No doubt you’ve heard people talk about having “peace of mind” and perhaps listened to the song, “Let there be peace on earth.”[1] But in numerous instances, it’s only a matter of “ceasefire,” and our tensions remain high. So, here are some words that may help us understand more about having the peace we all think about and desire.
When God gives yon inward and outward peace, you can believe that He who has begun this good work in you will continue until the day of our Lord’s return.[2] You need then to make use of peaceful days to grow in recollection. Also, you ought to sing with your whole heart the Amen and Alleluia that reecho in the heavenly Jerusalem; this is a token of continual acceptance of God’s will and the unreserved sacrifice of your will to His.
At the same time, you should listen inwardly to God with a heart free from all flattering prejudices of self-love and self-pity, so that you may faithfully receive His light as to anything that needs correction. Then, as soon as He points these out, yield without argument or excuse, and give up whatever touches the jealous love of our coming Bridegroom without hesitation.
Those who yield to the Spirit in this manner will see imperfection in their purest deeds and an ever-growing measure of refined evil in their hearts. All this leaves us in dismay so that we cry out that only God is good. We strive to correct ourselves calmly and simply but continuously and steadfastly, and we do so even more because our heart is undivided and peaceful. We depend on nothing as to ourselves and hope only in God. Furthermore, we give way neither to self-delusion nor to carelessness. We know that God never fails us, though we often fail Him. We yield ourselves entirely to grace, and above all things dread any resistance to it. Not only that, but we blame ourselves without being discouraged. We cope with ourselves while striving to improve.[3]
Archbishop François Fénelon
(1651-1725)
[1]Let There be Peace on Earth, written by Jill Jackson/Sy Miller and sung by Vince Gill
[3] Fénelon, François: Paraclete Giants, The Complete Fénelon, Translated and Edited by Robert J. Edmonson, Paraclete Press, Brewster, Massachusetts, 2008, pp. 52-53; Vocabulary and grammar redacted by Dr. Robert R Seyda
4:7Dear friends, let us practice loving each other, for love comes from God, and those who are loving and kind show that they are God’s children and are getting to know Him better.
William E. Jelf (1811-1875) states that as agápe-love flows from God, it follows that everyone possessed of this attribute could have only received it from God. It was part of God’s creation. We may observe that the love here spoken of is not limited to love between Christians born of God, but it is “everyone.” If love existed in a heathen, it was part of God’s original creation, created in God’s image. Even heathen virtues flow from and are the gift of God’s creative power. There is no reason why we should not receive this or view it as incompatible with the notion of the re-created Christian, in which also love forms an important element.[1]
John Stock (1817-1884) makes these points: The Apostle John enforces the duty of a believer’s agápe-love. The Apostle Paul also affirms that no gift or possession void of love is helpful to anyone who claims them.[2] In fact, as it pertains to respecting a person’s spiritual life, they are insignificant if their acts of kindness are not permeated with love. No doubt, that’s why John exalts love, showing its happy possessor to be one that is born of God. Nevertheless, even they require fresh stimulants to keep alive the divine flame, so John urges mutual love. They were no mountain peak that chilled the atmosphere and enveloped in dense fog, endangering navigation. Instead, they are a star of no small radiance in their Redeemer’s hand and filled with the Holy Spirit. Therefore, mutual respect and lukewarm affection do not fulfill our Lord’s commandment. John joins the Apostle Peter, who said, “You were cleansed from your sins when you obeyed the truth, so now you must show sincere love to each other as brothers and sisters. Love each other deeply with all your heart.”[3][4]
Johannes H. A. Ebrard (1818-1888) says that on that very account, the presence of love in a person is a token that they are born of God – thus that they are born again. Think of it, the fact that people can see God’s agápe-love in you is all they need to believe that you are God’s child. Agápe-love means true, self-consecrating, self-devoting, self-sacrificing love. It bears no resemblance to that natural pseudo-love with roots in the flesh, in self-seeking and subtle self-satisfaction, and either puffs itself up with sentimentality or strives to earn its approval. And knowing God: how the knowledge of God is connected with those born of God, may be seen in other verses.[5][6]
Bishop Harvey Goodwin (1818-1891) says that it should be expected that in some quarters today, there exists a denial that brotherly love rests upon loving God because there are numerous doubts about being of God altogether. It is not merely the proposition “God is love,” which is contested, but the previous and more straightforward proposition “God is.” It is as old as the fool in Psalm fourteenth. On many occasions, political and social attitudes assumed by some of our scientific community and the trend in much of our current literature tend to give prominence and practical importance to the denial that “God is,” which was unheard of a century ago.[7]
But there is another tendency of our times, says Goodwin, which ought to be noted, and it is the tendency to deny that “God is love.” The first part of the proposition, we are sometimes told, may be accepted if you think it worth asserting: if you like to explain the order of the physical universe by the hypothesis of what you call God, there is no harm in it, any more than making the theory of an elastic medium pervading space, or of fluid electricity, or anything else which is theoretical: but the moment you attribute purpose, and will, and love, and the exercise of moral government to this imaginary God, then you are told that you fly in the face of modern observation and discovery. You are told, in fact, that the God whom science has revealed is an unbending, invariable, relentless, pitiless law, as different from love as the strokes of a steam engine are from the throbbing of a mother’s heart.
Not only should we continue to believe, encourages Goodwin, that the truth “God is love” is too genuine to be overthrown by any one of these unproven philosophies. We must keep our faith that rests upon grounds deeper, more theological, and more systematic than any denials or objections that oppose it. Believe that there is something in the human heart, in the universal nature of mankind, to which it appeals and to which it cannot petition in vain. In the Final Covenant, the proposition “God is love” is not an abstract theorem to be proven by the help of sayings and guesses, but it is the condensation in these three words of the life of Jesus the Anointed One, our Lord.
When we see that weary, wandering Son of man “going about doing good,”[8] when we see Him feeding the hungry, healing the sick, listen to Him preaching the Gospel to the poor, and still more when we see Him nailed to the cross of shame, then we must bow our heads in humble adoration, and say, “In very deed and truth, God is love.”[9] This demonstration of the agápe-love of God has changed the face of the world: many of its most crying evils have ceased; a bright principle of light and love, which was all but unknown in previous ages, has shown upon the earth; people have gone about doing good, so as they never did before: Christian sponsored hospitals and orphanages are common: we have seen so great a Light in Jesus the Anointed One that no other light can dazzle us. In the warmth and brightness of this Son of our souls, we are directly or indirectly persuaded that all love comes from Him.[10]
Charles Ellicott (1819-1904) views the religion of the Final Covenant as different from all others in this: it affects and appeals to, and governs the heart. Other systems have laid hold upon other powers of our nature. Still, the Gospel is distinctive in constraining the affections, seizing the motive and controlling forces of the soul, and bringing them into subjection to its loving claims. Indeed, it is true that the Divine revelation is not neglectful of any part of our being.[11]
Although the Gospel appeals to our sense of reasoning enlightened by its truth, it often uses our imagination. These truths can sometimes spark lively images of good, blessings, and curses on the righteous and evil on the unrighteous. They also stimulate the sentiment of fear on the one hand and hope on the other. And not too seldom, they bring up visions of death, heaven, and hell. But this is done as a means to an end. Namely, it moves the heart, draws the souls away from things of unfounded concern into the fellowship of God. This will produce a holy longing for the continued union with God’s divine nature, which desires to dwell in us.
William Kelly (1822-1888) states that if what the Apostle John says here in verse seven is a Holy Spirit-inspired promise, it is a sure and vital thing to say; there is no excuse for failure in love. But we must remember that love is not merely being kind to a fellow-saint; it is also faithfulness to God. And sometimes, the faithfulness of love is resented instead of being received. In such a case, the person who is upset by having their unloving attitude pointed out and who regards the other person’s faithfulness as not showing real love also needs to be cautious. If that resentment overcomes them – and it sometimes does – the issue may prove that there never was the divine gift of eternal life in their soul. We often find that departure from love, even in a small way, if yielded to, is an extremely grave sign. It may be a symptom of what may be called the “moral leprosy of mankind.” For, as we are taught here, there is nothing really of God, nothing truly sound, in the person who does not love.[12]
James Nisbet (1823-1874) tells us that in his day, on the east wall of the Church of the Ascension, Bayswater Road, London (not too far from Hyde Park), artist Frederic Shields (1833-1911), was decorating the old mortuary chapel in St. George’s Fields cemetery. He painted a wonderful series of pictures of our Lord’s life. He painted a panel embodying his conception of what love means. Love is a beautiful female figure, with a face strong and tender, a face that bears witness to endured suffering.
On Love’s lap is a European child; by Love’s side stands a little African child, one little foot still fettered, the other freed by Love. At Love’s feet, a little Chinese and a little Indian child are playing together. Both the little hands of the white babe on Love’s lap are outstretched to draw the little black boy’s face and impress upon it a kiss. The embodiment of love knows no distinction of race or language, or color to the artist. He interprets our text’s “one another” with a worldwide meaning.[13] But in today’s world, this would be seen as typecasting and racist. But it was for this same world our Lord died to free them from such thinking. This mortuary was deconsecrated and sold by the Church Commissions in the 1970s, and The Utopian Housing Association replaced it with low-cost social housing.
Brooke F. Westcott (1825-1901) states that the idea of “knowledge” that the Apostle John introduces here in connection with the action of the Spirit of Truth is a fuller unfolding of the mystery of the Anointed One’s Person. Those who love, derive their spiritual being from God and, therefore, are in harmony with Him and know Him, that is, recognize every revelation that reveals more of Him. But as John makes clear, none of this is possible without love.[14]
Rev. John Allen Wood (1828-1916), one of the organizers of the first Methodist Holiness Camp Meeting in America, was held in Vineland, New Jersey, in 1867. He says that verse seven begins a section of the Epistle that contains one of those profound truths which are so often expressible in words but are inexhaustible in meaning, “God is love.” It is our solid foundation, and, therefore, we are expected to build our house on this solid rock. From this high Rock, we can see the world. God wants that to be our view because His mission is world-embracing.
[1] Jelf, William E., Commentary on the First Epistle of St. John, op. cit., p. 60
4:7Dear friends, let us practice loving each other, for love comes from God, and those who are loving and kind show that they are God’s children and are getting to know Him better.
COMMENTARY
Several early Church scholars have various ways of responding to what John says here. For instance, Didymus the Blind (313-398 AD) points out that just as the person who does not choose what they ought to choose has done wrong and does not love what they ought to love, so those who love only those who are worthy of love receive only that level of praise due to them.[1] Didymus is making a subtle point here: Unbelievers who love and do the wrong things are no different from believers who only love what they want, and any credit they get will be no higher than what they give.
Augustine (353-430 AD) writes that to practice righteousness and judgment means to live virtuously, and to live virtuously means to obey God’s law, which is to help us base our lives on the principle of love. As John says, this is the love that comes from God.[2] In another place, Augustine says that love is from God, as have declared those whom He has made not only His great loves but also His great preachers.[3]
Also, Bede the Venerable (673-735 AD) offers this: “John often praised love, which he said came from God, which is why we read that ‘he who loves is born of God.’ What more needs to be said? God is love, and therefore to go against love is to go against God.”[4] Let me put what Bede says here in another way. If you have a well and want to bring up the water, you need to pump it until it flows. But if you have a spring or natural fountain, there’s no need for pumping; it flows naturally. So, it is with people. Those in the world that love each other must try to love, but it should come naturally for those in union with the Anointed One. And if you are a believer, and it doesn’t flow naturally, you need to fix your connection with Him.
Then Andreas Osiander (1498-1552) asks what does it mean to say that love is from God? The answer is that this refers to the One who came from God in the image and likeness of the One who sent Him? This man appeared manifested as the beloved and worthy of being loved. Now, since this Savior has come into the world because of the Father’s great love for the things He has made, those who have received this blessing and who are thus beloved ought to love one another. For each of us is loved and is called to love, having the command that we should love our neighbor.[5]
James Arminius (1560-1609) commented on the Apostle John’s call to love one another with God’s agápe-love to show that we have been born again by God. Grace seems to be a valuable aide to Goodness and Love towards His creatures. Accordingly, God is disposed to communicate His goodness and love the creatures, not of merit or debt, nor that it may add anything to God, [6] but that it may be well with those on whom the good is bestowed and who is beloved.[7][8]
Sir Thomas Browne (1605-1682) offers a confession that helps him better understand God’s love for us. He says “I’ve never found it necessary to have any unbreakable sympathy for all relatives. I hope I do not break the fifth commandment if I conceive; I may love a friend before the nearest family member, even those I owe the principles of life. From now on, I think I can better conceive how God loves mankind; what happiness there is in God’s love.” Omitting all others, there are three mystical unions: two natures in one person; three persons in one nature; one soul united in two bodies. Although they are actually divided, they are so joined, as they seem to be one.[9]
Looking at what the Apostle John said here in verse seven about loving one another as God and His Son love us, and which love unites us to the Father and Son as though we are one with them, illustrates how we should love each other. The firmer and tighter that relationship grows, the more our relationship with God and the Anointed One strengthens. The thing that makes this so complex and simple is that God put the same love He has for us in our hearts, so we could love others the same way. So, the next time you see a fellow believer, don’t look at them the way you see them, but the way God sees them. Loving each other does not mean loving them for what they can do for us, but what we can do for them.
Matthew Poole (1624-1679) focuses here in verse seven on the power and purpose of loving one another. By loving each other, we develop reliable spiritual energy to overcome the malice and cruelty of our opposition by offering pure Christianity that promotes mutual love. We do not limit God’s agápe-love in us to just ourselves, but toward others and letting it cover them like a cloak, even if they are not as loving to us. Behind all this is the fact that God is love. So, if you have God, you have His agápe-love. Never let your love for Him or others become a regulated love done out of obligation.[10]
John Flavel (1627-1691) explains that the Scriptures affirm that God is not only in the concrete but also in the abstract. Furthermore, God is not only loving but is love.[11] He is not only wise but is wisdom.[12] He is not only good but is goodness. God told Moses, “I will make all My goodness pass before you.”[13] He is not only holy but is holiness. He also spoke to the prophet Isaiah saying, “Lord, look down from heaven from your holy, glorious home, and see us.”[14] Therefore, these attributes of God must be boundless because they are the essence of His being.[15] And if God is in us, we should mirror these same virtues and characteristics.
William Burkitt (1650-1703) says that it is evident from this verse that if a person claims to have correct knowledge of God, both of His nature and will, and that they understand both what He is and what He requires; if they don’t have the grace of love in their heart, they do not have the proper understanding of God in their minds, whatever they may think of themselves, or pretend to be to others.[16]
Leonard Howard (1699-1767) says that the only proof of our being God’s children and having actual knowledge of His will and nature is the Christian virtue of charity, which they who do not practice it neither belongs to God nor are acquainted with Him.[17]
James Macknight (1721-1800) mentions that it is remarkable the Apostle John instructs true believers to love all humanity. We might suppose, says Macknight, that some of the first converts of the Apostles professed themselves to be disciples of the Anointed One but were deficient in love. They were possibly Jewish converts, who, by the rites of their law having been cut off from all interaction with the Gentiles, considered them unclean persons whom God hated. And therefore, instead of regarding them with any degree of esteem, they despised and hated them as enemies; and thought themselves warranted by following their law. I think this came from our Lord’s words in His sermon on the mount.[18] It is not improbable that some of the Jewish converts retained their ancient prejudices and considered it as their duty to hate heathens. And some of them who pretended to be teachers undoubtedly taught their disciples the same lesson. They perhaps extended it to those who disagreed with them in their religious opinions.[19] But this doctrine is contrary to the principle of the Anointed One; John did not hesitate to condemn it.[20]
Albert Barnes (1798-1870) outlines the agápe-love of God: (1) All true love has its origin in God. (2) Real love shows that we have His Spirit and are his. (3) It assimilates us to God and makes us more and more like Him. (4) It is the kind of love with which we are to love our brothers and sisters. What is said here in verse seven by the Apostle John is based on the truth of what he elsewhere affirms that God is love.[21] Hatred, envy, wrath, malice all have their source in something other than God. He neither originates them, commends them, nor approves them.[22] It sounds like a powerful force to be in us and work through us.
Richard Rothe (1799-1867) sees that the Apostle John resumes his theme from which he diverted since verse one; he stimulates his readers to focus on brotherly love. He begins by purposely repeating his message about loving one another, then supports it with a new motive. Think of it; Love is God’s property; it is divine; and, consequently, to love is as much as to be God’s property. And to know God personally as a sure token of being His child. This could naturally lead John to reflect on the fact that love is also a symbolic combination of two thoughts, “being God’s property” and “being in fellowship with God.”
Rothe continues by saying that the Gospel comes into contact with universal human feeling. Therefore, those who do not correctly understand the Gospel have very little to offer in opposition to the Good News. To emphasize this point, in the last analysis, wherever there is genuine love, there a person is undoubtedly the object of the Divine pleasure. Consequently, divine kinship cannot be lacking. That’s why the Gospel depends on faith.[23]
[1] Didymus the Blind, Commentary on 1 John, loc. cit.
4:7 Dear friends, we must love each other because love comes from God. Therefore, everyone who loves has become God’s child. And so, everyone who loves understands God’s will.
EXPOSITION
In Moses’ message to the Israelites before they entered the Promised Land, he gave them this word of encouragement: “The Lord your God will take away the sin from your heart and the heart of your children. You will love the Lord your God with all your heart and soul so that you may live.”[1]
Here in verse seven, we arrive at the third and final development of the nature of true love.[2] With each advance of the topic of love, the subject becomes more intensified. There is a correlation between love and belief. A person born of God loves as God loves. From chapter 4:7 to 5:5, John weaves together the ideas of love, belief, and righteousness. We cannot separate these ideas from each other in the Christian faith.
Now John expands on his comments to believers of all kinds, whether secular or spiritual. He punctuates this epistle with the word “beloved.” His readers are “beloved” regardless of their spiritual condition. God expects those He loves to love others. John is refuting false doctrine so that his readers in Asia Minor might have a clear idea of biblical love. If they understand divine love, they will have a fulfilling Christian life. Therefore, divine love flows from God’s divine nature.
It leads to John developing the theme of “love one another” in verses 7-12. The Greek reciprocal plural pronoun allēlōn means “one another of the same kind.” This refers to love among Jesus’ followers because they have a mutual capacity for love. They have God’s agápe-love in them and find that same love in genuine adherents. Without God’s agápe-love, human love is strictly human compatibility. The formula “love oneanother” occurs five times in this epistle.[3] That means God expects His children to reciprocate the love of a mutual relationship with Him and His other children.
Consequently, true love finds its origin in God and derives it from Him. We cannot live up to the standard of God’s agápe-love without the infilling of the Holy Spirit. God, the Holy Spirit, is the source of love. Love for God means that we love all genuine Christians. Christians love because it is their spiritual nature to love. We can love because we are born of God. Christians should love one another for two reasons: 1) love is of God, and 2) God is love (next verse). The nature of Christian love flows out of the God of love.
There is a definite relationship between the infilling of the Spirit and fellowship with God. The Greek verb ginōskō (“knows”) conveys the idea of a fellowship of communion. It also means to know experientially – come to know, get knowledge of, perceive. We can learn about relating to God when the Holy Spirit fills us. We can absorb the truth of who God is; He is a God of love. The believer in union with God loves with love not natural to them; we are not born with this agápe-love; it can only be given to us by God. Therefore, we love with God’s agápe-love, not ours.
At this point, we come to the third and final development of the nature of true love.[4] With each advance of the subject of love, the matter becomes more searching. There is a correlation between love and belief. From 4:7 to 5:5, John weaves together the ideas of love, belief, and righteousness. We cannot separate these ideas from each other in the Christian faith. John addresses his comments to Christians, whether devoted or lukewarm. He punctuates this epistle with the word “beloved.” His readers are “beloved” regardless of their spiritual condition. God expects those He loves to love others. John is refuting false doctrine so that his readers in Asia Minor might have a clear idea of biblical love. If they understand divine love, they will have a fulfilling Christian life. Divine love flows from divine nature.
When God puts us into His family, He puts us there forever. The tense of the words “is born” means that God makes our spiritual birth permanent from its received point because John writes the new birth in the perfect tense. The person born spiritually (with lasting effect, not again and again) has a lasting and permanent relationship that goes on forever with the Lord. God is the One who did the birthing [passive voice]. We do nothing to put ourselves in the family of God, so regardless of whether we are carnal or spiritual, we belong to the family of God forever. Love originates from our new birth. As recipients of God’s agápe-love, God expects us to radiate His agápe-love to others.
The Apostle John’s use of “Beloved” is especially suitable where the subject is love. We must not look for the chief importance of the section in the appeal with which it opens. Just as “prove the spirits” is subordinate to “every spirit which confesses,” etc., so “let us love one another” is subordinate to “God is Love.” Keep in mind John addresses his comments to believers, whether carnal or spiritual. He punctuates this epistle with the word “beloved.”
Many groups in evangelical circles today argue that we should put up with false doctrine by “loving one another.” This idea is love based on pure emotionalism. Unadulterated emotional love without truth is the enemy of biblical love. Biblical love is based on truth. False doctrine obscures and erases truth. It is impossible for any believer to love with agápe-love as long as they are under a system of false doctrine. “True truth,” as Dr. Francis Schaeffer used to say, “is what is most beneficial for our lives.” Much of what we hear today about love is hot air. Some say, “Oh, how I love God,” but they know little about Him. That is syrupy sentimentality. It does not mean a thing to God as we cannot love someone fully without knowing them, so we cannot love God without knowing Him.
Many Christians claim superficial love, but they don’t know the first thing about biblical love. They do not comprehend biblical love because they do not understand biblical principles. They know little of Jesus’ person and work. When a false teacher comes along with an emotional appeal, some swallow it whole without chewing because they do not have the fundamental courage to walk away. They operate on the insincere principle of attraction rather than the sound principle of character. Love means that we care about the person we love with their faults and failures. We love them although we know everything about them. This is steadfast love. Thus, mature disciples distinguish between different kinds of love.
Therefore, when we share God’s love with His other children, it is because the very source of love is God. Therefore, believers should love one another as a logical outcome of God’s love. How can any child of God claim to have God’s love in them, the love that saved them when they were drowning in sin, and then not share that love with fellow saints? Saints and sinners alike despise someone who is two-faced. People say, “I’m praying for you,” but don’t want to see you or talk to you because they have no respect for you. This is a person with a fractured soul. However, a Spirit-filled believer has the capacity to love the faultfinder. If we love God, we will love all believers.
Unfortunately, there are always those people that you do not like because they won’t let you pour them into your mold. The more unstable you are, the pushier you get, so even if people do not have your attitude, you still try to squeeze them into your mold. This is arrogance and pride because you think they need your perspective on life. You act as though God needs your help in straightening out people you don’t like. This thinking does not love one another because true love is free from envy or pride. Just because we love our father or mother does not mean that those who walk in the Spirit love from a supernatural love. They will love the unlovely in the family of God. Love is only potential until we actively love with God’s love.
Since love is from God, the best thing that we can do is stay connected to the source. Each believer is a responder to God. God first loves us; then, we send love back to Him. Before our love reaches out to anyone, it first goes up to God. When it goes up to God, God gives it strength or power to the human race. That is the circuit of love. Every Christian has two kinds of love operating inside them. They have their human love, and then they have God’s love. Divine love extended through the believer toward other Christians comes from God Himself. The Holy Spirit produces this love.
Human love can produce a very pleasing personality so that God’s children never act inhospitably. They always yield to other people (at least publicly). They show a big smile when relating to others. Unfortunately, sweetness is not the same as spirituality. Many people buy into this sweetness and confuse it with the real thing. You will love all believers; if someone criticizes another believer, and you support what they are saying, you also defame them. But if you are spiritual, your attitude should be the same toward a carnal believer as toward a spiritual believer. Remember, the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control.[5]
4:6But we are God’s children; that is why only those who have walked and talked with God will listen to us. Others won’t. That is another way to know whether a message is really from God, for if it is, the world won’t listen to it.
Judith M. Lieu (1951) sees that the Apostle John once again echoes other sources available in his day in setting the Spirit and spirit within this dualistic framework. Perhaps most verbally striking is a passage from the Testament of Judah: “Recognize, my children, that two spirits are active in humanity, that of truth and that of deceit.” “Indeed, those works of deceit and those of truth are inscribed on the human heart.” [1] In contrast to the Apostle John, the two spirits appear to be conflicting dispositions or tendencies inherent in human beings, and elsewhere in the Covenants, there are multiple harmful spirits. However, the spirit of deceit appears to be preeminent.[2] Now Judah can look forward to the day when “there shall no longer be the spirit of error of Belial[3] because he shall be cast into the fire forever.”[4][5]
Ben Witherington III (1951) says that in these verses, we find different ways of concluding who genuine Christians are: do they accept and apply godly teaching from those who indeed know God in their lives? The Apostle John says confidently, “Anyone who knows God pays attention to us and our teaching.” This is not egotism, but rather confidence coming from a long walk with Jesus, a lengthy teaching ministry, and a firm conviction that what He says was from God. John does not doubt that he and other apostolic witnesses are “of God” and “know God.”[6] Perhaps that is why Nicodemus did not go to fellow Jewish Sanhedrin members to learn how to enter the Kingdom of Heaven; he went to Jesus, the King of Heaven’s Kingdom.[7] So likewise, an unbeliever would not have a chat with their unregenerate friends, instead, go to a born-again believer and ask. The same can be said of preachers and teachers; why should a believer go to hear someone only familiar with the Bible when they can listen to a seasoned student of God’s Word who has the anointing of the Holy Spirit?
Gary M. Burge (1952) notes that the Apostle John’s second test involves audiences and finding out who celebrates the Apostles’ teaching? Where does it find a ready following? John frequently refers to “the world,”[8] and in some cases, he sees it simply as a place of lifeless unbelief. Nevertheless, God loves this world and sent His Son to save it, [9] even though the world is where false teachings germinate.[10] In fact, John says that the world is under the power of the evil one.[11] Therefore, it is no surprise that if false prophecies originate with an ungodly spirit, these utterances will find a ready reception. On the other hand, it is the Church’s response to test the reliability of a word from the Lord.[12] God’s people know the sound of His voice – like sheep with a shepherd.[13] There is also harmony in communion between the Holy Spirit, the preacher, and the believer’s spirit. When God’s Spirit inspires a minister of the Gospel, God’s people will discern its truth.[14]
Marianne Meye Thompson (1964) notes that the Apostle John offers a second way by which one may test the spirits – by evaluating the response that the speaker receives. Verses five and six echo John’s sentiments.[15] In the final analysis, the world’s response to Jesus’ disciples mirrors its response to Jesus and God. Reversing this chain of reaction, John can also say that those who have responded to God react positively to Jesus and His disciples by listening to them. Listening means “give an ear” more than simply giving them a hearing; it implies absorption with what is heard.
Thompson now suggests three guidelines for testing the Spirits with discernment, that is, wisdom, care, and humility. (1) We are called on as a corporate community to test the spirits. The spirits in view are the teachings and practices threatening the Church’s mission and instructions. (2) It is also crucial to remember what we are to test. We are not called to test every belief and practice of every individual who claims to be a Christian. (3) We are to discern what is main stream to Christian faith and doctrine. Within the Church’s life, some issues are more central than others, and few if any are more central than the Anointed One and salvation. In summation, says Thompson, two extremes are to be avoided, (a) On the one hand, we ought not to rush to judgment on others. On the other hand, (b) the church cannot avoid its task to teach and nurture people in the Christian faith.[16]
Ken Johnson (1965) notes that in verses four to seven, the Apostle John contrasts true believers who listened to him because he had the Spirit of truth with unbelievers who did not listen to him because they had the spirit of error.[17] But the true believers were able to win the victory over the false pretenders because God lives in them, and He is much more potent than they are. After all, look at the unsuccessful anti-Christian Jews, Romans, heretics, Gnostics, persecutors, Nazism, communism, atheism, Islam, etc.
Peter Pett (1966) says the question here is who are “we?” Does the Apostle John mean “Apostles” of whom he is now the representative, or does he mean “Churches,” especially the duly appointed leaders? Either way, John’s message is emphatic. “We are of God.” The Greek preposition ek is translated to designate where a person is from.[18] It also means to: eject an object, [19]select an object, [20]a source, a person, or a thing, [21]arrive from, [22] etc. So, whoever is of God, is who or what they are because God was the source of their creation. We can thank our parents for being born in this world, but in a spiritual sense, to be born again means if it weren’t for God, we wouldn’t be spiritually alive. Thus, we have the truth. And those who know God hear us because the anointing within them reveals to them the truth through the word. On the other hand, some do not pay attention to us. This demonstrates that they are not of God. That is how the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error can be detected, by whether such people speak in accordance with the true servants of the Spirit, with the true Apostolic doctrine.[23]
Duncan Heaster (1967) teaches that being “of God,” born of Him by the Spirit, [24] is presented as being in opposition to being “of the [Jewish] world.” John himself was a Jew and was not anti-Semite, but presents the world of Judaism, with their conscious denial of Jesus as the Messiah, as being absolutely opposed to the things of God. Those who were not born of God by the Spirit would not “hear” the teaching of John and his team. Yet, they had the tendency to refuse their teaching, which the Comforter taught them. It was more proof that these hearers were not “of God.” There is an intuitive bonding between all who have the Lord’s spirit. Those who were out of step with the teaching of spirit-filled teachers like John were thereby discernible as “the spirit of error.” “Error” is more like “deceit.” The same word is used of the spirit that the Lord would send upon the Jewish world in Greek.[25][26]
Karen H. Jobes (1968) says that nothing worse could be expected when the One who created the world than that He was not recognized by the world’s people.[27] When the Word of God came to redeem the world, He was rejected.[28] In verse six, John draws the boundary of these dualities: truth and error, God and the world, those of God and those of the world – and the dividing line between the acceptance and rejection of the apostolic teaching that he offers. The issue implicitly is about who gets to say what is true about God and the Anointed One and the salvation offered to the world. Who gets to speak for God in this world? Some may feel that John is being arrogant to hold up his beliefs as the only truth about God. Don’t the opinions and beliefs of others count equally? But he is not being arrogant; he is taking a stand for truth as he urges his readers to remain with him in the safety of the apostolic teaching of those commissioned as witnesses of the Anointed One, who have seen and heard and touched the Life that was revealed.[29][30]
David Guzik (1984) points out that the Apostle John says that those of God enjoy fellowship with other believers; they speak the common language of fellowship with God and each other because one flows from the other.[31] Guzik then states that the language here in verses five and six transcends language, culture, class, race, or any additional barrier. It is a true gift from God. That’s why he is mystified by what we find in the official doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church. They claim to be the “us” (in verse six) of those who know God hears us, while those who are not of God do not hear us.[32] But John can only be talking about the apostles and their authoritative revelation in the Bible when he says to us. When we know God and are of God, we hear what the Bible says. If this were merely an individual talking, the claim would be presumptuous. But it is not. It is the Apostle John citing the collective testimony of all the apostles. That testimony has become the measure of truth and sound doctrine for the whole Church.[33]
[3]Belial is a compound word, believed to have been taken from the Hebrew beliy, meaning “not,” and ya’al, meaning “profit” or “benefit.” It is used twenty-six times in the Old Testament, usually translated as “worthless” in the New American Standard Bible, but also as “base,” “destruction,” “rascally,” and “wicked.” In the earlier books of the Old Testament, when describing a wicked person, the King James sometimes uses “son of Belial” (or “daughter,” “man,” or “people” of Belial). Like many other uses of the term son of, the expression “son of Belial” doesn’t imply that Belial is a real person who fathers children; rather, it’s a description of people characterized by worthlessness or corruption. See Deuteronomy 13:13, Judges 19:22; 20:13; 1 Samuel 1:16 etc., 2 Samuel 16:7 etc., 1 Kings 21:10, 13; 2 Chronicles 13:7; 2 Corinthians 6:15
4:6But we are God’s children; that is why only those who have walked and talked with God will listen to us. Others won’t. That is another way to know whether a message is really from God, for if it is, the world won’t listen to it.
Smith also sees that behind the controversy about true and false spirits reflected in verses one to six lies the phenomenon of spiritual authority and the problems exercising such influence can produce in the Church. It is likely we can trace the development of these concerns to John’s Gospel and Revelation. In the Gospel, Jesus repeatedly promises the disciples the infilling of the Holy Spirit[1] and tells them that this Spirit or Counselor will teach them the things they will need to know.[2] And in Revelation, says Smith, the Anointed One is portrayed as speaking directly to the Churches through the Spirit. In other words, what is happening in Revelation chapters 1-3 is not unlike what the Gospel of John would lead us to expect. Jesus promised further, direct revelation, and now He delivers. The Book of Revelation’s tone is pessimistic, not optimistic like John’s Gospel, but that is because of the behavior of the Churches in question.
The final statements of this part of 1 John chapter four may seem somewhat arrogant, says Smith. “We” here means John and his associates. He is the apostolic authority for this community of Christians, who know the One who was from the beginning, that is, Jesus. John bases his power not on any particular personal gift or capacity, but on this relationship with Jesus, who was from the beginning. He does not doubt the reality of his relationship with Jesus other than being one of His favorite disciples.[3]
Chapter four’s opening lines speak of seeing and contact but tantalize us with the first-person plural pronoun “we.”[4] Does John mean himself, along with others, were Jesus’ contemporaries, or does he imply that he stands in solidarity with an earlier generation of eyewitnesses? In any event, his confidence remains steadfast on the reality of having known and fellowshipped with Jesus in person.[5] While we may not have the same physical contact with Jesus as John did, we can know Him personally through our union and fellowship with Him by His Spirit.
Stephen S. Smalley (1931-2018) observes that what the Apostle John says here in the first part of verse six is not the opposite of what he says in the second part. Initially, John made it clear that anyone born of God pays attention to the Apostle’s message, while those not born of God have little or no interest. But the real difference is that those who listen know God deeply and intimately, while those who don’t listen do not know God at all and, therefore, have no personal relation with Him. So, these are not opposite or optional responses but juxtapositions.[6] That means we show how they contrast by placing them side by side.[7]
Messianic writer David Stern (1935) says that among the false prophets whom the world will listen to will be some who have “gone out from us,”[8] who have at one time or another claimed to be Messianic but have renounced their faith. It is helpful to see that Yochanan (Hebrew for “John”) recognized such a category of people. His advice is to beware of their errors but not become preoccupied with trying to win them back.[9] Instead, we should take as our guideline that whoever knows God listens to us; whoever is not from God doesn’t listen to us; like Yochanan, we can be satisfied with that.[10]
Michael Eaton (1942-2017) says we must remember that John received the power of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost. You can hardly expect someone baptized with this kind of power and illumination to be using “ifs” and “maybes” and “perhaps.” The modern Christian often uses similar language. The outside world finds it hard to understand, and authentic Christian language must seem arrogant. But there is not much we can do about it! When God speaks, He can speak in such a way that we know we have heard Him!
All we can do for friends who think we are arrogant, says Easton, is to remind them that we are pointing to historical facts that can be investigated, such as the resurrection of Jesus and the origin of the Christian Church. We can know the power of the Holy Spirit by coming to Jesus! The historical facts of the Gospel are there for anyone who wants to investigate. Yet, there is an even greater way; God is there. God is close to us. He is the one who sustains life and arranges our existence. God wanted people to look for him, and perhaps in searching all around for him, they would find him. But he is not far from any of us.[11]
William Loader (1944) finds that the comforting words in verse six could read like the worst kind of self-congratulation: “I knew I was right!” But in the context of the epistle, they must be seen as giving expression to a confidence that rests not on arrogance or status but belief in love. Ultimately, the Apostle John does not depend on his authority through a narrow religious self-assurance, but on the belief that God is loving and God’s agápe-love reaches all human flesh. That conviction extends to the confidence that people in touch with this God of love will inevitably respond positively to the preaching of the community. Whoever is for the Gospel of Love will be for this community, and whoever is against such love will reject it. As long as the community remains faithful to its received doctrines, its response will be a reliable spiritual yardstick in measuring the spirit of truth and that of error.[12]
David Jackman (1947) notes that because we learned that belief and behavior are harnessed together, we are not surprised to find that the Apostle John expands how his tests of the spirits work out by looking beyond the content of the false teaching to the effects it produces. Verses four, five, and six begin with different pronouns, introducing a diverse group of people. In the NIV, verse four refers to all Christians as “You,” then in verse five, “They” to the non-Christian false prophets, and in verse six “We” to the apostles and the true teachers who stand in the valid apostolic succession. In our age of always trying to be relative, we constantly need to be reminded that some things are continuously true and others consistently false. Truth is not just the present consensus; its character defines it. Today’s false prophets are just as persuasive and lethal as the first centuries. They will say the Bible has a resurrection, but that the human body of the Anointed One was not raised on the third day. The spirit of falsehood is a spirit of deceit. We know God by receiving the Apostles’ teaching and living a life that harmonizes with this truth. Substitutes are unacceptable.[13]
John W. (Jack) Carter (1947) says that it is easy for some to hear what sounds like logical, impressive, and charismatic arguments when they come from those who sound authoritative. It is human nature to submit to those who are seemingly more powerful, whether their power is in physical or philosophical force. John reminds the faithful that, as powerful and charismatic as those who preach false doctrines may appear, they are still of the world, still submitted to the prince of darkness. Because of this, regardless of their influence, the Holy Spirit’s power within every believer’s heart is the real source. Against the power of the LORD, the antichrist is impotent, and so are his followers.[14] It’s another way of saying that any power anti-Christians have comes from external factors such as reputation, financial status, political influence, educational endorsement, or respect among like-minded people. But the power of any Christian comes from internal features, including the presence of God’s almighty Spirit to persuade and bring conviction.
Robert W. Yarbrough (1948) sees the function of verse six in context reaffirms the apostolic origin of the Apostle John’s message, in contrast to deceptive currents swirling around. There are two consequences to this. First, those who know God hear and accept what John says or writes, and those who are “not of God” refuse to heed John’s voice. Second, the division of the house that John’s message generates has a wholesome result: “This is how we know.” Such division validates the “spirit of truth” that John thinks he upholds, just as it sheds light on the mistaken aspects of “the spirit of error” that John has been warning against. It is hard to ponder verse six without being reminded of the earlier schism.[15] The division is painful, but sometimes it is necessary, and when necessary, it may even have a consoling aspect. John seems to be stating that the clarity that results from people showing their true colors is valuable. Out of the pot of disagreement or error may come an occasion for discerning God’s Spirit of truth from imposters or pretenders’ spirits of deception. The apostolic testimony provides resources for informed deliberation and confirmation of wise choice on such occasions.[16]
Colin G. Kruse (1950) notes the Apostle John’s reference to the two spirits is reminiscent of teaching about “the spirits of truth and falsehood” in the Qumran scrolls, [17] indicating that the author used a well-known concept here. The whole section is concerned with testing the spirits “to see whether they are of God.”[18] The first concerns the confession that Jesus the Anointed One came in the flesh.[19] The second concern is to be on the lookout for those who make such confessions. John tells his readers that they may distinguish the Spirit of truth from the spirit of falsehood by applying these two related tests. In this context, they will be able to recognize that the secessionists are not speaking by the Spirit of God (the Spirit of truth) but by the spirit of antichrist (the spirit of falsehood). It is important to note that here, it is implied that the role of the Spirit is to bear witness to the truth about Jesus the Anointed One.[20]
Today, we are often called on to be generous because generosity is a virtue that all Christians should have. But too frequently, generosity is linked to financial endeavors when, in fact, it involves everything good we can contribute to our Society, Community, Church, and Family. In addition, research conducted over the past few decades provides strong evidence of intrinsic generous behaviors in children. This evidence suggests that generosity is deeply rooted in human psychology – that the instinct to help others is at least partially innate and not purely the product of social and cultural conditioning.
Both secularly and spiritually, generosity is being kind, selfless, and giving to others. Despite being an act to benefit others’ well-being, generosity also paradoxically increases our well-being. So being generous is a fantastic way to improve your mental health and being well. Imagine yourself being stingy and selfish. How should you spend your resources to maximize your happiness? Instead of buying more stuff for yourself, research suggests that giving to people or causes you care about is more likely to do the trick. Generosity not only helps others, but it also rewards yourself in measurable ways, so much so that it may even increase your lifespan. People seem to understand this intuitively.
A growing body of research has revealed numerous psychological and physiological benefits of giving, challenging common conceptions about the relationship between money and happiness. In 2008, for example, Norton and his colleagues conducted a study where they gave $5 or $20 to people and then instructed them to spend it either on themselves or someone else. Later that evening, the researchers checked in with the participants to see how they felt emotionally. The group that gave money to others reported feeling happier over the course of the day. What’s more, the results showed no emotional difference between people who received $5 and those who got $20. Being generous is what made them happy.
Generosity is a good thing for our mental health and well-being because when we give to someone we care about, we make it more likely for them to give to us, making us more likely to share with them, and so on. As a result, regions of our brain associated with pleasure, social connection, and trust light up, making us feel all warm and gooey inside. When it comes to improving our happiness and well-being. If someone else sees us do something kind or generous, it makes them more likely to be helpful. Even saying a simple “Thank you” can inspire both of you and those watching to be more generous. This is how generosity creates a ripple effect, helping us feel happier and less lonely.
Notre Dame’s Center for the Study of Religion in Society (CSRS) envisions generosity as “the disposition and practice of freely giving of one’s financial resources, time, and talents, [including], for example, charitable financial giving, volunteering, and the dedication of one’s gifts for the welfare of others or the common good.” While the term generosity is shared as a general descriptor in the literature on social behavior, it has yet to be conceptualized, let alone systematically addressed in research. Like the CSRS and Merriam-Webster, we see generosity as unique. It is the habit of giving, or the quality of being “generous” (i.e., willing to share and give, not selfish, characterized by a noble, forgiving, and kind spirit, generous). In other words, it is something that, while perhaps not manifested in a single long-term behavior, is often believed as something good to express consistently throughout life. As such, generosity is distinct from mere prosocial behavior – a line of inquiry heavily pursued by psychologists – and deserves its theoretical conceptualization and further consideration in future research
A few weeks ago, behavioral psychologist Dan Ariely, [1] inspired by the holiday frenzy, pondered the hows and whys of gift-giving. He offers a behavioral economics view that challenges the rational economic contention that gift-giving is an irrational dilemma. What he said should bring to mind the story that always epitomized the spirit of gifts and generosity: O. Henry’s “The Gift of the Magi.” Only a few pages long, the account may be O. Henry’s most famous, its title almost a byword for a particular type of present. Say it, and chances are people will at once realize just what kind of gift you mean.
A gift that embodies quality over quantity, the value of thought over any amount of expenditure. A gift that puts the mere mention of a Holiday Wish List to shame. As O. Henry writes, “Eight dollars a week or a million a year—what is the difference? A mathematician or a wit would give you the wrong answer. The magi brought valuable gifts, but that was not among them. This dark assertion will be illuminated later on…. the uneventful chronicle of two foolish children in a flat who most unwisely sacrificed for each other the greatest treasures of their house. But in a last word to the wise of these days, let it be said that of all who give gifts, these two were the wisest. Of all who give and receive gifts, such as they are wisest. Everywhere they are wisest. They are the magi.[2]Generous behavior is also known to increase happiness, which could motivate generosity.
Science writer covering psychology, neuroscience, and health Zara Abrams says that being kind is the right thing to do – it’s also good for our physical and mental health. Psychologists have found that performing acts of generosity boosts happiness and well-being, linking it to physical health benefits, including lower blood pressure.[3] It has been proven that small actions, such as holding the door for a stranger, petting an animal, bringing coffee to a colleague, and larger favors, such as helping a friend move, can have a big impact, said Sonja Lyubomirsky.[4] In addition, prosocial behavior toward friends, strangers, and oneself – and even observing or recalling kind acts – has been shown to increase well-being.[5]
Professor of Psychology Lara Aknin says that not all acts of generosity are created equal. Giving directly to a person or proxy – for instance, donating face-to-face to a charity rather than contributing online or taking a friend out to dinner rather than sending them a meal – offers an opportunity for social connectedness that’s particularly beneficial.[6] “When people give in more socially connected or relational ways, that seems to unlock these emotional rewards better,” she said.
But what does the Bible say about generosity?
Wise King Solomon stated that some people give generously and gain more; others refuse to give and end up with less. So, give freely, and you will profit. Help others, and you will gain more for yourself.[7] And later on, he says that giving help to the poor is like loaning money to the Lord. He will pay you back for your kindness.[8]
But Jesus put it another way; He taught that whoever helps any little child because they are His followers will get a reward, even if they only give them a cup of cold water.[9] And on another occasion, our Lord promised that you would receive if you are generous to others. You will be given much. It will be poured into your hands – more than you can hold. You will be given so much that it will spill into your lap. The way you give to others is how God will give to you.[10]
Also, the Apostle Paul spoke on generosity, saying the one who plants few seeds will have a small harvest. But the one who plants generously will have a big harvest. So, each one of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give. You should not give if it makes you unhappy or if you feel forced to give. God loves those who are happy to give. [11]
Paul wrote young Timothy, telling him to give this command to those rich with the things of this world. Tell them not to be proud. Tell them to hope in God, not their money. You cannot trust money, but God takes care of us richly. He gives us everything to enjoy. So, tell those who are rich to do good – to be generous in good works. And tell them they should be happy to give and ready to share. By doing this, they will be saving up a treasure for themselves. And that treasure will be a strong foundation on which their future life is built. So, they will be able to have a life that is true life.
And the Apostle John wrote his Christian community, telling them that believers who are rich enough to have all the necessities of life see a fellow believer who is poor and does not have even basic needs. What if the rich believer does not help the poor one? Then it is clear that God’s love is not in that person’s lack of generosity.[12]
[1] Dan Ariely is the James B. Duke Professor of Psychology and Behavioral Economics at Duke University and a founding member of the Center for Advanced Hindsight.
[3] Curry, O. S., et al., Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 76, 2018; Hui, B. P. H., et al., Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 146, No. 12, 2020)
[4] Sonja Lyubomisky, professor of psychology and director of the Positive Activities and Well-Being Laboratory at the University of California, Riverside.
[5] Rowland, L. & Curry, O. S., The Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 159, No. 3, 2019; the Journal of Positive Psychology, Vol. 16, No. 1, 202; Emotion, Vol. 16, No. 6, 2016
[6] Lara Aknin, PhD, an associate professor of psychology at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia, who directs the Helping and Happiness Lab.
Here is something on which we can all meditate. Few things are more challenging than spiritual lukewarmness and a lack of a conscious inward life.[1] Consequently, we have only two things to do: avoid whatever takes our eyes off Jesus and God’s Word. In this way, we can cut off the source of dangerous distractions, which dries up fellowship and prayer.
We cannot expect to find interior heavenly nourishment if we only live for exterior worldly delicacies. Strict watchfulness in giving up whatever makes us eager and impetuous in conversations that leave out God. It is an absolute necessity if we want to nurture the life force of remembrance and prayer.[2] No one can relish both God and the world simultaneously. Whatever motivation we have that keeps us going throughout our daily schedule, we must include the appointed time for prayer.
Then, after cutting down whatever nonspiritual excesses are distracting our minds, we must maintain constant communion with God, even amid our daily life and work schedules, guarding against stubborn self-will. We must continually act according to the leading of grace and in the spirit of self-denial. It occurs by degrees. Then we will be victorious by frequently checking our impulsiveness and listening attentively to God’s voice, letting Him possess us entirely.[3]
[3] Fénelon, François: Paraclete Giants, The Complete Fénelon, Translated and Edited by Robert J. Edmonson, Paraclete Press, Brewster, Massachusetts, 2008, pp. 51-52; Vocabulary and grammar redacted by Dr. Robert R Seyda
4:6But we are God’s children; that is why only those who have walked and talked with God will listen to us. Others won’t. That is another way to know whether a message is really from God, for if it is, the world won’t listen to it.
In other words, Schnackenburg wants us to see that when John speaks of the spirit that influences the speaker, if we “know God,” it will be easy to discern between God’s Spirit of truth and the world’s spirit of error. And the best way is to listen to their message and watch their behavior. Although they may claim to have God’s anointing, they are false teachers if their words do not match those of the Scriptures. But when an anointed minister of God preaches and their message is backed by what God’s Word says, and their behavior is what the Scriptures call for, you’ll know God’s Spirit inspires them. You don’t need to try and get hold of, speak with, or get to know the spirit involved to realize whether they are false or genuine. Just match their words with God’s and their conduct with that of the Apostles, and you’ll know.[1]
Donald W. Burdick (1917-1996) says that in these first six verses, the Apostle John points out two tests by which it is possible to distinguish between the false and true prophets. One is the content of their message: Do they confess Jesus as God’s Son come in human flesh? The other test is the character of their members: Who listens to them? The people of God, or the people of the world? After all, some worldly people were teaching heavenly things, and some blessed servants were teaching earthly things. So, believers must have some gauge to measure the difference. This is John’s method of distinguishing “the spirit of truth” from “the spirit of error.[2]
Peter S. Ruckman (1921-2010) has an interesting thought on what the Apostle John says here about false spirits and false prophets. Ruckman says it is not incidental a false prophet shows up in John’s Book of Revelation.[3] Instead, when you put him in a “diabolic trinity,” including a false father, fake son, and unholy spirit, it comes out as “BAAL” – a phony god, (the Father); “BALAK”—a counterfeit god, (the Son); and “BALAAM”—a fictitious god, (the Spirit).[4]
Ruckman goes on to say that there are four spirits which operate in the world, according to the infallible Holy Scriptures: (1) The spirit of BEASTS;[5] (2) The spirit of MAN;[6] (3) The Spirit of the LORD;[7] (4) and the spirit of SATAN.[8] “Spiritual discernment” is necessary for “testing the spirits” when they are in a place or have been in an area. The discerning of spirits such as a “message of wisdom” and a “message of knowledge” is “prophetic gifts,” and not “sign gifts” such as working of “miracles;” to another “prophecy;” to another “discerning of spirits;” to another “various kinds of tongues;” to another the “interpretation of tongues.”[9] These are the things by which believers are equipped to try the spirits.[10]
Raymond E. Brown (1928-1998) points out that the three “they are of God”[11] statements in the present chapter would give a neat progression to the “Spirit belongs to God.”[12] Therefore, the “you are of God”[13] because the One who is in us, namely the Spirit, confesses with our spirit, it is so. The fact is, those who know God were the ones who listen to the message of truth preached and verified as being of God.[14] So, in the Apostle John’s mind, those who carry the Good News are a “mouthpiece” for the Spirit of Truth. [15] So don’t concentrate on the “spirit,” but on the “speaker.” You can’t see or hear the spirit, but you can see and hear them. What they say and how they say it gives the best clue for what spirit inspires their words.
John R. W. Stott (1921-2011) says that verses five and six are best when read together. In them, the Apostle John contrasts strikingly the false prophets and the true apostles (they and we) and the different audiences who listen to them, namely the world and whoever knows God. The world recognizes its people and listens to their message, which originates in its circle and reflects it perspectives. This explains their popularity. We, on the other hand, are from God. (This is not the same as “you are from God” in verse four). So, the question is whether it can be spoken of us as the world; namely, we recognize our people and listen to their message, which originates in our circle and reflects its perspectives. This is how we will recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood because we can test the spirits and “get to know,” which is which, by examining both the message they proclaim through their human instruments and the character of the audience listening to them.[16]
John Phillips (1927-2010) supposes that many would listen to the aged apostle John speaking about the Anointed One, the Lord Jesus – the One he had known well and served so long – and then listen to Cerinthus and his phony philosophical views about the Anointed One. The two Anointed Ones were incompatible, so that person would then have to decide – take sides. We must still take sides today. That’s one reason why God allows cults to arise, to weed out those who are not of God. Those who are of God recognize the truth of God. Eventually, those who are not of God wander off into unbelief or some false teaching.[17]
David E. Hiebert (1928-1995) points out that when the Apostle John said, “we are from God,” some understand the intended scope of the emphatic “we” as a reference to the Christian community or to John and his readers. But the context suggests that the intended contrast is between the false teachers of verse 5 and John and his fellow apostles in verse 6a. The reassuring expression, “We are from God,” reflects the consciousness of certainty and authority manifested by the Anointed One’s chosen and commissioned messengers. It also highlights the masterful tone of Apostolic authority, which is so conspicuous in the opening introduction.[18] It underlies the whole Epistle, as it does the entire Final Covenant. It is the “quiet confidence of conscious strength.”[19]
Warren W. Wiersb (1929-1995) says that a ship’s navigator depends on a compass to help him determine his course. But why a compass? Because it allows him to see what direction he’s going in. And why does the compass point north? Because it responds to the magnetic field that is part of the earth’s makeup. The compass is responsive to the nature of the earth. The same is true with Christian love. God’s nature is love. Our compass, the Word of God, always points us to Him. So, the person who knows God and has been born of God will respond to God’s agápe-love-nature. While the believer may know what direction will take them closer to God, it must be a willing, not forced, response. A believer’s love for their fellow believers will be proof that they are going in the proper direction.[20]
Rudolph Alan Culpepper (1930-2015) says that the earlier reference to the Spirit[21] introduces the need to distinguish between the work of two spirits: truth and deception. This epistle extends the dualism of the Apostle John’s worldview by reference to the two spirits, so it is not surprising that these same parallels can be found in the Dead Sea Qumran scrolls[22] and elsewhere. One test to distinguish truth from deception is that of content.[23] John also adds to the required confession the affirmation that Jesus the Anointed One came “in the flesh.”[24] The opponents who went out from the community either denied that the divine Word could become human or diminished the significance of His humanity in their effort to exalt His divinity. This error led to the heresy known as Docetism, the view that Jesus only seemed to be human. In contrast, here, John demands full recognition of Jesus’ humanity. The second test of the spirits is that of response. The children of God respond to the divine Spirit, while the world responds to the spirit of deception. Therefore, it may be that the opponents were actually winning more converts than were the faithful who remained with the elderly Apostle.[25]
Dwight Moody Smith (1931-2016) says that these first six verses are an important theological section. That’s because it indicates the existence of what we would call heresy and raises the problem of whether and how the claim to speak by the Holy Spirit’s inspiration may be justified and tested. In summary, although certainty about the historical situation of John’s Epistle is unattainable, it is not hard to imagine what has been going on. However, says Smith, a plausible and probable scenario can be constructed – Christian prophets claiming the authority of the Spirit (or of the Anointed One) have been addressing the community. But whether in Spirit-inspired utterance or otherwise, they failed to advocate the necessary and proper confession that Jesus has come in the flesh.[26]
In fact, notes Smith, a generation earlier, Spirit-inspired speech seems to have created problems in Pauline churches. First Corinthians 12-14 attests to such issues, and more specifically, we read of a situation similar to 1 John 4:1-3 in 1 Corinthians 12:1-3.[27] There the proper Christian confession that Jesus is Lord is the mark of inspiration by the Holy Spirit, whereas a statement such as “Jesus be cursed!” cannot be so inspired.[28]
[1] Schnackenburg, Rudolf: The Johannine Epistles, op. cit., p. 205
[2] Burdick, Donald W., The Epistles of John, op. cit., p. 70
4:6But we are God’s children; that is why only those who have walked and talked with God will listen to us. Others won’t. That is another way to know whether a message is really from God, for if it is, the world won’t listen to it.
Alan E. Brooke (1863-1939) tells us that if the readers of this Epistle were true to themselves, they would have nothing to fear from the Antichristian spirits at work in the world. By virtue of the new birth, which as genuine Christians, they experienced, they gained the victory over the false prophets, and the fruit of the spiritual success are theirs unless they forfeit them. They did not triumph in their strength. It was God who fought for them and through them. And God is greater than the devil who rules in the world. The false prophets are essentially “of the world.” All that dominates their life and action comes from it. They derived their teaching from the world’s wisdom, not God’s revelation in His Son. And so, their message is welcomed by those who belong to the world. The Apostle John and his fellow teachers are conscious that their new life originated in God. Those of God who live their lives learning to know Him better receive the message in the gradual assimilation of God’s revelation through His Son. It is only rejected by those, not God, and has no interest in knowing Him. The character of those who welcome or reject the message they hear helps us distinguish the spirit of truth from the spirit of falsehood.[1]
David Smith (1866-1932) points out that those getting to know God understands His messengers’ language and listen to it, that is, not just hearing. People’s attitude to the message of the Incarnate Savior ranks them either on God’s side or the worlds. Of course, the Apostle John does not ignore the advice of the Apostle Paul. “We will no longer be immature like children. We won’t be tossed and blown about by every wind of new teaching.”[2] We will not people try to trick us with clever lies that sound like the truth. Instead, we will speak the truth in love, growing in every way more and more like the Anointed One, “who is the head of His body, the church.”[3] The message may be the truth and be rejected, not because of the hearers’ worldliness, but because it is wrongly delivered – not graciously and inviting.[4]
Albert Barnes (1872-1951) states that we can distinguish those who cling to the truth from those who do not. Whatever pretensions they might offer to appear religious, it was clear that if they did not embrace the doctrines taught by God’s apostles. Therefore, no one regarded them as God’s friends, as true Christians. The same test applies now to those who do not receive the fundamental doctrines laid down in the Word of God. Whatever hypocrisy they may engage in to look holy, or whatever zeal they may demonstrate in the cause they advocate, can have no well-founded claims to the name Christian. The undeniable evidence of godliness is a readiness to receive all that God’s Word teaches.[5][6]
Charles H. Dodd (1884-1973) says it is interesting to recall a somewhat similar treatment of false prophecy in the First Covenant. Several of the great prophets were troubled by the appearance of men whose inspiration is superficially similar to theirs, while their influence upon the people is disastrous. In Deuteronomy, [7] there is the case of a false prophet who attempts to lead the people into idolatry. Everyone understood that they must reject him, even though signs and wonders accompany his words. It affords a parallel to the treatment of the matter in verse six. The fundamental doctrine of Judaism is monotheism; no utterance, however inspired, which contradicts the principle of One God, can be accepted as true prophecy. Likewise, the fundamental doctrine of Christianity is the Incarnation; Christians cannot take any so-called inspired utterance which denies Incarnation as true prophecy.
Both religions recognize the freedom of the Spirit, and both owe something of their essential character to its exercise. But both of necessity draw a line beyond which the demands of some fundamental truth restrain such freedom. Most Christian Declarations of Faith begin this way: “We believe in one God eternally existing in three persons – Father, Son, and Spirit. The Father has remained invisible; the Son was manifested in human flesh, and the Spirit has been demonstrated in the form of a dove, wind, and fire.” All of this is substantiated by Scripture. To violate such a creed is to deny the Word of God.[8]
Rudolf Bultmann (1884-1976) states that the difference between the spirit of truth and the spirit of deception becomes discernible in whether the proclaimed Word is listened to or not. “Spirit of truth” naturally means the same thing as “Spirit of God.”[9] The “spirit of error” is satanic power at work in the false teachers. These are they of whom it is said in that “they would deceive you,”[10] and “against whom” warns: “let no one deceive you.”[11] The entire section 4:1-6 sets in bold relief the decisive contrast between “God’s kingdom” and “Satan’s world,” truth and delusion, and thus true faith and false teaching.[12]
Greville P. Lewis (1891-1976) raises an issue that most of us have pondered during our ministry. What did the Apostle John mean when he said, “We speak for the whole Church?” He says he represents those who “know God,” namely, those who have a vital experience of Him. They are the ones who will listen to our message. But, as expected, John says those will ignore what we say.[13]
Like similar words of Jesus, [14] this statement says Lewis suggests that some people are potential Christians by their very nature, and others are not. Are there two sorts of people; those drawn to God and those who pay Him no attention? Does this explain why some people listen to our messages, and some have nothing to do with it? It is a mystery – and John is not dealing with it; his only purpose is to encourage the faithful by assuring them that heretics have little access to God, but they have unlimited access to Him for believers.[15]
William Barclay (1907-1978) hears the Apostle John tell his readers that they need not be afraid of the heretics. The Anointed One has already won the victory of all evil powers and has given us the same ability to be victorious.[16] The main problem we face as believers is that these false teachers will neither listen to nor accept the truth, we offer them from God’s Word. That’s logical, for how can anyone who believes that the basis of life is competition for the survival of the fittest is to understand an ethic whose keynote is service? The answer must be that there are no limits to the grace of God and that there is such a person as the Holy Spirit who can break down every barrier with the power of love. Even if they resist to the end, as their souls leave their bodies, they will still hear Jesus knocking at the door, asking if He can come in.[17][18]
William Neil (1909-1979) notes that the Apostle John tells his community, “We must be careful!” It was needed to distinguish who speaks the truth in God’s Spirit’s power and those who left the Church. The test is whether they believe and proclaim that Jesus the Anointed One was human. We must distinguish between those who speak the truth in God’s Spirit and those saying what is not true. These were spokesmen for the antichrist, such as those who left the Church. Only when they confess that Jesus the Anointed One was divine and human. This is the truth that will prevail until the end, when He returns. Not to believe this will disqualify anyone from being counted as a child of God.[19]
Paul Waitman Hoon (1910-2000) summarizes that all the Apostle John has said in the last three verses fits together: evil character, false thinking, false speaking, rejection of truth, and world-mindedness. What a worldly person says tells us more about them than anything else. That’s why they all understand each other so well. As the old saying goes, “Birds of a feather flock together.”[20] They live by their standards, values, and ethics. They bestow their rewards for certain behavior. They don’t like correction or punishment because what they do is so natural. How can you discipline someone for being themselves? Tragically, says Hoon, there is comradeship in evil as in good, in error as in truth.[21][22]
Rudolf Schnackenburg (1914-2002) states that the Apostle John’s “belonging to God” is now referred to as “knowing” Him, an expression the Gnostics used as a slogan in their interests.[23] Earlier, John deprived them of this weapon when discussing moral issues.[24] Then he assured his readers that it is they who knew.[25] This time, in dealing with faith, he insists that those who know God listens to the Christians. Curiously, knowing God is represented not as the goal but as the origin of the religious pilgrimage. It means the same thing as “belonging to the truth”[26] and possessing the “Spirit of truth.”
Now here in verse six, John does not take up or recapitulate the rules for distinguishing the spirits as in verses two and three, for the phrase “knows God” can hardly refer back that far. Instead, it means that we can see from their behavior who listens to the Anointed One’s message and which spirit laid hold of them. The words “the spirit” are not the human spirit influenced by truth or error, like “every spirit” in verses 2b and 3a. Rather, as the article also shows, it is the driving power, like “the Spirit of God” in verse two and the “spirit of the antichrist” in verse three. The term “Spirit of truth” reminds us of the Paraclete sayings in the farewell discourses.[27]As in verse three, the phrase “the Spirit of truth” avoids personalizing the opposing power but marks the influence as of satanic origin.[28]
[1] Brooke, Alan E., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, op. cit., p. 114
[20] The phrase ‘birds of the same feather flock together’ is at least over 476 years old. It was in use as far back as the mid-16th century. Early British Anglican Reformation leader Dr.William Turner is said to have used a version of this expression in The Huntyng and Fyndyng out of the Romish fox , from the year 1545: “Byrdes of on kynde and color flok and flye allwayes together.” He was speaking of the Roman Catholic Church.
[21] Hoon, Paul W., The Interpreter’s Bible, op. cit., 1 John, Exegesis, p. 277
[22] Neil, William: Harper’s Bible Commentary, op. cit., p. 529
Down an Unfamiliar Road 