Down an Unfamiliar Road

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R Seyda

FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

CHAPTER FOUR (Lesson XXI) 02/14/22

^4:3 If another spirit refuses to say this about Jesus, that spirit is not from God. It is the spirit of the enemy of the Anointed One. You heard that the opponent of the Anointed One is coming. Well, he’s already here.

John Owen (1616-1683) writes that the Apostle Peter’s short but illustrious confession, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God,”[1] fully embodies the whole truth concerning the person and office of the Anointed One, first, of His person, in that, although He was the Son of man, (under which term He made His inquiry, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”[2] Yet although that was true, He was also the eternal Son of the living God. Secondly, of His office, that He was the Anointed One, He whom God anointed to be the Head of the church in the discharge of His kingly, priestly, and prophetical power. Instances of  brief like confessions we have elsewhere in the Scripture.[3]

And, says Owen, it has been shown that all divine truths form a chain among themselves; they center in the person of the Anointed One – as vested with His offices towards the Church – that they are all virtually included in this confession. Therefore, all who destroy them by errors and inconsistent imaginations will be held accountable. First, however, all humankind has to obtain their expressed knowledge by whatever means available. The danger to the human soul does not lie in the inability to understand a confession of faith but in embracing things inconsistent with their lifestyle. Whatever it is whereby people cease to connect with the Head of the Church – His body, no matter how small of a distance that may be, that alone is unworthy of Him.[4]

Matthew Poole (1624-1679) says it should have been apparent to those who opposed saying that Jesus the man was also Jesus God’s Son,[5] that if they deny that He came, they don’t know anything about the purpose of His coming. And those who live impure lives while claiming to know the Messiah represents open opposition and hostility toward Him. Seeing this should convince anyone that this is the antichristian spirit, which would show itself in the world.[6]

Thomas Pyle (1674-1756), a Church of England controversial clergyman, hears John telling his readers, now you have a safe rule, by which to judge of all pretending prophecies, miracles, or inspirations of any kind. Your Christian religion, both as to the life, doctrine, and death of the Anointed One, that Holy Scripture gives it plentiful and inoffensive confirmation by God. Therefore, we can conclude that whatever heretical pretender organizes to fight the great truth of the incarnation of Jesus, the Anointed One denies He is the true Messiah. It is another way of saying that Jesus is not the real Anointed One, the Word, and Son of God. So let them pretend to have gifts and miracles to confirm it by an impostor, acting by demonic delusions and deceptions as one of those antichrists and false prophets, the forerunners of the great antichrist foretold by Jesus and the apostles.

On the contrary, whatever believer works any miracles in confirming the genuine articles of faith, so undeniably established beforehand, must accept that the Spirit of God inspired them. After all, it is impossible to conceive that the devil would lend his power to support a religion so opposed and destructive to his empire. Furthermore, the Anointed One would not give the power of His Spirit to those who do not embrace the true faith.[7] [8]

James Macknight (1721-1800) says that determining whether the Socinian[9] interpretation of the clause “is come in the flesh” expresses the Apostle John’s meaning; must not let their understanding become a substitute for what the Apostle John saying here. This is how you can recognize God’s Spirit. One spirit says, “I believe that Jesus is the Messiah who came to earth and became a man.” That is a godly spirit. Another spirit disbelieves this about Jesus. That spirit is not from God. It is antichrist.”[10]

To use some reverse psychology, Macknight proposes that if the Socinian sense of the phrase “is come” in the flesh is right; God has made it the mark of a true teacher who confesses Jesus the Anointed One is human. Thus, the mark of a false teacher is that they acknowledge Jesus the Anointed One is a man but affirms that He is only a man: Consequently, by so doing, John would condemn himself as a false teacher, because he later declares, “Jesus is the Son of God,”[11] and “Who is it that overcomes the world? Only the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God.”[12]

So, by confessing that Jesus the Anointed One is the Son of God, a person acknowledges that He is more than a mere man. After all, the Jews, the learned doctors, and ordinary people believed the Son of God to be God: as is evident from John’s Gospel.[13] It means that no amount of church-attending, taking communion, being baptized, or being involved in church ministries will accomplish what this simple confession does – the man, Jesus of Nazareth, was the Anointed Son of God.

Richard Rothe (1799-1867) states that the Apostle John is not alarmed at seeing an antichristian spirit in Christendom, and it should not discourage us now. The powers of darkness in the world, which are opposed to the working of God in it, must rouse themselves and stand out prominently. But we should be cautious in branding anything as antichristian; we should abide by the principle articulated here by the Apostle John. We should not speak of an antichristian tendency where we do not encounter the denial of the historical Anointed One. Furthermore, nor should we do so when the refusal confronts us, not of the fact itself, there will be people like that around until Jesus returns, but only in the form which John has advised through testing the spirits. The spirit of the antichrist has no place to dwell in anyone who is committed to retaining Jesus the Anointed One in humanity’s history. We should not repel such an individual from us, nor separate ourselves from them, but should instead attempt to come to an understanding with them.[14]

Alfred Plummer (1841-1926) tells us that there is yet another very ancient and fascinating difference of rendering here: “every spirit which severs Jesus, or, unmakes Jesus or, destroys Jesus, or, as the margin of the KJV, which annuls Jesus, the Greek verb lyō 1 John 3:8: is used as “destroy.” In this reading, it appears that Tertullian (155-240 AD) knew about this corrupt text. He quotes the Apostle John saying that “the fore-runners of Antichrist, who deny that the Anointed One is come in the flesh, and do not acknowledge Jesus (to be the Anointed One)” thereby sever (dissect) Jesus.”[15] So also to Irenaeus (130-202 AD), who quotes the whole passage, and in this place has “and every spirit which separates (severs) Jesus.”[16]

But it can scarcely be genuine, for it is not in a single Greek Manuscript, nor any version except the Vulgate. And we have no specific knowledge that any Greek Father had this reading. So, what Irenaeus wrote may be an interpretation rather than a literal translation. And Church Historian Socrates Scholasticus (380-439 AD) charges that the Nestorians tampered with the text and ignored the reading “which severeth Jesus,”[17] just as Tertullian accuses the Valentinians of falsifying the text of John 1:13, and Ambrose the Arians of mutilating John 1:6. So the supposed heretical reading that excluded the word “severs” is the right one in all these cases.

Joseph Benson (1749-1821) sees a simple formula in the Apostle John’s test to determine if a teacher is telling the truth about Jesus. John says, here’s how you look for the genuine Spirit of God. Everyone who confesses openly their faith in Jesus the Anointed One – Son of God, who came as an actual flesh-and-blood person – comes from God and belongs to God. And everyone who refuses to confess faith in Jesus has nothing in common with God. This is the spirit of antichrist that you heard was coming. Well, it’s here, sooner than we thought![18] It is not a new revelation for John; he said as much in his Gospel.[19] From this and John 2:18, it appears that antichrist is not any particular person, nor any specific succession of persons in the church; instead, it is a general term for all false teachers in every age who disseminate doctrines contrary to those taught by the Apostles.[20]

Albert Barnes (1798-1870) says that this doctrine of Jesus being the Son of God is essential to the Christian system. Those who do not support it cannot be regarded as Christian or recognized as Christian teachers. If He was not a man, then all that occurred in His life, in Gethsemane and on the cross, was in appearance only and was assumed only to fool those who watched. There were no real sufferings; there was no shedding of blood; there was no death on the cross; and, of course, there was no atonement. A mere show, an appearance assumed, a vision, could not make atonement for sin; and a denial that the Son of God had come in the flesh, was in fact, a rejection of the doctrine of compensation for sin. The Latin Vulgate here reads: “et omnis spiritus, qui solvit Iesum” (“Every spirit that separates Jesus”). And early church historian Scholasticus Socrates says that Origen was unacquainted with the fact that in the First Epistle of John, it was written in the ancient copies, “Every spirit that separates Jesus, is not of God.”[21]

---

[1] Matthew 16:16

[2] Ibid. 16:13

[3] Romans 10:9; 1 John 4:2-3

[4] Colossians 2:18-19

[5] John 8:24

[6] Poole, Matthew: Commentary on 1 John, op. cit., loc. cit.

[7] Cf. 1 Corinthians 12:5

[8] Pyle, Thomas: Paraphrase, op. cit., pp. 394-395

[9] Socinianism is an unorthodox form of non-trinitarianism that was developed around the same time as the Protestant Reformation (1517-1648) by Italian humanist Lelio Sozzini and later promulgated by his cousin, Fausto Sozzini. In modern times Socinianism has been referred to as psilanthropism, the view that Jesus was merely human (from the Greek psilo meaning “merely/only” and anthropos meaning “man/human being”), a view rejected by the First Council of Nicaea.

[10] 1 John 4:2-3

[11] Ibid. 4:15

[12] Ibid. 5:5

[13] Macknight, James: Literal Paraphrase, op. cit., p. 56

[14] Rothe, Richard: The Expository Times, December 1893, p. 124

[15] Tertullian: Part Second, Against Hermogenes, Bk. 5, Ch. 16, p. 826

[16] Irenaeus, Fragments, Against Heresies, Bk. 3, Ch. 16, Verse 8, p. 881

[17] Nestorius: The Ecclesiastical History by Socrates Scholasticus, Bk. 7, Ch. 32, p. 312

[18] 1 John 4:2-3

[19] John 1:4

[20] Benson, Joseph: Commentary of the Old and New Testaments, Vol. 3, p. 11098

[21] 1 John 4:2-3

CYNICS may ask, how many have profited by the innumerable proverbs and maxims of prudence that have been current in the world for centuries? They will say their only used to repeat after some unhappy right has “gone wrong.” When, for instance, a person gambles and loses all they have, including their house, that leads to remembering the old Scottish proverb which declares that “willful waste leads to woeful want.” But did not the gambler know this well-worn saying from early years on down to the present? But, what good, then, did it do? Are the maxims of morality useless, then, because people disregard them?

Here’s one that comes to mind in an Indian text in the Sanskrit language called Hitopadesa, consisting of fables with animal and human characters. The authorship of the Hitopadesa has been contested.

“KNOWLEDGE is destroyed by associating with the dishonorable; equality is gained with equals and distinction with the distinguished.”

This truth is an echo of King David’s insightful words: “Great blessings belong to those who don’t listen to bad advice, who don’t live like lawbreakers, and who don’t hang around with those who make fun of religion. Instead, they love the Lord’s teachings and think about them day and night. So, they grow strong, like a tree planted by a stream – a tree that produces fruit when it should and has leaves that never fall. Everything they do is successful.” (Psalm 1:1-3)

BEING WHO YOU ARE

French Archbishop François Fénelon (1651-1725) knew that some Christians were not authentic for fear of being rejected or the target of laughter. The problem is if you keep trying to hide who and what you really are, no one will ever get to know the real you. And the longer this goes on, the more miserable a person becomes and starts avoiding personal or intimate contact with others. So, the Archbishop has a few words of wisdom for those caught in such a trap.

There is a simplicity that is merely a fault, and there is a simplicity that is a wonderful virtue. Sometimes it comes from a lack of discernment and an ignorance of what is due to others. In the world, when people call anyone simple, they generally mean a foolish, ignorant, gullible person. But honest simplicity, far from being irrational, is almost sublime. All good people like and admire it. They are conscious of sinning against it, observing it in others, and knowing what it involves, yet they could not precisely define it. One may apply to it what blessed Thomas Kempis says in The Imitation of Christ about the heart’s sensitivity: “I would rather feel it than know how to define it.”

We could say that simplicity is the uprightness of the soul that prevents’ self-consciousness. It is not the same as sincerity, a much humbler virtue. Many people are sincere but are not simple. They say nothing but what they believe to be accurate and do not aim at appearing anything but what they arc. But they are continually in fear of passing for something they are not, and so they are forever thinking about themselves, weighing their every word and thought and dwelling upon themselves in fear of having done too much or too little. These people are sincere, but they are not simple. They are not at ease with others or others with them. There is nothing easy, frank, unrestrained, or natural about them. We feel that we would like less admirable people better, people who are not so stiff! This is how people think, and God’s judgment is the same. He does not like self-absorbed souls and is always, so to speak, looking at themselves in a mirror.

As opposed to simplicity, one extreme is to be absorbed in the world, never mining a thought within, as is the blind condition of some who are carried away by what is present and tangible. The other extreme is to be self-absorbed in everything, whether it is a duty to God or other people, and as a result, making us wise in our conceits – reserved, self-conscious, uneasy at the slightest thing that disturbs our inward self-complacency. But, despite its earnestness, such false wisdom is hardly less vain and foolish than the folly of those who plunge headlong into worldly pleasure. Their outer surroundings impassion worldly obsession. Their self-absorbance by what they believe themselves to be inward. But both are in a state of intoxication, and the last is a worse state than the first because it seems to be wise, though it is not really – and so people do not try to be cured. Instead, they pride themselves on this state and feel exalted above others by it. It is a sickness somewhat like insanity – a person may be at death’s door while claiming to be well.

Those who are so carried away by outer things that they never look within are in a state of worldly drunkenness. Those who continually dissect themselves become affected and are equally far from simple.

Absolute simplicity lies in a happy medium, equally free from thoughtlessness and affection, in which the soul is not overwhelmed by external things so that it can look within. Nor is it given up to the endless introspection that self-consciousness induces. On the contrary, the soul that looks where it is going, without losing time arguing over every step, or looking back perpetually, possesses true simplicity.

But what does the Bible say about such an individual? First, God wants us to live a simple life. Not a life that lacks abundance, but with fixed hearts and minds on all He has for us and not what we can get for ourselves.

The Psalmist David stated that the Lord’s teachings are perfect, restoring the inner person. The Lord’s rules can be trusted. They help even the simple become wise.[1] Then, later on, we read that the LORD protects the simple and the childlike.[2]

King Solomon certainly learned from his father, King David. He wrote about Wisdom, saying, Wisdom has built her house; she has made it strong with seven columns.[3] She has cooked meat, mixed wine, and put food on the table. She has sent her servant girls to announce from the highest hill in the city, “Whoever needs instruction, come.” She invites all the simple people and says, “Come, eat my food and drink the wine I have prepared. ⁶ Leave your old, foolish ways and live! Advance along the path of understanding.”

Even our Lord Jesus had these words of wisdom for His followers: Do you want to stand out? Then step down. Be a servant. If you puff yourself up, you’ll get the wind knocked out of you. But if you’re content to simply be yourself, your life will count for plenty.[4] And the Apostle James added this: The wisdom that comes from God is like this: It is pure. It is also peaceful, gentle, and easy to please. This wisdom is always ready to help troubled people to do good for others. This wisdom is always fair and honest.[5]

No matter what you think of your real self, don’t be ashamed to be yourself. That way, you can learn and grow more mature into the kind of person you really want others to see in you. Remember the words of the Apostle Paul who said, we are God’s masterpiece. He has created us anew in the Anointed One, Jesus, so we can do the good things he planned for us long ago.[6]

---

[1] Psalm 19:7

[2] Ibid. 116:6

[3] In ancient Israel, a good house was one that had four main rooms with seven columns to support the roof.

[4] Matthew 23:11-12 – The Message

[5] James 3:17

[6] Ephesians 2:10

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R Seyda

FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

CHAPTER FOUR (Lesson XX) 02/11/22

^4:3 If someone claims to be a prophet and does not acknowledge the truth about Jesus, that person is not from God. Such a person has the spirit of the Antichrist, which you heard is coming into the world and indeed is already here.

Tertullian has one more thing to say. Up to the present moment, they have not, tribe by tribe, beat their chests in repentance, looking on Him whom they pierced.[1] No one has as yet been carried away like Elijah;[2] no one has as yet escaped from Antichrist;[3] no one has as yet had to lament the downfall of Babylon.[4] However, no one has risen from being spiritually dead except some heretics. Although our Lord rose from death, His spiritual body – the Church, is still susceptible to heretic fevers and ulcers; He did put His enemies under His feet, yet His Church has to struggle with the powers of the world. As a matter of fact, He is already King while His Church owes to Cæsar the things which are Cæsar’s.[5] [6]

The Bishop of Carthage, Cyprian (200-258), wrote a treatise against the doubting Jews in his day. He began by saying, “Although from the beginning He [Jesus] had been the Son of God, yet He had to be born again according to the flesh.” Cyprian then quotes King David’s Psalm: “The king proclaims the Lord’s decree: ‘The Lord said to me, ‘You are my son.  Today I have become your Father.  Only ask, and I will give you the nations as your inheritance the whole earth as your possession.’”[7] Also, according to Luke: “When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. In a loud voice, she exclaimed: ‘Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear! But why am I so favored that the mother of my Lord should come to me?’”[8] Also, the Apostle Paul stated: “But when the set time had fully come, God sent His Son, born of a woman, born under the law.”[9] Now the Apostle John declares that: “Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus the Anointed One has come in the flesh is from God,but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. It is the spirit of the antichrist.”[10]

As we can see, the point Cyprian is making is that when Jesus was with the Father, He was God’s only Son, and when He was born in the flesh through Mary, it was His second birth as the begotten Son of God. Therefore, while Jesus was the Son of God before coming to earth, He became the only Son born of a woman at His birth in Bethlehem. So it may be that what Cyprian was talking about is that it took two steps for Jesus, the Son of God in heaven, to become the begotten son of man on earth.[11]

Didymus the Blind (313-398) gives us the view of the antichrist in the fourth century. He says that if someone claims to have God’s Spirit and attempts to separate the son of man from the Son of God, who thinks that the Word was never incarnated and cannot be human, or states that everything Jesus did in the flesh is a fantasy, that spirit is not from God.

But someone will say that many heretics accept the incarnation, the Montanists,[12] for instance. The answer to them is that just as no one says that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit, the Montanists (and the religious cults of today) do not accept all the implications of incarnational belief. Those who say that Jesus is Lord but do not follow His commandments do not have the Holy Spirit. Although they honor Him with their lips, their hearts are far from Him.[13] [14]

Bede the Venerable (672-735) interprets what he feels John is saying here: John is talking here about people who deny the divinity of the Anointed One or who say that he did not have a human soul or did not take on human flesh. But the person who misinterprets the commands and sayings of Jesus perversely also denies Him. So, too, does the person who upsets the unity of the church, which Jesus came to gather to Himself. The antichrist will arrive on the eve of Judgment Day. He will be a man born in the world but much more wicked than others, in fact, the very son of rebellion. Unfortunately, this antichrist spirit is already in the world. It dwells in the minds of those who reject the Anointed One either in word or deed, to the point there is no longer any hope of salvation for them.[15]

The spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah is what John calls the spirit of antichrist.  There is a great debate over John’s use of the phrase “antichrist.”  Some believe he referred to a movement opposed to Jesus of Nazareth being called the Son of man, the Messiah.  But others think that this is the designation of an individual.  It originates in Jewish theology that mentions this person as an opponent to the Messiah.  Even Jewish scholars point to the Apostle Paul’s writings where the apostle says that this “Man of Evil” (also known as the Son of Perdition or Man of Lawlessness) will appear, “…the one who belongs to hell. He will stand against and put himself above everything people worship or think is worthy of worship. He will even go into God’s Temple and sit there, claiming that he is God.”[16]

Walter Hilton (1340-1396) tells us that the best way to test the spirits is by the Apostle John’s test in verse three. Every spirit that tried to dismantle the human Jesus from the superhuman Jesus attempted to convince everyone that He was not from God. These words may be understood or misunderstood in many ways. Nevertheless, we may appreciate them to fasten Jesus to a person’s soul, bringing good will and a great desire to have Him and spiritually see Him in His glory. The greater this desire is, the faster is Jesus knit to the soul, and the less this desire is to become unattached to Him. So, what spirit tries to lessen this desire and draw away from one’s steadfast look at Jesus the Anointed One and from the growing desire to be with Him? Therefore, such a spirit will detach Jesus from the soul and not be from God but the enemy’s work. But if a mood, feeling, or revelation increases this desire, knitting the knots of love and devotion faster to Jesus, opening the eye of the soul into spiritual knowing more clearly, and making it more humble in itself, this spirit is of God.

Jewish scholars believe that Paul’s reference to the Temple is significant because, since 70 AD, there has been no Temple.[17] When Paul says: “Then that Man of Evil will appear, whom the Lord will kill with the breath that comes from His mouth. The Lord will come in a way that everyone will see, and that will be the end of the Man of Evil.”[18] Jewish scholars believe Paul bases this on Isaiah 11:4, which is taken as a reference to the Messiah, as interpreted in the Targum, Torah’s official eastern (Babylonian) targum (Aramaic translation).

However, its early origins may have been in the West. Scholars attribute its authorship to Aquila of Pontius or Aquila of Sinope (modern Sinop in Turkey), better known as Onkelos, a Roman who became a famous convert to Judaism in Tannaic times (c.35–120 AD).[19]  Thus the Jewish mind believes this individual was present during the era leading up to the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD.  However, Paul puts this in the future after the Messiah returns.

John Calvin (1509-1564) finds that what the Apostle John added here rendered the impostures trying to lead us away from the Anointed One even more detestable. Back in John’s Day, the doctrine respecting the kingdom of Antichrist was already well known, warning the faithful of the future scattering of the Church so that they might exercise watchfulness. Therefore, it was only fitting that they dreaded the name “antichrist” as dishonorable and threatening. The Apostle John now says that all those who depreciated the Anointed One were members of that evil empire.

And John also said that the spirit of antichrist would come and that it was already active in the world, but in a different sense. He means that it was already in the world because it concealed its injustice. However, notes Calvin, the antichrist’s spirit, has not yet undermined God’s truth with counterfeit dogmas, nor has superstition prevailed in corrupting the worship of God. Thus, the world has not yet unfaithfully departed from the Anointed One. Furthermore, in opposition to the kingdom of the Anointed One, Satan’s dictatorship has not yet openly exalted itself.[20] But, says John, it is on its way.[21] But today, we testify that the spirit of antichrist is now openly promoting itself and has commenced its war against Christianity.

James Arminius (1560-1609) comments on the Apostle John’s examining the spirits. He concludes that although the inward witness of the Holy Spirit is known to whom it is communicated, and since there is a mutual relationship between the accuracy of the testifier and the truth, an examination may be instituted respecting the testimony itself. Arminius feels that such scrutiny of witnesses is far from being injurious or displeasing to the Holy Spirit, that by this method, a witnesses’ reliability is more highly noticeable. Thus, the Apostle John commanded us to “try the spirits whether they be of God” and has added a specimen of such a “trial.”[22] It will therefore be as easy to discredit the person who falsely boasts of having the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit as to be able to destroy that religion to which they profess themselves to be devoted.[23]

John Trapp (1601-1669), in response to the Apostle John’s mention of antichrist, makes the point that he is not called an Atheist, nor an Antitheist, but Antichrist, in opposition to the Anointed One. His opposition is not against the Anointed One’s nature or person, but His unction and function.[24]

---

[1] Zechariah 12:10; cf. John 19:37

[2] Malachi 4:5

[3] 1 John 4:3

[4] Revelation 18:2

[5] Matthew 22:21

[6] Tertullian: On the Resurrection of the Flesh, Ch. XXII

[7] Psalm 2:7-8

[8] Luke 1:41-43

[9] Galatians 4:2-3

[10] 1 John 4:2-3

[11] Cyprian Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews, Treatise XII, Testimonies, Bk 2, ⁋8, p. 1062

[12] Montanism, is a heretical movement founded by the prophet Montanus that arose in the Christian church in Phrygia, Asia Minor, in the 2nd century. Subsequently it flourished in the West, principally in Carthage under the leadership of Tertullian in the 3rd century. The Montanists were alleged to have believed in the power of apostles and prophets to forgive sins. Adherents also believed that martyrs and confessors also possessed this power.

[13] Matthew 15:8; cf. Isaiah 29:13

[14] Didymus, (Bray Ed.), James, 1-2 Peter, 1-3 John, Jude, op. cit., loc. cit.

[15] Bede the Venerable, Ancient Christian Commentary, Vol. XI, Bray, G. (Ed.), James, 1-2 Peter, 1-3 John

[16] 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4

[17] They point back to Daniel 7:25; 9:27; 11:36; Isaiah 14:13; Ezekiel 28:2, 14; and 1 Maccabees 14:14.

[18] Ibid. 2:8

[19] Tannaim is plural for Tanna “repeaters” or “teachers” who were the rabbinic sages whose views are recorded in the Mishnah, from approximately 10–220 AD.

[20] Calvin is describing conditions during the 1500’s in Europe

[21] Calvin, John: Commentary on the Catholic Epistles, op. cit., loc. cit.

[22] 1 John 4:1, 2

[23] Arminius, James: Disputations on some of the Principal Subjects of the Christian Religion, Disputation 1.19, p. 358

[24] Trapp, John: op. cit., p. 476

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R Seyda

FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

CHAPTER FOUR (Lesson XIX) 02/10/22

4:3     Another doctrine refuses to ascribe this to Jesus.  That doctrine is not from God.  It is the doctrine of the antichrist.  You heard that the antichrist spirit is coming. Well, it is already in the world.

EXPOSITION

Now the Apostle John contrasts this doctrine with an opposing dogma.  As he did throughout his Gospel, John once again emphasizes that people must acknowledge Jesus as the man ordained by God to deliver His message of salvation. But there is more. No matter what recognition Jesus may receive as a good man, a great prophet, a wise philosopher, or a good moral leader, He must be confirmed as the Messiah, the Son of God. Therefore, if you do not embrace this premise, God’s Spirit does not live in you because the Spirit will always maintain that belief.

Every false teacher that does not acknowledge Jesus’ incarnation (God dwelling in the flesh) is not of God. False teachers that deny His divine embodiment get this idea from the “Antichrist.”  The Antichrist wants to undermine the Incarnation because it is the basis of our salvation. It would make the person and work of the Anointed One meaningless. John faithfully taught his readers that they would be tempted to backslide, namely, to turn their backs on God. They knew it was going to occur before it happened. The Antichrist himself was not there at the time of John’s writing, but the spirit of antichrist had already come through his false prophets and teachers. His emissaries attacked John’s readers for believing Jesus to be both human and the divine Redeemer of lost humanity.

John often states the case both negatively and positively for emphasis. There is an ancient variant reading of this text of much interest, probably of Latin origin, traced to the second century. In 1 John 4:2, 15 Instead of “to confess Jesus” it reads “to dissolve Jesus” in Latin “solvit Jesum.” Tertullian and Irenaeusboth knew about its existence. The modified text aimed at those who distinguished the man Jesus from the Divine Anointed One and thus “dissolved” his dual Personality. The Greek manuscripts are quite unanimous against this change in reading. Those professedly Christian teachers are ever among the most dangerous who treat the Divinity of Jesus the Anointed One as more or less of an open question or as a matter of indifference. In 1 John 5:3, the Greek το τον αντιχριστον (“of the antichrist”) probably means “the spirit of antichrist.” And now it is in the world. It is an independent statement; John does not say they heard this previously.

The issue is not the manner or mode of the Anointed One’s coming but the constitution of His humanness. From the moment Jesus became human, He identified with fallen humankind. His being man redeemed lost humanity. The contradiction of this is the spirit of the Antichrist. Unfortunately, the antichrist spirit is understated today. Many messengers of liberalism remove this message from the Gospel. They deny the Bible as God’s Word. They reject the deity of the Anointed One. They discard the idea that man is sinful and depraved. They have no message for sin-sick souls. It’s all “feel good” theology. Regrettably, this kind of preaching fills some churches today. Most false teachers admit that a historical Jesus appeared in the world just like Alexander the Great was a historical figure. Still, they will not acknowledge that God stepped foot on earth in a human body to pay for the sins of humanity.  

COMMENTARY

In writing to his home church, Ignatius of Antioch (circa 50-120 AD) was adamant about recognizing the combination of humanity and divinity in the body of Jesus the Anointed One. He wrote that whoever declares that there is but one God, just to take away the divinity of the Anointed One, is of the devil and an enemy of all righteousness. Furthermore, those who claim to have faith in the Anointed One as the Messiah, yet not as the Son of the Creator of the universe, are Satan’s instrument. This individual is antichrist, and those who reject the incarnation are ashamed of the cross I am in prison for, stated Ignatius. Moreover, the one who affirms the Anointed One to be a mere man is doomed, not trusting God. That’s why they are unfruitful, like the wild myrtle tree.[1] [2] As we can see, this was already a controversy in the apostolic church era just a few years after Jesus’ ascension into heaven.

In writing to the congregation in Philippi, Polycarp (69-155 AD), John’s disciple warned them to avoid the Docetæ and persevere in fasting and prayer. He tells them that if they did not believe that Jesus was the Son of God incarnate, they belonged to the antichrist movement. Furthermore, whoever does not confess to the reality of the cross, is of the devil. Not only that, but those who pervert the teachings of the Lord for their convenience, saying that there is neither resurrection nor judgment, are the firstborn of Satan’s brood. That means believers must reject such conceit and their false doctrines and return to the Word of God handed down from the beginning,[3] prayerfully watching[4] and continue fasting, pleading in prayer that the all-seeing God will not allow temptation to overcome them.[5]As our Lord said: “The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.”[6] [7]

Quintus Tertullian (155-240 AD), writing against the heretic Marcion, said that this skeptic must now cease to borrow poison from the Jews whom Jesus called “vipers,[8] and stop vomiting the hatred from his corrupt attitude, as when he alleges the Anointed One was a phantom. The problem is that his so-called bright and somewhat unsuccessful Marcionites would continue to preach this false doctrine. Therefore, the Apostle John designated them as antichrists when they denied that God’s Son came in the flesh. They did not do this to establish another god’s right, but because they started assuming the incredibility and impossibility of an incarnate God.[9]

Tertullian was constantly hounding those who denied the divinity of Jesus the Anointed One. For instance, in one epistle, he writes that instead of dwelling on such things as why some of Jesus’ disciples turned away from Him, let us keep in mind the Lord’s teachings and the Apostles’ letters, which warned us that heresies would come and ordered us to avoid them. In such cases, since we were not alarmed at their occurrence, we need not be surprised at their ability to do things that make us want to reject them even more.

The Lord teaches that many ravening wolves will come in sheep’s clothing.[10] Tertullian reminds us this sheep’s clothing is nothing more than calling themselves “Christians” The ravening wolves are the crafty thoughts and impulses lurking within the church to attack the Anointed One’s flock. The false prophets are the fraudulent preachers, the fabricated apostles, and fake evangelists; today’s antichrists rebels. These assaults of perverse teaching upon the Church are not one bit less severe than the dreadful persecutions which the antichrist will carry out in his day. In fact, they are worse. Persecution at least makes martyrs: heresy only produces mavericks.[11] [12]

Others held and distributed this false doctrine for whom Tertullian had harsh words. He notes that in rebuking, with holy indignation, various heretics in his day, John cried out against them using multiple passages of prophetical Scripture. Therefore, for John, those who attacked the true doctrine that the Lord Jesus, the Anointed One is both God and man, must be condemned.

Tertullian also calls to our attention the artful influence of the prophetess Philumene[13] on the gnostic Christian teacher, Apelles.[14] Indeed, he is an antichrist who denies that the Anointed One has come in the flesh.[15] ­­But, by declaring that His flesh is actual and taken in the plain sense of human nature, the Scripture aims a blow at all who make distinctions in it. In the same way, when it defines the Anointed One to be one entity – God in man, it shakes the fancies of those who exhibit a multiform Anointed One. They claim the Anointed One is one person and Jesus is another. One escapes out of the midst of a crowd, and they detain the other. Finally, one appears on a solitary mountain with three disciples, clothed with a cloud’s glory. The other is an ordinary man talking to them; one is outgoing, but the other is timid; lastly, one suffers death while the other rises again. They then utilize this event to maintain their resurrection, only in another body. However, He who suffered “will come again from heaven”[16] and be seen by all who rose from the dead.[17]

Tertullian aims at one more target. Who is it then that has provoked the Lord, now at God’s right hand, so unseasonably and with such severity “shake terribly”[18] (as Isaiah expresses it) “that earth,” which is as yet unshattered? Who has put “the Anointed One’s enemies beneath His feet”[19] (to use the language of David),[20] making Him more anxious than the Father, while crowds in our popular coliseums shout “the Christians to the lions?”[21] Who has yet beheld Jesus descending from heaven in like manner as the apostles saw Him ascend, according to the appointment of the two angels?[22]

---

[1] The myrtle is not mentioned in the Bible until the time of the captivity. The first reference is in Nehemiah 8:15 (see Isaiah 41:19; 55:13; Zechariah 1:8, 10-11) in regard to the celebration of the Feast of Tabernacles. As an evergreen, fragrant shrub associated with watercourses, the myrtle is a fitting symbol of the recovery and establishment of God’s promises. Myrtle trees bore only flowers, not fruit.

[2] Ignatius to the Antiochians, Chapter V., Denunciation of False Teachers

[3] See Jude 1:3

[4] 1 Peter 4:7

[5] Matthew 6:13; 26:41

[6] Matthew 26:41; Mark 14:38

[7] Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians Ch. 7

[8] Matthew 3:7

[9] Tertullian, The Five Books Against Marcion, Bk. 5, Chapter VIII, p. 109

[10] Matthew 7:15

[11] A maverick is an unorthodox or independent-minded person

[12] Tertullian: The Prescription Against Heretics, ⁋4

[13] Philumene was a virgin friend who claimed to be possessed by an angel, who gave her “revelations” which Apelles read out in public.

[14] Apelles was a second-century Gnostic Christian thinker. He started out his ministry as a disciple of Marcion of Sinope, probably in Rome. But at some point, Apelles either left, or was expelled from, the Marcionite church.

[15] 1 John 4:3

[16] Acts of the Apostles 1:11

[17] Tertullian: On the Flesh of the Anointed One, Ch. 24

[18] Isaiah 2:19

[19] 1 Corinthians 15:25

[20] Psalm 110:1

[21] Cf. Tertullian’s The Apology, Ch. 40; it reads: “If the Tiber rises, if the Nile does not rise, if the heavens give no rain, if there is an earthquake, famine, or pestilence, straightway the cry is ‘The Christians to the lion!’”

[22] Acts of the Apostles 1:11

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R Seyda

FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

CHAPTER FOUR (Lesson XVIII) 02/09/22

^4:3 Another spirit refuses to say this about Jesus. That spirit is not from God. This is the spirit of the enemy of Christ. You have heard that the enemy of Christ is coming, and now he is already in the world.

John R. W. Stott (1921-2011) feels that the phrase “Jesus the Anointed One is come in the flesh” (KJV), or as “Jesus the Anointed One in the flesh having come” (YLT),[1] could also read “Jesus as the Anointed One came in the flesh,” – James Moffatt translation, “Anointed One incarnate.” It harmonizes both with the name “Jesus” and what heretics taught. They claimed that the Anointed One, a divine figure, descended upon the man Jesus at His baptism and withdrew from Him before His death. John repudiates this doctrine. The truth is not that the Anointed One came “into” the flesh of Jesus, but that Jesus was the Anointed One come “in” the flesh. These two identify one person. The statement, simple as it is, is of exquisite precision.[2]

John Phillips (1927-2010) mentions that the Apostle Paul could say in his day that the “mystery of iniquity is already at work”[3] and, as the Apostle John says, the spirit of antichrist was “even now in the world.” Only the hindering work of the Holy Spirit prevented end-time judgments from bursting into full power and fruit during John’s ministry. The restraining influence of the Holy Spirit has operated on this planet now for over two thousand years. Thus, God in His mercy lengthened the day of grace. But now, once again, the stage is being set for the coming of the personal Antichrist. However long his coming is delayed, his spirit is already here. End-time deceptions are overshadowing the world once more, possibly for the last time. We can see that the “falling away,” Paul wrote about, is all about us.

However, this time suggests Phillips; God may send rapture instead of revival, followed by a rapid fulfillment of all end-time prophetic events.[4] Paul prophesies: “Now the Holy Spirit tells us clearly that in the last times some will turn away from the true faith; they will follow deceptive spirits and teachings that come from demons.”[5] Paul adds that the time will come when “people will no longer listen to sound and wholesome teaching. Instead, they will follow their desires and will look for teachers who will tell them whatever their itching ears want to hear. They will reject the truth and chase after myths.”[6] It certainly harmonizes with the Spirit’s message included in this letter.[7]

David E. Hiebert (1928-1995) says the combination “Jesus the Anointed One” occurs eight times in John’s epistles.[8] In two places, the Apostle John separates the names by writing “Jesus is the Anointed One.”[9] Therefore, when the terms appear together, they need to be translated as such. Keeping the two names together best represents John’s insistence that “Jesus the Anointed One” is a union of the human and divine in the Incarnation in the historical Jesus. It’s spelled out in the words “has come in the flesh.” In saying “in the flesh,” rather than “into the flesh,” John repudiated Cerenthus (circa 100 AD), a late contemporary of John at Ephesus, who separated Jesus from the Anointed One. He taught that the spirit of the Anointed One came on a human named Jesus, the son of Joseph and Mary, at His baptism and empowered His ministry, but left Him before His crucifixion. That means only the human Jesus died and rose again. Cerenthus thus rejected the doctrine of the Incarnation and obliterated the Christian teaching of the atonement.[10]

Stephen S. Smalley (1931-2018) says the Apostle John now specifies the nature of the recommended “test” of the spirits, by which believers distinguish between true inspiration and pretending inspiration. John based this recognition on insight gained from the Anointed One. Living as a true child of God, and acting as a spokesman of His Spirit, involves a confession about Jesus (supremely, that He came from God). Verse two forms an inclusion with verse six and begins a pattern of contrasts that underlines John’s teaching. They include the need to “put the spirits to the test.” It became necessary because of the fundamental coequals in the Johannine community. John wanted to draw between truth and error, the Anointed One and the antichrist, the Church and the world.[11] It would have been easy to tell them apart had these false prophets come from the Jews or some other religion. But the false prophets arising out of the believing community made the test even more necessary.

Edward J. Malatesta (1932-1998) sees the Apostle John affirming that he and the community have the needed knowledge to deal with the spirit of deception with the Spirit of truth. A complete view of the spirits is how they influence the believer regarding their opposite ways of action. Either the Spirit guided them with Light to a clearer understanding of revelation or buried them in a cloud of deception. The ultimate purpose is to determine which is of God or not by observing exterior evidence of what is being said.[12]

Ian Howard Marshall (1934-2015) says that the Apostle John’s test is not infallible. Jesus protested when some people called Him “Lord” yet did not do what He said.[13] Mere confession with the mouth is not necessarily a guide to the heart’s belief. John’s test is relevant to a particular situation in which it was possible to regard certain people as inspired by the spirit of evil because of their false confession. A different form of words may be the test point in other circumstances. Ultimately, however, the whole of the Epistle furnishes the characteristics of genuine Christianity: faith, love, and righteousness are all relevant to the question, and concentration on any one of them to the exclusion of the others is bound to be misleading.[14]

Messianic writer David Stern (1935) has a wake-up call for the Church. One of the earliest heresies was the Docetists, who taught that the Messiah only appeared to be a human being. They considered human flesh too low for such a holy figure as the Son of God. This heresy persists explicitly in “Theosophy”[15] and sects based on Eastern religious teachings, which speak of “the Anointed One” as a spiritual entity which, in effect, masqueraded as a human but was actually “a higher being.” Moreover, it persists in a far more widespread fashion in the implied popular theology of much of the Christian Church. By emphasizing Yeshua’s divinity, it practically ignores His humanity and portrays Him as if He floated around the Holy Land several feet off the ground. For a Jew, there may be difficulty regarding the Messiah as divine, but none whatever regarding Him as human; quite the contrary, the idea of a Messiah who is not a human being is meaningless within the thought-framework of Judaism.[16]

William Loader (1944) says that the translation “acknowledges that Jesus the Anointed One has come in the flesh” is by far the most natural and doubtless reflects the Apostle John’s intention. However, it is possible, says Loader, to construe the Greek so that it reads in translation: “acknowledges that Jesus is the Anointed One came in the flesh.” The parallel with 1 John 5:6 suggests it is more than a literary elaboration. It indicates that the manner of coming is the primary matter of dispute: The anticipated arrival of Jesus as God’s messenger and the expectant arrival of the Anointed One. The sticking point was, are these both were embodied in one man, or was Jesus the man housing the Messiah?[17]

Marianne Meye Thompson (1964) notes that the Apostle John offers a test to discern the Holy Spirit’s inspiration, that is, challenging the substance of one’s teaching, specifically, about Jesus being the Anointed One.[18] The emphasis on true confession indicates that John is not talking about demon possession or ecstatic utterances or prediction of the future but about accepting the affirmations about Jesus handed down and taught in the community. It is not a new test, nor does John expect the Church to do anything new in exercising discernment. But he reminds them that the stakes are high. In the balance hang truth and error about the first commandment and the ultimate question of faith: knowledge and worship of the one true God. For denying Jesus would be equivalent to worshiping a false god, since only through the Anointed One is knowledge of the true God available.[19] [20]

Karen H. Jobes (1968) says that evidently, the Apostle John’s readers find themselves in a confusing situation, where discernment of the truth is needed. So, he reminds them of the necessity of recognizing the Incarnation of Jesus the Anointed One as true knowledge of God because the Word became flesh specifically to reveal the otherwise invisible God.[21] “Therefore, everyone who has a true knowledge of God acknowledges that “Jesus the Anointed One has come in the flesh” – that is, that the Son of God became a son of man. The incarnation is the heart of Christian epistemology.[22] Consequently, the converse is also true, that anyone who does not acknowledge Jesus as come in the flesh is not God sent; that is, they have not acquired the actual knowledge of God through His revelation in Jesus the Anointed One.[23] It may not seem important to many believers today, but when you stop and think of all the gods and goddesses in religions worldwide, not one of them claims that their god came to earth in human form and died on their behalf that they might have everlasting life.

---

[1] Young’s Literal Translation, loc. cit.

[2] Stott, John. The Letters of John (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries), op. cit., p. 156

[3] 2 Thessalonians 2:7

[4] 2 Thessalonians 2:3

[5] 1 Timothy 4:1

[6] 2 Timothy 4:3-4

[7] Phillips, John: Exploring the First Epistle of John, op. cit., p. 131

[8] 1 John 1:3; 2:1; 3:23; 4:2; 5:6, 20; 2 John 1:3, 7 

[9] 1 John 2:22; 5:1

[10] Hiebert, David E., Bibliotheca Sacra, October-December 1999, pp. 426-427

[11] Smalley, Stephen S., Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 51, op. cit., p. 220

[12] Malatesta, Edward J., Interiority and Covenant, op. cit., p. 284

[13] Matthew 7:21-23; Luke 6:46

[14] Marshall, I. Howard. The Epistles of John (The New International Commentary on the New Testament), op. cit., p. 206

[15] Theosophy maintains that a knowledge of God may be achieved through spiritual ecstasy, direct intuition, or special individual relations, especially the movement founded in 1875 as the Theosophical Society by Helena Blavatsky and Henry Steel Olcott (1832-1907).

[16] Stern, David H., Jewish New Testament Commentary, Kindle Edition.

[17] Loader, William, Epworth Commentary, op. cit., p. 49

[18] 1 John 4:2-3

[19] Ibid. 5:21

[20] Thompson, Marianne M., The IVP New Testament Commentary, op. cit., pp. 113-114

[21] John 1:14, 18

[22] Epistemology is the study of acquiring knowledge. It involves an awareness of certain aspects of reality, and it seeks to discover what is known and how it is known. Considered as a branch of philosophy, epistemology addresses cognitive sciences, cultural studies and the history of science. Moreover, epistemology explains why our minds relate to reality and how these relationships are either valid or invalid. It is needed in order to distinguish between the truth and falsehood as we obtain knowledge from the world around us.

[23] Jobes, Karen H., 1, 2, and 3 John (Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on The New Testament, Book 18) p. 178

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R Seyda

FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

CHAPTER FOUR (Lesson XVII) 02/08/22

^4:2 This is how we know if they have the Spirit of God: If a person claiming to be a prophet acknowledges that Jesus the Anointed One came in a human body, that person has the Spirit of God.

Alfred Plummer (1841-1926) says that the words “Jesus the Anointed One is come in the flesh” are the crucial test and one which would quickly expose the spirit of“Cerinthian”[1] and “Docetic”[2] teachers. We are not to suppose that all other articles of faith are unimportant. To deny this truth is the worst of all denials, or that such denial involves every kind of doctrinal error prevalent in that age. The confession must, of course, not be in words only but in sincerity and action as well.[3] [4]

Erich Haupt (1841-1926) reflects on verses two and three and believes we must ask about the central point of each person’s confession. What concerns are they confessing? The admission must be grammatically arranged in its proper order concerning the word Christos (“Anointed One”). Should it be combined with “Jesus” as the “Anointed One?” Could we modify it so that we confess Jesus is the Anointed One and that He appeared as such in the flesh? First, the Apostle John takes it for granted that Jesus is the Anointed One, and the requirement is that we affirm this Jesus the Anointed One as both God and man. Secondly, the assumption is that there must be a confession concerning Jesus as the Anointed One. Finally, it requires that we declare His Messiahship and Incarnation.[5]

Alonzo Rice Cocke (1858-1901) states that Jesus the Anointed One is the sum and substance of the Holy Spirit’s teaching, and every prophet who fully confessed Jesus the Anointed One is inspired by the Spirit of God. That Spirit, when it convicts of sin, does so in relation to the Anointed One: “The world’s sin is that it refuses to believe in Me.”[6] “He will bring Me glory by telling you whatever he receives from Me.”[7] Speaking the true doctrine regarding Jesus is the essential test to apply to all inspiration claims. All others are false. None are confirmed except those who give a true and loyal testimony to the divine-human Redeemer, Jesus the Anointed One.[8]

Albert Barnes notes that we should not take for granted that everyone who confesses to being a faithful Christian is honest. It is clear that a doctrine might be acknowledged to be accurate, yet the heart might not be changed, nor does it mean that accepting this truth was all that was needed to recognize someone as a Christian. On the contrary, everyone who truly came from God needed to confess this truth. Those who taught this held the secret that God revealed, which was indispensable, and they thus show that they did not belong to those to whom the name “antichrist” could properly be applied. Still, it was quite another question whether this doctrine harmonized with other doctrines to show that they were sincere Christians. It is evident that a person may follow and teach the true principles of Christianity and yet have no evidence that they are a child of God.[9]

Harry A. Ironside (1876-1951) asks, “If someone confesses the incarnation, are they of God?” Maybe, but it does not mean that everything else they teach is necessarily scriptural, but they have the right foundation if they truly believe in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus the Anointed One. We begin with the embodiment, not with an apotheosis. Ironside does not like the use of this theological term. The word apotheosis comes from two Greek words, one meaning from, and the other God or the Deity. So, we speak of an apotheosis as a person entirely under God’s influence. Many ministers and instructors today teach that in the person of our Lord Jesus the Anointed One, we see a remarkable child born into this world and in many respects superior to any other child. In addition, He is viewed as a religious genius, who from the earliest consciousness, was God-intoxicated. Furthermore, whose whole mind was toward a more excellent knowledge of the Deity, someone who was always reaching out to God. Thus, He was so constantly under God’s influence and so absorbed in Him that He eventually began to imitate Him. Therefore, we see in Jesus the Anointed One, God manifested.

Such apotheosis is what is commonly taught by those called “Modernists,” notes Ironside. They deny the incarnation but affirm an apotheosis. The Word of God does not teach apotheosis, but it does the incarnation. Jesus was not just a man or God; He was a God-Man – God in human form.  Jesus the Anointed One did not begin existing when He was born into the world. Instead, He came from heaven. Every spirit that confesseth this is of God. This is the incarnation. Did you ever stop to think what a remarkable expression this is, “Jesus the Anointed One came?” You were born into the world; you had no existence before you were born. But Jesus, the Son of God, was with God before the creation of the universe.[10]

Rudolf Bultmann (1884-1976) believes that for any of these false prophets to deny that the Anointed One, whom they also revere as the bringer of salvation, has already appeared in the historical Jesus, involves nothing other than that He came “in the flesh.” It, thus, seems to be a question of Docetism in the case of their heretical doctrine (instead of Jesus being two in one person, they insist that He was one person in two people). Therefore, of the one who makes the proper confession, it can be said: “they are of God.” Consequently, this confession asserts the paradoxical identity of the present (son of man below) and the future (Son of God above) figure of Jesus the Anointed One.[11]

Paul Waitman Hoon (1910-2000) tells us that by the Anointed One coming in the flesh it once and for all sanctifies our physical being. Such a gulf between the spiritual and the material is false and cannot be defended from the Christian point of view. Consider the implication of this insight for Christian altitudes toward intimacy. Also, this insight enables us to challenge philosophical ideas such as “situation ethics”[12] in our age. The Christian’s answer to the challenge of fleshliness is not to surrender to the Gnostic misconception of declaring that our flesh is inherently corrupt. Instead, it is to spiritualize and ethicize the physical. The Incarnation is, in one sense, an event; in another way, it is also an eternal process whose comprehension needs our thought and thinking. The confession John speaks of stamps a person as “of God” or “not of God,” is not of the fact of being in the flesh, but that the Incarnate Anointed One was in the flesh.[13]

To make Dr. Hoon’s point a little clearer, the Gnostics believed that salvation is all about knowledge. Therefore, they say that the body is of no value, so it has no place or role in a person’s holy living. Therefore, pay no attention to the body’s passions affecting your standing with God. Let it do what it wants to do, but keep your mind on God. After all, Jesus died to save our soul, not our body. This may all sound convenient until you consider that the Son of God came to earth and took on the flesh of a human body. So how could a Gnostic say His body played no role or had any consequence in our salvation? And why does the Scripture say that we are to keep our bodies holy just as He was holy?[14] And the Apostle Paul urges us to give our bodies to God as a living sacrifice because of all He has done for us.[15]

Donald W. Burdick (1917-1996) states that this positive statement when the persuasive Gnostic Cerinthus (50-100 AD)[16] was spreading his destructive heresy abroad, how could Christian people discern which teachers came from God? Their trick was to acknowledge everything else about Jesus except His divinity. John’s answer in verse two is that any person who is from God will gladly confess “that Jesus the Anointed Son of God is come in the flesh.” Then in verse three, John contrasts them with those who “do not accept that Jesus the Anointed One is come in the flesh.” It suggests that their refusal to acknowledge Jesus as a human was intentional, not accidental. John is not talking about accepting a creed, but about faith in a Person who has become and still is incarnate. Such a person believes that the human Jesus and the divine Anointed One are one-and-the-same Person – God incarnate.[17]

Raymond E. Brown (1928-1998) makes an important point here. He says, when we read, “Every spirit that confesses Jesus the Anointed One came in the flesh belongs to God,” it is a translation that might give the wrong impression that there are many Spirits of God. The use of “everyone” introduces human beings, not spirits, as those who confess. John is offering an external principle for which a spirit is at the root of the actions of two groups of people. John reveals this when later he suddenly shifts over to “you [people]” and “those people,”[18] despite his previous reference to spirits. [19] So, instead of thinking about the word “spirit,” as we would a “virus” where many viruses can infect many people. Instead, it is one “spirit” – virus infecting many people.

---

[1] Cerinthus, an early Gnostic, who was prominent as the founder of the Cerinthians in view of the early Church leaders. Contrary to the Church Fathers, he used the Gospel of Cerinthus to deny that the Supreme God made the physical world. His interpretation of the Anointed One is what descended upon Jesus at His baptism and guided Him in ministry and the performing of miracles, but left him at the crucifixion because He was just a man, not the Son of God.

[2] Docetism, (from Greek dokein, “to seem”), a Christian heresy and one of the earliest Christian sectarian doctrines, affirming that the Anointed One did not have a real or natural body during His life on earth but only an apparent or phantom one.

[3] See 1 John 3:18

[4] Plummer, Alfred: Cambridge Bible, op. cit., p. 142

[5] Haupt, Erich: The First Epistle of John, op. cit., pp. 244-245

[6] John 16:9

[7] Ibid. 16:14

[8] Cocke, Alonzo R. Studies in the Epistles of John, op. cit., loc. cit., Logos

[9] Barnes, Albert: New Testament Notes, op. cit., p. 4860

[10] Ironside, Harry A., Epistles of John, op. cit., pp. 127-128

[11] Bultmann, Rudolf: Hermeneia, Critical and Historical Commentary, op. cit., p. 62

[12] Situation Ethics: The New Morality, on the doctrine of flexibility in the application of moral laws according to circumstances, was written by Joseph F. Fletcher, 1966

[13] Hoon, Paul H., The Interpreter’s Bible, op. cit., 1 John, Exegesis, p. 274

[14] Leviticus 11:44-45; 19:2; 1 Peter 1:16

[15] Romans 12:1

[16] The Cerinthus doctrine was that the spirit of the Anointed One descended upon Jesus at baptism and guided Him in ministry and the performing of miracles, but departed from Him on the cross at the crucifixion.

[17] Burdick, Donald W., The Epistles of John, op. cit., p.67

[18] 1 John 4:4b-5a

[19] Brown, Raymond E., The Anchor Bible, op. cit., Vol. 30, pp. 491-492

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R Seyda

FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

CHAPTER FOUR (Lesson XVI) 02/07/22

^4:2 This is how we know if they have the Spirit of God: If a person claiming to be a prophet acknowledges that Jesus Christ came in a real body, that person has the Spirit of God.

Charles Ellicott (1819-1904) mentions that the Apostle John’s statement, “Every spirit that does not confess” seems to be an old curious reading mentioned by Church historian Scholasticus Socrates of Constantinople who said, “every spirit that destroys” (or, dissolves) “Jesus the Anointed One.” However, these words were most likely written in the margin that ended up in the text as a statement against the Gnostics. Clearly, this verse presupposes an evangelistic presentation of the Anointed One before refusal to confess Him as a historical person.[1] This consolation is similar to that in 1 John 2:12 and introduced by the same endearing phrase, “dear children.” John is sure that his readers have held onto the truth and kinship with God.[2] God is in them, and therefore the victory is already theirs. Although they may still struggle, they have only to claim the Anointed One’s strength, and they have won. By making their choice between light and darkness, love and hate, good and evil, God and the devil, they are the victorious party.[3]

William B. Pope (1822-1903) writes that personal faith must have its outward affirmation; every “teacher” or “spirit” must teach based on a confession of belief in Jesus. In chapter two, the test of antichrist was the refusal to believe that “Jesus was the Anointed One,” or “the Son of the Father:” It established the divinity and Messiahship of our Lord. Here the true faith is that Jesus the Anointed One has come in the flesh: not into the world as a human of flesh and blood, which might imply a fallen condition, but “incarnated” that is, God in human form. He appeared who existed before as the Son of God and so “came” that it may be said of Him that He is an abiding presence. In other words, “God is here!”[4]

Bishop Charles J. Ellicott (1819-1905) comments that too often, people regard the Incarnation as a doctrine accepted by faith, but which, except in its issues and results, has no immediate connection with daily life activities. Yet it is plain enough from the text that to confess the Incarnation, in all its blessed fulness and reality of meaning, is to establish proof of being a child of God and a recipient in the fullest measure of the inworking power of the Spirit. It raises the question, could not the Word have become flesh without the humble birth, the slow, silent years of growth, and the gradual increase of wisdom and experience? It, however, may be said that had it been otherwise, the belief that God’s Son took our nature upon Himself would never have been accepted with completeness in the human heart.[5]

William Alexander (1824-1911) believes that the Church or Churches, which the First Epistle directly contemplates, did not consist of newly converted individuals. On the contrary, its whole language supposes Christians, some of whom had grown old and were “fathers” in the faith, while others who were younger enjoyed the privilege of having been born and brought up in a Christian atmosphere. John reminds them that the commandment “which they heard,” namely, the “Word,” the “message,” is the same which they “had from the beginning.”[6] Now this will suit the circumstances of a Church like the one in Ephesus, to whom the Apostle Paul preached the Gospel many years before.[7] That means John could anticipate they would understand what he was saying without much explanation. Just as a minister would say today, “Remember the woman at the well in Samaria,” which regular attenders and long-time members could relate to without a detailed history lesson of the journeys of Jesus.[8]

Daniel Steele (1824-1914) notes that both the King James Version (1611) and Revised Version (N.T. 1881) failed to give the Greek verb homologeō, its exact meaning with the English word “confesseth” or “confesses,” Jesus the Anointed One, is come in the flesh. The Anointed One is the object confessed to, not some fact relating to Him. The confession required is of a person, not some abstract doctrine. Steele says, “The Gospel centers in a person and not in any truth, even the greatest, about the Person.” It is not the confession of the incarnation, but the Savior incarnate, the pledge and pattern of mankind completely redeemed, soul and body bearing the image of the glorified God-man. The believer who thus savingly accepts and publicly confesses the historic Anointed One, not as a phantom, as the Gnostics taught, but a real man, the incarnation of the uncreated Logos who in the beginning was with God and was God, is of God, born from above. “Faith, if it is real, must declare itself.”[9] So, when confession is made, it is not only for sins but also for acknowledging that you accept Jesus the Anointed One as having come to earth clothed in human form. He is not some myth or questionable historical figure; He is real.

Brooke F. Westcott (1825-1901) states the Gospel centers on a Person, not in any truth, even the most complimentary, about that Person. The Incarnate Savior is the pledge of humankind’s complete redemption and perfection, restoring “the body” to its proper place as the perfect vessel of the human spirit. Hence the Divine Spirit must bear witness to that regenerated spirit. The trial of spirits is found in confessing a fact that maintains life’s fulness. The test of the antichrist is located in the confession of spiritual truth.[10] [11]

Henry A. Sawtelle (1832-1913) focuses on the Apostle John’s insistence that confession must be that Jesus the Anointed One came clothed in human flesh and blood. The matter of the admission is not the mere name of the Anointed One, which even those spreading false doctrine confess. Instead, it is the Anointed One in His genuine nature, having a specific history and embodying a particular system of truth. He is Jesus, and, therefore, the Savior of all people. He is the Messiah and, therefore, the Anointed One of God. This Anointed One, Jesus, came from God in the flesh, with the soul and body of human nature. When John wrote this, people were beginning to teach that the Anointed One only appeared to have a human nature, like the angels who came to Abraham’s nephew Lot[12] and Sampson’s faither Manoah.[13] Being mistaken on the incarnation of the Anointed One, they were consequently at fault as to His priestly work and His saving power.

It was only one misstep, some might say, but it involved a denial of the Gospel’s message of salvation by the God-man, the Anointed One, and His actual death; and a person could not deny that essential plan of salvation and saved by it at the same time. It is an ominous warning to such who are passive enough to receive the nature and work of the Anointed One without being changed; who wish to explain this or that away, who deviate from what they consider the true faith. In particular, we must immediately believe this concerning the Anointed One: Gospel truth is of a definite type, which the regenerate will not miss; the spiritual mind will take to it as naturally as the bird to the air or the bee to clover. It does make any difference what a person believes, but it is God. It is related to them in their spiritual nature through regeneration[14]

John James Lias (1834-1923) states that we should observe that the Christian life has two sides, the inward and the outward. Of the inward, faith is the essential characteristic of the outward, confession. Inward determines humankind’s relation to God and the outward relationship to their fellow believers. By necessity, the Christian life passes from the internal to the external, from the union of the soul with God to the external brotherhood with those similarly united to Him. Thus, the public confession of discipleship of the Anointed One – is the necessary consequence of genuine faith.[15]

Lias continues. The Gospel entrusted to them came from above.[16] Over that, they had no power. It was God’s message. They could neither add to it nor subtract from it.[17] But the Apostle Paul does speak of his authority in applying the principles of the Gospel.[18] [19]

Robert Cameron (1839-1904) says that false teachers, whose mold of thought and purpose of life conformed to the wishes of evil spirits, are the indirect channels of opposition to the Anointed One and saints. They also approach believers directly by ambitious aims, the love of money, power, honor, and even knowledge that is not according to God. They gain possession of those rejecting the Anointed One and gratify their unnatural desires in the sins that are too terrible to mention. Unfortunately, too often, these spirits approach the saints and lead them astray through the sensual desires of human nature, by suggestions that are abhorrent to them living in conscious communion with God. All such approaches and improper influences from the unseen realm are practical revelations of the world of evil spirits surrounding us. Whether good or bad, these spirits must operate through human souls, exercising their power upon the stage of life, hence the introduction of false prophets. So, says Cameron, it is essential to understand a great, unseen spiritual force is all around us. It is not superstition but a remarkable fact. Being ignorant of this will lead to confusion, discouragement, and despair. As the old hymn goes:

“Oh, it is hard to work for God,

To rise and take His part

Upon the battlefield of life,

And not sometimes lose heart.”[20]

After years of earnest, conscientious, and intelligent fighting, we might lose heart and sink into utter despair without belief in the supernatural power of God that will someday rise to the rescue and move on to victory.[21]

---

[1] Cf. 1 John 2:18

[2] Cf. Ibid. 3:1-2; 13-14

[3] Ellicott, Charles J. Ellicott’s Bible Commentary for English Readers p. 16234

[4] Pope, William B., Popular Commentary, op. cit., p. 314

[5] Ellicott, Charles, J., The Church Pulpit Commentary, op. cit., Vol. 12, pp. 289-290

[6] Cf. 1 John 2:7, 24; 3:11; 2 John 5:5-6

[7] See John 4:6; 19:4; Acts of the Apostles 18:18-21; 3 John 1:12

[8] Alexander, William: The Expositor’s Bible, op. cit., p. 18

[9] Steele, Daniel: Half-hour, op. cit., pp. 96-97

[10] 1 John 2:22ff

[11] Westcott, Brooke F., The Epistles of St. John, op. cit., p. 140

[12] Genesis 19:1-3

[13] Judges 13:9

[14] Sawtelle, Henry A., An American Commentary, Alvah Hovey, Ed., op. cit., p. 46

[15] Lias, John James, The First Epistle of St. John with Exposition, op. cit., pp. 291-292

[16] See 1 Cor. 9:16; Gal. 1:8, 9

[17] See also Eph. 3:2, 3; Col. 1:25; 1 Tim. 1:11

[18] as in 1 Cor. 5:3, 7:12, 25, 40, 14:37, and 2 Cor. 10:8,

[19] Lias, John James, The First Epistle of St. John with Homiletical Treatment, pp. 287-288

[20] “Oh, it is Hard to Work for God,” published in 1849 by Frederick W. Faber (1814-1863), who wrote 150 hymns including “Faith of our Fathers.”

[21] Cameron, Robert, First Epistle of John, op. cit., loc. cit.

BEING CONSIDERATE

Sometimes people use the word “sympathy” when it is better to say “empathy.” Sympathy involves understanding from your perspective. Empathy includes putting yourself in the other person’s shoes and understanding WHY they may have these particular feelings. It creates a sense of concern over the plight of the person. A psychologist at Lesley University tells us that having empathy increases the likelihood of helping others and showing compassion. Empathy is a building block of morality – for people to follow the Golden Rule, it helps if they can put themselves in someone else’s shoes,” according to the Greater Good Science Center. This research institute studies psychology, sociology, and neuroscience of well-being. It is also an essential ingredient of successful relationships because it helps us understand the other person’s perspectives, needs, and intentions.

Although the distinction between empathy and sympathy may seem similar, there is a clear. According to Hodges and Myers in the Encyclopedia of Social Psychology, empathy is “understanding another person’s experience by imagining oneself in their situation, but without actually undergoing it.” A difference is maintained between self and other. Sympathy, in contrast, involves the experience of being moved by, or responding in tune with, another person.”

Earlier in psychology history, many experiments were performed with highly questionable and even outrageous violations of ethical considerations. For example, Milgram’s[1] infamous obedience experiment involved deceiving human subjects into believing that they were delivering painful, possibly even life-threatening, electrical shocks to another person.

These controversial psychology experiments played a significant role in developing the ethical guidelines and regulations that psychologists must abide by today. When performing studies or experiments involving human participants, psychologists must submit their proposals to an institutional review board (IRB). ​These committees help ensure that experiments conform to ethical and legal guidelines.

Ethical codes, such as those established by the American Psychological Association, are designed to protect the safety and best interests of those who participate in psychological research. Such guidelines also protect the reputations of psychologists, the field of psychology itself, and the institutions that sponsor psychology research.

Kate Dunagan of Thought Catalog tells us there are two words we often hear used by others, words that have a specific power to call you to action or defy others’ expectations. You may even feel indifferent about the use of these two words. These two words are, “be considerate.”

We may use the phrase “be considerate” when someone exhibits intolerance. We may use it to remind ourselves that “stirring the pot” isn’t always beneficial for a relationship. Even if that relationship is with a person, we deem an adversary.

But what does be considerate actually imply? We can only understand what civil or polite means for ourselves and how our actions will affect others when we define them ourselves. It will depend on our personality, emotional well-being, and specific circumstances. No one can make this decision for us and it is one of the many obstacles we must overcome amidst the human experience.

Some people may believe that others are considerate when they choose to do what is most harmonious for the majority of a group. It could mean attending a concert we do not wish to attend or changing our personality to be accepted by a collection of strangers. This could be when we buy that item our best friend urges us to get, even when we don’t have the money. It is the moment we say “yes” when we should say “no.”

Yet, there are also moments when we say “no,” and we should say, “yes.” It is the moment procrastination becomes a part of our daily routine, even though we have a multitude of errands to accomplish. We feel lonely and need to reach out to someone the moment we don’t. It is the day we deny ourselves any new experience for the sake of self-preservation.

In certain situations, it can be challenging to realize whether or not we are being considerate, to whom we are being inconsiderate, and who needs to ultimately “win” in the end. If we are being destructive and aware of it, it may benefit everyone involved that we leave the concert. On the other hand, suppose we choose to play along with the person who asks us to alter our personality for the reward of admiration. In that case, it is our decision whether or not we are being considerate to ourselves. If it is a situation that would benefit our growth as individuals, it may be best to force ourselves against the usual grain.

When the pressure of other people is involved, we need to look back to who we are and what’s best for us. Ask yourself, what is more inconsiderate than denying others a behavior they wish for you to exhibit or showing up to an event you do not desire to attend without the bulk of your true self. When we do this, people like to believe we are giving them something (for example: our time) when we give in to their wishes but, in truth, we are not. When we are intentionally a pseudo-version of ourselves, we give them nothing. Nothing good, anyway.

A surefire way to guarantee success in being mindful of others is to be aware of our own needs. How we treat ourselves has a direct correlation to how we treat others. If we decide to let other people’s opinions determine what we do and who we are and only give them a sliver of our identity, they will never get to see the fullness of our existence. We may even deny ourselves the fullness of our presence if we choose to let societal pressures win. We are missing out on the beauty of our blemishes and our strengths.

But what does the Bible say about showing consideration? The prophet Ezekiel received this word from the Lord, “Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty and did an abomination before me. So, I removed them when I saw it.”[2]

The Apostle Peter gives us an example of being considerate using a husband-and-wife situation. He says, a wife should be willing to cooperate with her husband. Then, even those who refuse to accept God’s teaching will be persuaded to believe because of the way you live. You will not need to say anything. Your husband will see the pure life you live with reverence for God. It is not fancy hair, gold jewelry, or fine clothes that should make you beautiful. No, your beauty should come from inside you – the beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit. That beauty will never disappear. It is worth very much to God.

In the same way, a husband should treat his wife in an understanding way, since they are physically weaker than you. You should show her respect, because God gives her the same blessing He gives you – the grace of true life. Do this so that nothing will stop your prayers from being heard. So, all of you should live together in peace. Try to understand each other. Love each other like brothers and sisters. Be kind and humble. Don’t do wrong to anyone to pay them back for doing wrong to you. Or don’t insult anyone to pay them back for insulting you. But ask God to bless them. Do this because you yourselves were chosen to receive a blessing.[3]

Then the Apostle James offers instructions to believers as a group. He tells them, brothers and sisters, you are believers in our glorious Lord Jesus the Anointed One. So don’t treat some people better than others. Suppose someone comes into your meeting wearing very nice clothes and a gold ring. At the same time a poor person comes in wearing old, dirty clothes. Let’s say you show special attention to the person wearing nice clothes by telling them, ‘Sit here in this good seat.’ But you say to the poor person, ‘Stand in that corner!’ or ‘Sit on the floor by our feet!’ Doesn’t this show that you think some people are more important than others? You set yourselves up as judges – judges who make bad decisions.[4]

Finally, the Apostle Paul has this advice: Don’t be interested only in your life, but care about the lives of others too.[5] Also, don’t speak evil of anyone but live in peace with others. You should be gentle and polite to everyone.[6] Finally, put a stop to all sarcasm, backbiting, profane talk. Be gentle with one another, sensitive. Forgive one another as quickly and thoroughly as God in the Anointed One forgave you.[7] You should never stop showing consideration for others, not even those who may not like you.

---

[1] The Milgram experiment(s) on obedience to authority figures was a series of social psychology experiments conducted by Yale University psychologist Stanley Milgram..

[2] Ezekiel 16:49-50

[3] 1 Peter 3:1-4, 7-10

[4] James 2:1-4

[5] Philippians 2:4

[6] Titus 3:2

[7] Ephesians 4:32

CARRYING YOUR CROSS

French Archbishop François Fénelon (1651-1725) was struck by how his people responded to the words of our Lord Jesus, “If any of you want to be My follower, you must stop thinking about yourself and what you want. You must be willing to carry the cross given to you for following Me.”[1] So he offered the following insight to those struggling to keep up with Jesus because their cross seemed too heavy or inconvenient. His French expressions are not easy to translate but I’m sure you’ll get his point.

God is very resourceful in making crosses for us to carry. Some seem to be constructed out of lead and iron, which are overwhelming in themselves. And some are made of straw, which seems so light and yet is no less difficult to bear. Other crosses appear to be made of gold and jewels, the glitter of which dazzles those around and excites the world’s envy, but all the while being as punishing as the most despised of crosses.

Sometimes He makes crosses for us out of whatever we love best which can make us bitter. Positions of responsibility involve constraint and harassment. It gives us things we do not care for and removes what we crave.

The poor man who does not have bread to eat considered his cross made of lead, but God mingles trouble very much like the cup of those who are prosperous. In fact, the rich may hunger for freedom from their cross just as the poor hunger for bread. Whereas the poor can freely knock at every door and call upon every passerby for pity, the person of high estate is ashamed to seek compassion or relief. God very often adds bodily weakness to this moral servitude among the great. Nothing can be more profitable than two such crosses combined: they often suffer while God shows them their lack of power and the uselessness of all they possess to satisfy what only God can give.

Wisdom tests us in all manner of ways according to our position. Therefore, it is very possible to drink the cup of bitterness[2] while living in luxury without having to endure some calamity – indeed, to drink it to the last dredges out of the golden vessels that adorn the tables of kings. In this way, God can reveal that our supposed greatness is nothing more than powerlessness in disguise.

Happy are those who seek these things with that illumination of the heart that Apostle Paul advises.[3] The trials of high position are more acute than rheumatism or headache! But faith turns them into something that accounts for our good.[4] It teaches us to look upon all such things as mere trials,[5] and our patient acceptance of them shows us absolute freedom, which is all the more real because it is hidden from our gaze in our hearts and spirits.

The only good point of worldly prosperity is one to which the world is blind – its cross! An elevated position does not save us from ordinary afflictions common to the human condition. Indeed, it has its unique trials, and it involves oppression that prevents people from seeking the relief open to those in a less exalted place. Those who are not in a high place can at least, when ill, see whom they will, and be sheltered from external threats.

But well-known persons must carry their cross. They must live for others when they might prefer to consider their comfort. In this way, God turns the good things that the world covets into trouble and toil and allows those He has raised to earthly grandeur to be an example to others. It is His will to perfect their cross by concealing it beneath the most splendid worldly riches to show what little value there is in prosperity. Let me repeat; happy are those who, in such circumstances, learn to see God’s hand sustaining them in mercy. But, unfortunately, in seeking a false paradise, many too often forfeit the hope of true heaven after this brief life ends.

Fénelon ends with this prayer: O cross! Holy cross! May I cling firmly to you! May I worship my Lord as He hangs upon you, and may I die with Him to sin and the world forever! Amen.

---

[1] Matthew 16:24

[2] Ibid. 20:22

[3] 1 Corinthians 2:12

[4] Romans 8:28

[5] James 1:2