe in supernatural communications;
and where fancy is ardent, and the power of reflection little cultivated, this propensity renders
men either so credulous as to believe in the arrogant pretensions of others, or so vain as to set
up their own. Here then we must inquire into the state of our own convictions. Have we the least
reason to suppose that God will act upon our minds or those of others either in revealing new
truths, or in explaining old, or in making us acquainted with future events, by any influence out
of the ordinary course of His providence? We know but one way of accrediting a messenger from
God; and that is by the power of working miracles. But amongst the pretenders to a Divine
commission, not one has been found since the first age of Christianity who has established his
claim upon this ground. “It is finished.” All the truths are promulgated which it concerns us to
know; and all the miracles have been performed which were necessary to convince us that they
are truths from God. To look after this for new revelations, new prophets, new miracles, is to
despise the gospel of Christ, and to turn His grace into wantonness. But though we ought upon
this ground to lend a deaf ear to anyone who in these times assumes a preternatural knowledge
of the designs of God, this of itself will not guard us against the indulgence of a fanatical spirit.
There are many who, though they believe in the sufficiency of Scripture, and in consequence
reject such claims as we have just been exposing, yet entertain a notion not much less absurd,
that the true sense of Scripture is revealed to them by the Spirit of God; whilst all those who do
not admit their interpretation are actuated by the spirit of delusion. This is, in effect, to arrogate

the gift of inspiration. By what evidence then is this claim supported? They tell you that they
possess a certain consciousness of being born again; of having been guided to the truth by the
immediate influence of the Holy Ghost. The same consciousness has been alleged, and with the
same reason, for the most absurd and the most dangerous notions, political and religious, that
ever were broached by the wildest or the weakest heads. But is not another man’s consciousness
as good as yours? And may not he who holds doctrines directly the reverse of yours persuade
himself that he too has the guidance of a Divine spirit? Who then is to judge between you? It
should never be forgotten on this subject that the Almighty, in acting upon our minds, acts by
stated laws adapted to the nature and circumstances of moral agents. He submits the revelation
of His will to the test of our inquiries, and in all essential points it is so plain, that he who runs
may read. The natural province of religious feeling lies not in points of faith, but in the exercises
of devotion. Here, however, we must still try the spirit in which these feelings are indulged. For
here too there is ample scope for delusion. We would not encourage the cold and heartless
religion which never rises with delight to the contemplation and worship of that Being who has
given us affections, that they may centre in Himself. But to produce this salutary effect our piety
must be under the control of rational and sober views; though animated, not extravagant;
though earnest, not familiar. Above all, we must not confound those temporary feelings, which
are the offspring of accidental circumstances, with that devout habit of the mind which, though
less ardent, is more salutary because it acts by a steady and permanent influence. As to what
regards our own practice, let us be equally careful to avoid loud pretensions on the one hand,
and never to shrink from the open but modest avowal of what we deem important truth on the
other. Let us examine our opinions by the standard of the gospel, and try their practical efficacy
by their habitual influence upon our temper and conduct. Let us never rest in emotions, however
strong, however pious, till they are cherished into good habits. But let us also beware, lest in
avoiding the extreme of fanaticism, we run into that of apathy and indifference. (J. Lindsay, D.
D.)
Try the spirits
So St. Paul (1Th_5:21). Cf. among the distribution of gifts of the Spirit, those of criticism and
discernment (1Co_12:10). The spirit of St. John and St. Paul, however deeply reverential and
childlike, is not one of credulous fanaticism, or abject unreasoning submission to authority
(1Co_12:10; 1Co_14:29; 1Ti_4:1). It must have been a crisis time in the spiritual world (Rev_9:1-
3). We must remember that at Ephesus, and in Asia Minor generally, St. John found not only a
heresy of the intellect in Cerinthus and the Gnostics, and a heresy of the senses in the
Nicolaitanes, but also a heresy of magic and mysticism. The streets of Ephesus were full of
theoleptics and convulsionaries; magical practices and invocations were pursued by the
educated with a passionate interest to which modern spiritualism presents but a feeble parallel.
St. Paul triumphed for a season (Act_19:17-20). But Persian Magi, with their enchantments and
philtres, Egyptian hierophants, Chaldean astrologers, came to Ephesus year after year.
Cabalistic letters, called Ephesian letters, were in reputation for their power of healing or
divination. Apollonius of Tyana found an enthusiastic reception in Ephesus. It may be added
that St. John’s Epistles contain no point of the apostles exercising gifts of healing. (Abp. Wm.
Alexander.)
Hereby know ye the Spirit of God—
Characteristic nature of the influences of the Holy Spirit with reference to
personal religion

I. The characteristic nature of the influences of the Holy Spirit.
1. Their perfect accordance with the written Word.
2. Self-abasement under a sense of sin.
3. A faithful reliance on the covenanted mercy of God in Christ.
4. A spirit of prayer.
5. It uniformly excites in the soul a principle of love.
6. There is one other point characteristic of the influence of the Holy Spirit within the soul,
to which we must advert the influential principle of holiness.
II. The nature of this implanted holiness. It is no abstract reverie about the perfectibility of
man’s nature—a dream originating in a half-informed imagination. The holiness of the believer
has a definite character, and a model no less authoritative than it is luminously distinct. (E.
Yoking, M. A.)
Every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of
God—
Christ made a phantom
Did ever human folly go so far as this, asserting the unreality of Christ’s bodily presence, and
making Him but a phantom? Even so is the testimony of history. The apostle had felt the
heaving of that breast, the beating of that heart, and he arrayed himself firmly and intelligibly
against the philosophy of his times, that really, in effect, made Jesus Christ a phantom—an
existence without bodily proportions and substantiality. To exalt the purity of Christ, to make
Him the illustrious soul they desired to recognise Him, they were forced to deny the reality of
His bodily presence, and maintain that it was but show, without substance. That He actually
died upon the Cross they could not allow, and some argued that when the Cross was taken by
Simon the Cyrenean, a change was made, and the Cyrenean was actually crucified, while, in his
shape and appearance, Jesus passed away. How absurd the conclusions to which theories drive
men! Against these ideas the apostle protested. He that professeth not that Christ was really a
man, a proper substantiality, is not of God—is not instructed by the Divine Spirit—hath not the
truth. There are many who do not weigh well this matter. They deem it of little consequence
whether they have an ideal or an historical personage as the embodiment of excellence. They say
the idea is sufficient, and rest satisfied with that. They talk of Christianity being as old as
creation; that it is but the growth of the idea of the race; but they overlook the essential
difference between the effect of a mere idea and an actual person, and that if by any subtlety of
metaphysics, or play of poetic fancy, or theological vagary, we make Jesus not to have laboured
and suffered, died and rose, as the Gospels represent Him, the real, regenerating power of His
example is gone; it is but as fine poetry, or fine music, and the whole of Christ’s resistance of evil
is less than the actor’s performance. I pity those who thus dismiss Christ as a phantom that has
spoken. Dream or reality, fable or historical fact, it is all the same to them. Not so with John’s
estimate of what man would need. He that confesseth not that the Christ of whom my Gospel
treats, who is there portrayed as I saw Him; he who denies that that excellence came in the flesh,
is not of God. He denies God’s greatest benefaction. He accepts not the grandest thing ever done
for humanity. He does not believe that the highest ideal of character has been realised. What we
want is such a sight of Jesus as will exert a transforming power. It was this kind of seeing Jesus
that wrought the vast change which took place in the first centuries of the Christian Church. It
gave new elements to thought. It made life more to be desired. It poured into the channel of
human activity new forces of civilisation and progress, and every department of social life felt

the power of the grandest of all lives. Phantom though He may be to many, Jesus has filled the
world with His presence. It cannot be denied. It is a moral, spiritual power. It has its judgment
seat in our midst, and men of the world, of the bar and the senate, instead of attempting to set
aside His authority when it crosses their path, try their power to bring His consecrated name to
the support of their position. Christ is no phantom. He is before us in social usages, laws,
institutions—in the best blessings of our homes, the best aids to social improvement, the
happiest tendencies of the wondrous activities of the world. (Henry Bacon.)
The object of faith
Three dangers, arising from as many different quarters, seem at this moment to assail the faith
of the Church.
1. The first of these springs from the aversion which is very widely felt towards anything
approaching to an exact and definite theological system. I speak of that large mass of half-
educated minds, the aggregate or average of whose sentiments forms very largely what is
commonly called public opinion; I speak of those, too, who aspire to be leaders of that public
opinion. Such persons profess the utmost respect for what they believe to be Christianity,
but repudiate whatever religion comes before them in a definite and tangible shape. Now, if
these minor sceptics would carry out their own views with anything like consistency, they
would at least wrong nobody but themselves. Content with denying the possibility of arriving
at the truth, they would leave others to enjoy undisturbed their real or fancied possession of
it; remembering that if it be impossible to prove that any religious system is true, it must be
equally impossible to prove that any religious system is false. They would think it enough to
regard creeds and orthodoxy with contemptuous pity, without expressing opinions on a
subject upon which they are proud to be ignorant, or raising a clamour against those whose
adoption of a fixed standard of belief rebukes their own indifference.
2. The next peril comes from men of a totally different stamp, a nobler sort than the others,
persons of strong religious convictions, and professing a rigid orthodoxy of a certain kind.
They accept the fundamental doctrines of Christianity, and other doctrines which, whether
true or false, are not fundamental. But their creed is out of all keeping and perspective, for
they lay but little stress upon the weightier matters of revealed religion; while the objects of
present or recent controversy assume an exaggerated importance in their eyes. The end of it
is that they become Protestants, or Churchmen, or Arminians, or Supralapsarians, or
anything rather than Christians. And if, as is often the case, they have been led to dwell
almost exclusively upon what may be called the subjective doctrines of the gospel—those
which regard the work of redemption as it reveals itself in the inner man—the danger comes
to them in a more subtle shape. For the internal and spiritual character of those doctrines
seduces men readily into the belief that the profession of them is a guarantee for spirituality.
3. The third proceeds from persons who profess a perfectly correct belief, while they are not
at all spiritual, nor always particularly practical. The true object of the confession is not so
properly the Incarnation, as the Saviour regarded as Incarnate. Yet creeds and dogmas have
their proper function, so far forth as they give our faith a definite object to fasten on. A
Christ who is not come in the flesh would be no Christ at all. (W. B. Jones, M. A.)
7. SBC, “This text shows (1) that the highest pretensions may be hypocritical, and therefore mere
profession amounts to nothing; (2) that all pretensions should be submitted to trial, and
therefore to shrink from trial is to confess incompetence and immorality; (3) that God Himself is

the true standard by which to try all men. One man is not to be compared with another; each
man is to be judged before God. The fulfilment of this exhortation would be followed by three
results: (1) Spiritual adventurers would meet with proper condemnation. All lackadaisical
sympathy would be destroyed, etc. (2) The highest piety would be realised, the piety which lives
upon God, and seeks truth at all costs, etc. (3) The multiplication of needless and vexatious sects
would be arrested. Little nests of quacks and mutual flatterers would be broken up. Men who
live in God despise the concealment of obscure theories and the ostentation of pretentious
technicalities. The fulfilment of this exhortation would not, on the other hand, secure
monotonous and insipid uniformity of thought, expression, and social development. God’s
ministry in nature is various, yet nature is one. The illustration applies to the highest life.
Parker, City Temple, vol. i., p. 60.
1 John 4:1
I. There are questions relating to spiritual influence in which we all, each for himself, ought to
have the very deepest interest. For the most persistent sceptic that ever lived cannot deny the
fact of spiritual influence. All the influences which proceed from mind to mind are spiritual
influences. By certain spiritual or, if you like, mental influences, our conduct is determined, and
our characters formed. The Spirit of life, and order, and growth to perfection; which works in
the world of matter and also in the mind and soul of man, in the Bible is said to be the Spirit of
God; and, on the other hand, all that is evil, and degrading, and dividing is said to be the
working of a spirit of disobedience. So that the saving and destroying forces of the world are in
perpetual activity.
II. Let me give you one test by which you may try the spirits whether they are of God. We are
told in the Bible that the Spirit of God is the Spirit of adoption. And this is the uniting and
converting power of the world. (1) It is the converting Spirit, not the spirit of fear and
intimidation, not the spirit of the devil and his angels, not the unprincipled spirit of
management and of making things easy all round, so that under all circumstances self may be
triumphant, but the Spirit which rises up now and then with its saving regeneration in the heart
of the cold and bad, the seducer and the faithless, saying, "I am a child of God; shame on me that
I have stooped so low and forgotten who I am and what is my birthright," the Spirit which stirs
in a man, and floods him over with penitence, and from his crossness and cruelty, his deep
commonness and sinfulness, makes him get up and shake himself free. (2) And the same Spirit
is the Spirit of unity. The Spirit which tells us we are sons of God tells also that we are brethren,
and its word of command is, "Let brotherly love continue."
W. Page Roberts, Law and God, p. 89.
References: 1Jn_4:1.—W. L. Alexander, Christian World Pulpit, vol. iv., p.
8. CALVIN, “But what the Apostle says consists of three parts. He first shews an evil dangerous to the
faithful; and therefore he exhorts them to beware. He prescribes how they were to beware, that is, by
making a distinction between the spirits; and this is the second part. In the third place, he points out a
particular error, the most dangerous to them, he therefore forbids them to hear those who denied that the
Son of God appeared in the flesh. We shall now consider each in order.

But though in the passage this reason is added, that many false prophets had gone forth into the world,
yet it is convenient to begin with it. The announcement contains a useful admonition; for if Satan had then
already seduced many, who under the name of Christ scattered their impostures, similar instances at this
day ought not to terrify us. For it is the case perpetually with the Gospel, that Satan attempts to pollute
and corrupt its purity by variety of errors. This our age has brought forth some horrible and monstrous
sects; and for this reason many stand amazed; and not knowing where to turn, they cast aside every care
for religion; for they find no more summary way for extricating themselves from the danger of errors. They
thus, indeed, act most foolishly; for by shunning the light of truth, they cast themselves into the darkness
of errors. Let, therefore, this fact remain fixed in our minds, that from the time the Gospel began to be
preached, false prophets immediately appeared; and the fact will fortify us against such offenses.
The antiquity of errors keeps many, as it were, fast bound, so that they dare not emerge from them. But
John points out here all intestine evil which was then in the Church. Now, if there were impostors mixed
then with the Apostles and other faithful teachers, what wonder is it, that the doctrine of the Gospel has
been long ago suppressed, and that many corruptions have prevailed in the world? There is, then, no
reason why antiquity should hinder us to exercise our liberty in distinguishing between truth and
falsehood.
1Believe not every spirit When the Church is disturbed by discords and contentions, many, as it has been
said, being frightened, depart from the Gospel. But the Spirit prescribes to us a far different remedy, that
is, that the faithful should not receive any doctrine thoughtlessly and without discrimination. We ought,
then, to take heed lest, being offended at the variety of opinions, we should discard teachers, and,
together with them, the word of God. But this precaution is sufficient, that all are not to be heard
indiscriminately.
The word spirit I take metonymically, as signifying him who boasts that he is endowed with the gift of the
Spirit to perform his office as a prophet. For as it was not permitted to any one to speak in his own name,
nor was credit given to speakers but as far as they were the organs of the Holy Spirit, in order that
prophets might have more authority, God honored them with this name, as though he had separated
them from mankind in general. Those, then, were called spirits, who, giving only a language to the oracles
of the Holy Spirit, in a manner represented him. They brought nothing of their own, nor came they forth in
their own name, but the design of this honorable title was, that God’ word should not lose the respect due
to it through the humble condition of the minister. For God would have his word to be always received
from the mouth of man no otherwise than if he himself had appeared from heaven.

Here Satan interposed, and having sent false teachers to adulterate God’ word, he gave them also this
name, that they might more easily deceive. Thus false prophets have always been wont superciliously
and boldly to claim for themselves whatever honor God had bestowed on his own servants. But the
Apostle designedly made use of this name, lest they who falsely pretend God’ name should deceive us by
their masks, as we see at this day; for many are so dazzled by the mere name of a Church, that they
prefer, to their eternal ruin, to cleave to the Pope, than to deny him the least part of his authority.
We ought, therefore, to notice this concession: for the Apostle might have said that every sort of men
ought not to be believed; but as false teachers claimed the Spirit, so he left them to do so, having at the
same time reminded them that their claim was frivolous and nugatory, except they really exhibited what
they professed, and that those were foolish who, being astonished at the very sound of so honorable a
name, dared not to make any inquiry on the subject.
Try the spirits As all were not true prophets, the Apostle here declares that they ought to have been
examined and tried. And he addresses not only the whole Church, but also every one of the faithful.
But it may be asked, whence have we this discernment? They who answer, that the word of God is the
rule by which everything that men bring forward ought to be tried, say something, but not the whole. I
grant that doctrines ought to be tested by God’ word; but except the Spirit of wisdom be present, to have
God’ word in our hands will avail little or nothing, for its meaning will not appear to us; as, for instance,
gold is tried by fire or touchstone, but it can only be done by those who understand the art; for neither the
touchstone nor the fire can be of any use to the unskillful. That we may then be fit judges, we must
necessarily be endowed with and directed by the Spirit of discernment. But as the Apostle would have
commanded this in vain, were there no power of judging supplied, we may with certainty conclude, that
the godly shall never be left destitute of the Spirit of wisdom as to what is necessary, provided they ask
for him of the Lord. But the Spirit will only thus guide us to a right discrimination, when we render all our
thoughts subject to God’ word; for it is, as it has been said, like the touchstone, yea, it ought to be
deemed most necessary to us; for that alone is true doctrine which is drawn from it.
But here a difficult question arises: If every one has the right and the liberty to judge, nothing can be
settled as certain, but on the contrary the whole of religion will be uncertain. To this I answer, that there is
a twofold trial of doctrine, private and public. The private trial is that by which every one settles his own
faith, when he wholly acquiesces in that doctrine which he knows has come from God; for consciences
will never find a safe and tranquil port otherwise than in God. Public trial refers to the common consent
and polity of the Church; for as there is danger lest fanatics should rise up, who may presumptuously
boast that they are endued with the Spirit of God, it is a necessary remedy, that the faithful meet together

and seek a way by which they may agree in a holy and godly manner. But as the old proverb is too true, “
many heads, so many opinions,” it is doubtless a singular work of God, when he subdues our
perverseness and makes us to think the same thing, and to agree in a holy unity of faith.
But what Papists under this pretense hold, that whatever has been decreed in councils is to be deemed
as certain oracles, because the Church has once proved them to be from God, is extremely frivolous. For
though it be the ordinary way of seeking consent, to gather a godly and holy council, when controversies
may be determined according to God’ word; yet God has never bound himself to the decrees of any
council. Nor does it necessarily follow, that as soon as a hundred bishops or more meet together in any
place, they have duly called on God and inquired at his mouth what is true; nay, nothing is more clear that
they have often departed from the pure word of God. Then in this case also the trial which the Apostle
prescribes ought to take place, so that the spirits may be proved.
2
This is how you can recognize the Spirit of
God: Every spirit that acknowledges that
Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from
God,
1.BARNES, “Hereby - Greek, “By this;” that is, by the test which is immediately specified.
Know ye the Spirit of God - You may discern who are actuated by the Spirit of God.
Every spirit - Everyone professing to be under the influence of the Spirit of God. The apostle
uses the word “spirit” here with reference to the person who made the claim, on the supposition
that everyone professing to be a religious teacher was animated by some spirit or foreign
influence, good or bad. If the Spirit of God influenced them, they would confess that Jesus Christ
had come in the flesh; if some other spirit, the spirit of error and deceit, they would deny this.
That confesseth - That is, that makes a proper acknowledgment of this; that inculcates this
doctrine, and that gives it a due place and prominence in his instructions. It cannot be supposed
that a mere statement of this in words would show that they were of God in the sense that they
were true Christians; but the sense is, that if this constituted one of the doctrines which they
held and taught, it would show that they were advocates of truth, and not apostles of error. If
they did not do this, 1Jo_4:3, it would be decisive in regard to their character and claims.
That Jesus Christ is come in the flesh - Benson and some others propose to render this,
“That Jesus, who came in the flesh, is the Christ.” But this is liable to serious objections.
(1) It is not the obvious interpretation.

(2) It is unusual to say that Jesus “had come in the flesh,” though the expression “the Son of
God has come in the flesh,” or “God was manifested in the flesh,” would be in accordance
with the usage of the New Testament.
(3) This would not, probably, meet the real point in the case. The thing denied does not
appear to have been that Jesus was the Messiah, for their pretending to be Christian
teachers at all implied that they admitted this; but that the Son of God was “really a man,”
or that he actually assumed human nature in permanent union with the divine. The point
of the remark made by the apostle is, that the acknowledgment was to be that Christ
assumed human nature; that he was really a man as he appeared to be: or that there was a
real incarnation, in opposition to the opinion that he came in appearance only, or that he
merely seemed to be a man, and to suffer and die. That this opinion was held by many, see
the Introduction, Section III. 2. It is quite probable that the apostle here refers to such
sentiments as those which were held by the “Docetae;” and that he meant to teach that it
was indispensable to proper evidence that anyone came from God, that he should
maintain that Jesus was truly a man, or that there was a real incarnation of the Son of
God. John always regarded this as a very important point, and often refers to it,
Joh_19:34-35; Joh_20:25-27; 1Jo_5:6. It is as important to be held now as it was then, for
the fact that there was a real incarnation is essential to all just views of the atonement. If
he was not truly a man, if he did not literally shed his blood on the cross, of course all that
was done was in appearance only, and the whole system of redemption as revealed was
merely a splendid illusion. There is little danger that this opinion will be held now, for
those who depart from the doctrine laid down in the New Testament in regard to the
person and work of Christ, are more disposed to embrace the opinion that he was a mere
man; but still it is important that the truth that he was truly incarnate should be held up
constantly before the mind, for in no other way can we obtain just views of the atonement.
Is of God - This does not necessarily mean that everyone who confessed this was personally a
true Christian, for it is clear that a doctrine might be acknowledged to be true, and yet that the
heart might not be changed; nor does it mean that the acknowledgment of this truth was all
which it was essential to be believed in order that one might be recognised as a Christian; but it
means that it was essential that this truth should be admitted by everyone who truly came from
God. They who taught this held a truth which he had revealed, and which was essential to be
held; and they thus showed that they did not belong to those to whom the name “antichrist”
could be properly given. Still, whether they held this doctrine in such a sense, and in such
connection with other doctrines, as to show that they were sincere Christians, was quite another
question, for it is plain that a man may hold and teach the true doctrines of religion, and yet
have no evidence that he is a child of God.
2. CLARKE, “Hereby know ye the Spirit of God - We know that the man who teaches
that Jesus Christ is the promised Messiah, and that he is come in the flesh, is of God - is inspired
by the Divine Spirit; for no man can call Jesus Lord but by the Holy Ghost.
3. GILL, “Hereby know ye the Spirit of God,.... This is a rule by which believers may know
whether a man professing to have the Spirit of God, and to be called and sent by him, and
whether the, doctrine he preaches, is of him or not:
every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh,

is of God; or of the Spirit of God; that is, every doctrine which carries this truth in it; or every
man that owns, and professes, and publishes this doctrine concerning Christ, is on the side of
God and truth; and which contains several articles in it, respecting the person and office of
Christ; as that he existed before he came in the flesh, not in the human nature, or as man, or as
an angel, but as the Son of God, as a divine person, being truly and properly God; so that this
confession takes in his divine sonship, and proper deity, and also his true and real humanity;
that the Messiah was incarnate, against the Jews, and was God and man in one person; and that
he was really man, and not in appearance only, against the heretics of those times: and it also
includes his offices, as that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ, the Messiah, which the Jews
denied, and that he was the anointed prophet, priest, and King; and so is a confession or
acknowledgment of all the doctrines of the Gospel, which came by him, as a prophet; and of his
satisfaction, sacrifice, and intercession, as a priest; and of all his ordinances and commands as a
King; and that he is the only Saviour and Redeemer of men. Now, whoever owns and declares
this system of truth, "is of God"; not that everyone that assents unto this, or preaches it, is born
of God; a man may believe, and confess all this, as the devils themselves do, and yet be destitute
of the grace of God; but the spirit, or doctrine, which contains these things in it, is certainly of
God, or comes from him; or whoever brings these truths with him, and preaches them, he is, so
far as he does so, on the side of God and truth, and to be regarded.
4. HENRY, “He gives a test whereby the disciples may try these pretending spirits. These
spirits set up for prophets, doctors, or dictators in religion, and so they were to be tried by their
doctrine; and the test whereby in that day, or in that part of the world where the apostle now
resided (for in various seasons, and in various churches, tests were different), must be this:
Hereby know you the Spirit of God, Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ has come in
the flesh (or that confesseth Jesus Christ that came in the flesh), is of God, 1Jo_4:2. Jesus Christ
is to be confessed as the Son of God, the eternal life and Word, that was with the Father from the
beginning; as the Son of God that came into, and came in, our human mortal nature, and therein
suffered and died at Jerusalem. He who confesses and preaches this, by a mind supernaturally
instructed and enlightened therein, does it by the Spirit of God, or God is the author of that
illumination. On the contrary, “Every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ has come in
the flesh (or Jesus Christ that came in the flesh) is not of God, 1Jo_4:3. God has given so much
testimony to Jesus Christ, who was lately here in the world, and in the flesh (or in a fleshly body
like ours), though now in heaven, that you may be assured that any impulse or pretended
inspiration that contradicts this is far from being from heaven and of God.”
5. JAMISON, “Hereby — “Herein.”
know ... the Spirit of God — whether he be, or not, in those teachers professing to be
moved by Him.
Every spirit — that is, Every teacher claiming inspiration by the HOLY SPIRIT.
confesseth — The truth is taken for granted as established. Man is required to confess it, that
is, in his teaching to profess it openly.
Jesus Christ is come in the flesh — a twofold truth confessed, that Jesus is the Christ,
and that He is come (the Greek perfect tense implies not a mere past historical fact, as the aorist
would, but also the present continuance of the fact and its blessed effects) in the flesh (“clothed
with flesh”: not with a mere seeming humanity, as the Docetae afterwards taught: He therefore
was, previously, something far above flesh). His flesh implies His death for us, for only by
assuming flesh could He die (for as God He could not), Heb_2:9, Heb_2:10, Heb_2:14,
Heb_2:16; and His death implies His LOVE for us (Joh_15:13). To deny the reality of His flesh is
to deny His love, and so cast away the root which produces all true love on the believer’s part

(1Jo_4:9-11, 1Jo_4:19). Rome, by the doctrine of the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary,
denies Christ’s proper humanity.
6. EBC, “THE POLEMICAL ELEMENT IN THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN
A DISCUSSION (however far from technical completeness) of the polemical element in St.
John’s Epistle, probably seems likely to be destitute of interest or of instruction, except to
ecclesiastical or philosophical antiquarians. Those who believe the Epistle to be a divine book
must, however, take a different view of the matter. St. John was not merely dealing with forms
of human error which were local and fortuitous. In refuting them he was enunciating principles
of universal import, of almost illimitable application. Let us pass by those obscure sects, those
subtle curiosities of error, which the diligence of minute research has excavated from the masses
of erudition under which they have been buried; which theologians, like other antiquarians,
have sometimes labelled with names at once uncouth and imaginative. Let us fix our attention
upon such broad and well-defined features of heresy as credible witnesses have indelibly fixed
upon the contemporaneous heretical thought of Asia Minor; and we shall see not only a great
precision in St. John’s words, but a radiant image of truth, which is equally adapted to enlighten
us in the peculiar dangers of our age.
Controversy is the condition under which all truth must be held, which is not in necessary
subject matter-which is not either mathematical or physical. In the case of the second,
controversy is active, until the fact of the physical law is established beyond the possibility of
rational discussion; until self-consistent thought can only think upon the postulate of its
admission. Now in these departments all the argument is on one side. We are not in a state of
suspended speculation, leaning neither to affirmation nor denial, which is doubt. We are not in
the position of inclining either to one side or the other, by an almost impalpable overplus of
evidence, which is suspicion; or by those additions to this slender stock which convert suspicion
into opinion. We are not merely yielding a strong adhesion to one side, while we must yet admit,
to ourselves at least, that our knowledge is not perfect, nor absolutely manifest-which is the
mental and moral position of belief. In necessary subject matter, we know and see with that
perfect intellectual vision for which controversy is impossible.
The region of belief must therefore, in our present condition, be a region from which
controversy cannot be excluded.
Religious controversialists may be divided into three classes, for each of which we may find an
emblem in the animal creation. The first are the nuisances, at times the numerous nuisances, of
Churches. These controversialists delight in showing that the convictions of persons whom they
happen to dislike, can, more or less plausibly, be pressed to unpopular conclusions. They are
incessant fault finders. Some of them, if they had an opportunity, might delight in finding the
sun guilty in his daily worship of the many-coloured ritualism of the western clouds.
Controversialists of this class, if minute, are venomous, and capable of inflicting a degree of pain
quite out of proportion to their strength. Their emblem may be found somewhere in the range of
"every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." The second class of controversialists is of a
much higher nature. Their emblem is the hawk, with his bright eye, with the forward throw of
his pinions, his rushing flight along the woodland skirt, his unerring stroke. Such hawks of the
Churches, whose delight is in pouncing upon fallacies, fulfil an important function. They rid us
of tribes of mischievous winged errors. The third class of controversialists is that which
embraces St. John supremely-such minds also as Augustine’s in his loftiest and most inspired
moments, such as those which have endowed the Church with the Nicene Creed. Of such the
eagle is the emblem. Over the grosser atmosphere of earthly anger or imperfect motives, over

the clouds of error, poised in the light of the True Sun, with the eagle’s upward wing and the
eagle’s sunward eye, St. John looks upon the truth. He is indeed the eagle of the four
Evangelists, the eagle of God. If the eagle could speak with our language, his style would have
something of the purity of the sky and of the brightness of the light. He would warn his nestlings
against losing their way in the banks of clouds that lie below him so far. At times he might show
that there was a danger or an error whose position he might indicate by the sweep of his wing, or
by descending for a moment to strike.
There are then polemics in the Epistle and in the Gospel of St. John. But we refuse to hunt down
some obscure heresy in every sentence. It will be enough to indicate the master heresy of Asia
Minor, to which St. John undoubtedly refers, with its intellectual and moral perils. In so doing
we shall find the very truth which our own generation especially needs.
The prophetic words addressed by St. Paul to the Church of Ephesus thirty years before the date
of this Epistle had found only too complete a fulfilment. "From among their own selves," at
Ephesus in particular, through the Churches of Asia Minor in general, men had arisen "speaking
perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them." The prediction began to justify itself
when Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus only five or six years later. A few significant words in the
First Epistle to Timothy let us see the heretical influences that were at work. St. Paul speaks with
the solemnity of a closing charge when he warns Timothy against what were once "profane
babblings," and "antitheses of the Gnosis which is falsely so called." In an earlier portion of the
same Epistle the young bishop is exhorted to charge certain men not to teach a "different
doctrine," neither to give "heed to myths and genealogies," out of whose endless mazes no
intellect entangled in them can ever find its way. Those commentators put us on a false scent
who would have us look after Judaising error, Jewish "stemmata." The reference is not to
Judaistic ritualism, but to semi-Pagan philosophical speculation. The "genealogies" are systems
of Divine potencies which the Gnostics (and probably some Jewish Rabbis of Gnosticising
tendency) called "aeons," and so the earliest Christian writers understood the word.
Now without entering into the details of Gnosticism, this may be said of its general method and
purpose. It aspired at once to accept and to transform the Christian creed; to elevate its faith
into a philosophy, a knowledge-and then to make this knowledge cashier and supersede faith,
love, holiness, redemption itself.
This system was strangely eclectic, and amalgamated certain elements not only of Greek and
Egyptian, but of Persian and Indian, Pantheistic thought. It was infected throughout with
dualism and doketism. Dualism held that all good and evil in the universe proceeded from two
first principles, good and evil. Matter was the power of evil whose home is in the region of
darkness. Minds which started from this fundamental view could only accept the Incarnation
provisionally and with reserve, and must at once proceed to explain it away. "The Word was
made flesh"; but the Word of God, the True Light, could not be personally united to an actual
material system called a human body, plunged in the world of matter, darkened and
contaminated by its immersion. The human flesh in which Jesus appeared to be seen was
fictitious. Redemption was a drama with a shadow for its hero. The phantom of a Redeemer was
nailed to the phantom of a cross. Philosophical dualism logically became theological doketism.
Doketism logically evaporated dogmas, sacraments, duties, redemption.
It may be objected that this doketism has been a mere temporary and local aberration of the
human intellect; a metaphysical curiosity, with no real roots in human nature. If so, its
refutation is an obsolete piece of an obsolete controversy; and the Epistle in some of its most
vital portions is a dead letter.
Now of course literal doketism is past and gone, dead and buried. The progress of the human
mind, the slow and resistless influence of the logic of common sense, the wholesome influence of

the sciences of observation in correcting visionary metaphysics, have swept away aeons,
emanations, dualism, and the rest. But a subtler, and to modern minds infinitely more
attractive, doketism is round us, and accepted, as far as words go, with a passionate enthusiasm.
What is this doketism?
Let us refer to the history and to the language of a mind of singular subtlety and power.
In George Eliot’s early career she was induced to prepare for the press a translation of Strauss’s
mythical explanation of the life of Jesus. It is no disrespect to so great a memory to say, that at
that period of her career, at least, Miss Evans must have been unequal to grapple with such a
work, if she desired to do so from a Christian point of view. She had not apparently studied the
history or the structure of the Gospels. What she knew of their meaning she had imbibed from
an antiquated and unscientific school of theologians. The faith of a sciolist engaged in a struggle
for its life with the fatal strength of a critical giant instructed in the negative lore of all ages, and
sharpened by hatred of the Christian religion; met with the result which was to be expected. Her
faith expired, not without some painful throes. She fell a victim to the fallacy of youthful conceit-
I cannot answer this or that objection, therefore it is unanswerable. She wrote at first that she
was "Strauss-sick." It made her ill to dissect the beautiful story of the crucifixion. She took to
herself a consolation singular in the circumstances. The sight of an ivory crucifix, and of a
pathetic picture of the Passion, made her capable of enduring the first shock of the loss which
her heart had sustained. That is, she found comfort in looking at tangible reminders of a scene
which had ceased to be a historical reality, of a Sufferer who had faded from a living Redeemer
into the spectre of a visionary past. After a time, however, she feels able to propose to herself
and others "a new starting point. We can never have a satisfactory basis for the history of the
man Jesus, but that negation does not affect the Idea of the Christ, either in its historical
influence, or its great symbolic meanings." Yes! a Christ who has no history, of whom we do not
possess one undoubted word, of whom we know, and can know, nothing; who has no flesh of
fact, no blood of life; an idea, not a man; this is the Christ of modern doketism. The method of
this widely diffused school is to separate the sentiments of admiration which the history inspires
from the history itself; to sever the ideas of the faith from the facts of the faith, and then to
present the ideas thus surviving the dissolvents of criticism as at once the refutation of the facts
and the substitute for them.
This may be pretty writing, though false and illogical writing is rarely even that; but a little
consideration will show that this new starting point is not even a plausible substitute for the old
belief.
(1) We question simple believers in the first instance. We ask them what is the great religious
power in Christianity for themselves, and for others like-minded? What makes people pure,
good, self-denying, nurses of the sick, missionaries to the heathen? They will tell us that the
power lies, not in any doketic idea of a Christ-life which was never lived, but in "the conviction
that that idea was really and perfectly incarnated in an actual career," of which we have a record
literally and absolutely true in all essential particulars. When we turn to the past of the Church,
we find that as it is with these persons, so it has ever been with the saints. For instance, we hear
St. Paul speaking of his whole life. He tells us that "whether we went out of ourselves it was unto
God, or whether we be sober, it is for you"; that is to say, such a life has two aspects, one
Godward, one manward. Its Godward aspect is a noble insanity, its manward aspect a noble
sanity; the first with its beautiful enthusiasm, the second with its saving common sense. What is
the source of this? "For the love of Christ constraineth us," - forces the whole stream of life to
flow between these two banks without the deviations of selfishness-"because we thus judge that
He died for all, that they which live should no longer live unto themselves, but to Him who for
their sakes died and rose again." It was the real unselfish life of a real unselfish Man which made
such a life as that of St. Paul a possibility. Or we may think of the first beginning of St. John’s

love for our Lord. When he turned to the past, he remembered one bright day about ten in the
morning, when the real Jesus turned to him and to another with a real look, and said with a
human voice, "What seek ye?" and then-"Come, and ye shall see." It was the real living love that
won the only kind of love which could enable the old man to write as he did in this Epistle so
many years afterwards-"we love because He first loved us."
(2) We address ourselves next to those who look at Christ simply as an ideal. We venture to put
to them a definite question. You believe that there is no solid basis for the history of the man
Jesus; that his life as a historical reality is lost in a dazzling mist of legend and adoration. Has
the idea of a Christ, divorced from all accompaniment of authentic fact, unfixed in a definite
historical form, uncontinued in an abiding existence, been operative or inoperative for
yourselves? Has it been a practical power and motive, or an occasional and evanescent
sentiment? There can be no doubt about the answer. It is not a make belief, but a belief, which
gives purity and power. It is not an ideal of Jesus, but the blood of Jesus, which cleanseth us
from all sin.
There are other lessons of abiding practical importance to be drawn from the polemical
elements in St. John’s Epistle. These, however, we can only briefly indicate, because we wish to
leave an undivided impression of that which seems to be St. John’s chief object controversially.
There were Gnostics in Asia Minor for whom the mere knowledge of certain supposed spiritual
truths was all in all, as there are those amongst ourselves who care for little but what are called
clear views. For such St. John writes-"and hereby we do know that we know Him, if we keep His
commandments." There were heretics in and about Ephesus who conceived that the special
favour of God, or the illumination which they obtained by junction with the sect to which they
had "gone out" from the Church, neutralised the poison of sin, and made innocuous for them
that which might have been deadly for others. They suffered, as they thought, no more
contamination by it, than "gold by lying upon the dunghill" (to use a favourite metaphor of their
own). St. John utters a principle which cleaves through every fallacy in every age which says or
insinuates that sin subjective can in any case cease to be sin objective. "Whosoever committeth
sin transgresseth also the law, for sin is the transgression of the law. All unrighteousness is sin."
Possibly within the Church itself, certainly among the sectarians without it, there was a
disposition to lessen the glory of the Incarnation, by looking upon the Atonement as narrow and
partial in its aim. St. John’s unhesitating statement is that "He is the propitiation for the whole
world." Thus does the eagle of the Church ever fix his gaze above the clouds of error, upon the
Sun of universal truth.
Above all, over and through his negation of temporary and local errors about the person of
Christ, St. John leads the Church in all ages to the true Christ. Cerinthus, in a form which seems
to us eccentric and revolting, proclaimed a Jesus not born of a virgin, temporarily endowed with
the sovereign power of the Christ, deprived of Him before His passion and resurrection, while
the Christ remained spiritual and impassible. He taught a commonplace Jesus. At the beginning
of his Epistle and Gospel John "wings his soul, and leads his readers onward and upward." He is
like a man who stands upon the shore and looks upon town and coast and bay. Then another
takes the man off with him far to sea. All that he surveyed before is now lost to him; and as he
gazes ever oceanward, he does not stay his eye upon any intervening object, but lets it range over
the infinite azure. So the Apostle leads us above all creation, and transports us to the ages before
it; makes us raise our eyes, not suffering us to find any end in the stretch above, since end is
none. That "in the beginning," "from the beginning," of the Epistle and Gospel, includes nothing
short of the eternal God. The doketics of many shades proclaimed an ideological, a misty Christ.
"Every spirit which confesseth Jesus Christ as in flesh having come is of God, and every spirit
which confesseth not Jesus, is not of God." "Many deceivers have gone out into the world, they
who confess not Jesus Christ coming in flesh." Such a Christ of mist as these words warn us
against is again shaped by more powerful intellects and touched with tenderer lights. But the

1 JOHN 4 COMMENTARY EXPLAINED

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to 1 JOHN 4 COMMENTARY EXPLAINED

Similar to 1 JOHN 4 COMMENTARY EXPLAINED (20)

More from GLENN PEASE

More from GLENN PEASE (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

1 JOHN 4 COMMENTARY EXPLAINED