1 John 4:3

1Jn 4:3. Every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh — That doth not acknowledge him to be the true Messiah, as above observed, and that he came in that particular manner, though he might have come otherwise; is not of Gods — “To determine whether the Socinian interpretation of the clause, hath come in the flesh, expresses the apostle’s meaning, let that interpretation be substituted for the expression of which it is the interpretation, and the passages under consideration will run thus: 1Jn 4:2, Every spirit, every teacher, calling himself inspired, who confesseth Jesus Christ hath come a mere man, is from God; 1Jn 4:3, And every spirit who doth not confess Jesus Christ hath come a mere man, is not from God. Wherefore, as St. John is here giving marks by which true and false teachers were to be distinguished, if the Socinian sense of the phrase, hath come in the flesh, be just, he hath made it the mark of a true teacher, that he confesseth Jesus Christ as a mere man; and the mark of a false teacher, that he doth not confess Jesus Christ as a mere man, but affirmeth that he is more than a mere man; consequently, by so doing, St. John has condemned himself as a false teacher; because, having declared (1Jn 4:15; 1Jn 5:5) that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, he hath confessed that he is more than a mere man.” And also in his gospel, having told us, (Joh 1:14,) that the Word (who he had said, 1Jn 4:1, was with God and was God) was made flesh and dwelt among us, and they beheld his glory, the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father, “he hath certainly confessed that Jesus Christ is more than a mere man: for whose glory did the apostles behold, if it was not the glory of the Word made flesh, the only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth? Wherefore, John having confessed that Jesus is the only-begotten Son of God, he cannot be supposed to have branded those teachers as deceivers, who did not confess Jesus Christ to be a mere man, but affirmed him to be more than a man; because, by so doing, he would have condemned himself as a false teacher.” And this is that spirit of antichrist which ye have heard, &c. — “From this, as well as from Joh 2:18, it appears that antichrist is not any particular person, nor any particular succession of persons in the church, but a general name for all false teachers in every age, who disseminate doctrines contrary to those taught by the apostles; especially if these doctrines have a tendency to derogate from Christ’s character and actions as the Saviour of the world.” — Macknight.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1Jn 4:3. Τὸ) that is, πνεῦμα, the spirit.—καὶ νῦν, and now) ch. 1Jn 2:18, note.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1Jn_4:3. In the reading: ὁ μὴ ὁμολογεῖ τὸν Ἰησοῦν, the article (which is not, with Lücke, to be deleted) must not be overlooked, for it indicates Jesus as the historical person who is Christ. The false teachers did not confess Jesus when they ascribed the work of healing, not to Jesus, but to the Aeon Christ. The particle μή indicates the contradiction of the true confession, whilst οὐ would only express the simple negation. At the words: καὶ τοῦτό ἐστι τὸ τοῦ ἀντιχρίστου, almost all commentators (even Brückner and Braune) supply with τό the word πνεῦμα; but Valla (with whom Zegerus agrees) interprets: et hic est antichristi spiritus, vel potius: et hoc est antichristi i.e. proprium antichristi; if this latter interpretation be correct, then τοῦτο refers to μὴ ὁμολογεῖν, and τὸ τοῦ ἀντιχρίστου is the antichristian nature. As it is not easy to see why John should have left out πνεῦμα, this interpretation is to be preferred to the usual one (so also Myrberg; Ewald similarly interprets: the work of Antichrist; the same form of expression in Mat_21:21; 1Co_10:24; 2Pe_2:22; Jam_4:14).[258]

ὃ ἀκηκόατε ὅτι ἔρχεται] compare chap. 1Jn_2:18. Stephanus, groundlessly, would read ὅν instead of ὅ; the relative does not refer to ἀντιχρίστου, but to τὸ τ. ἀντιχρ.

καὶ νῦν ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ ἐστὶν ἥδη] i.e. in the false prophets; comp. 1Jn_4:1. John does not say here that Antichrist, but only that the antichristian nature (or the spirit of Antichrist) is already in the world; ἤδη is doubtless added, not merely to intensify the νῦν, but to point to the future time of the appearing of Antichrist, which is already being prepared for. According to Ebrard, the last sentence depends on ὅ; this, however, is not likely, as ὅ is the accusative; it is rather connected, as an independent sentence, with the preceding one.

[258] Braune thinks that in these passages it was of importance to form a substantive conception, but that here the simple genitive would have been sufficient; it is plain, however, that the substantive idea τὸ τοῦ ἀντιχρ. is here also more significant than a mere genitive connected with ἐστίν.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1Jn 4:3 . The Test negatively expressed. Omit Χριστὸν ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθότα . τὸν Ἰησοῦν , “the aforementioned Jesus,” “jesus as thus described”. μή makes the statement hypothetical: “every spirit, if such there be, which doth not confess”. The variant λύει τὸν Ἰησοῦν , solvit Jesum (Vulg., Aug.), “dissolveth” or “severeth Jesus,” i.e. , separates the divinity and the humanity, aptly defines the Cerinthian heresy. It was much appealed to in later days against Nestorius. The ecclesiastical historian Socrates (see crit. note) says it was the primitive reading, and was altered by “those who wished to separate the deity from the man of the Incarnation”. St. Augustine, defining heresy as schism due to lack of brotherly love, comments: “Ille venit colligere, tu venis solvere. Distringere vis membra Christi. Quomodo non negas Christum in carne venisse, qui disrumpis Ecclesiam Dei, quam ille congregavit? “On the Antichrist see note on 1Jn 2:18 . ὃ ἀκηκόατε ὅτι ἔρχεται , “which ye have heard that it is coming” the regular Greek idiom. Cf. Luk 4:34 : οἶδά σε τίς εἶ .

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh--IRENÆUS [3.8], LUCIFER, ORIGEN, on Mat 25:14, and Vulgate read, "Every spirit which destroys (sets aside, or does away with) Jesus (Christ)." CYPRIAN and POLYCARP support English Version text. The oldest extant manuscripts, which are, however, centuries after POLYCARP, read, "Every spirit that confesseth not (that is, refuses to confess) Jesus" (in His person, and all His offices and divinity), omitting "is come in the flesh."

ye have heard--from your Christian teachers.

already is it in the world--in the person of the false prophets (Jo1 4:1).

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 3. Every spirit] Every teacher, that confesseth not Jesus, is not of God - has not been inspired by God. The words εν σαρκιεληλυθοτα, is come in the flesh, are wanting in AB, several others, both the Syriac, the Polyglot Arabic, AEthiopic, Coptic, Armenian, and Vulgate; in Origen, Cyril, Theodoret, Irenaeus, and others. Griesbach has left them out of the text.

Spirit of antichrist] All the opponents of Christ's incarnation, and consequently of his passion, death, and resurrection, and the benefits to be derived from them.

Ye have heard that it should come] See 2Th 2:7.

Even now already is it in the world.] Is working powerfully both among the Jews and Gentiles.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

3. And this is that spirit of Antichrist The Apostle added this, to render more detestable the impostures which lead us away from Christ. We have already said that the doctrine respecting the kingdom of Antichrist was well known; so that the faithful had been warned as to the future scattering of the Church, in order that they might exercise vigilance. Justly then did they dread the name as something base and ominous. The Apostle says now, that all those who depreciated Christ were members of that kingdom.

And he says that the spirit of antichrist would come, and that it was already in the world, but in a different sense. He means that it was already in the world, because it carried on in secret its iniquity. As, however, the truth of God had not as yet been subverted by false and spurious dogmas, as superstition had not as yet prevailed in corrupting the worship of God, as the world had not as yet perfidiously departed from Christ, as tyranny, opposed to the kingdom of Christ, had not as yet openly exalted itself, he therefore says, that it would come.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

3. confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh] On overwhelming evidence (AB, Coptic, Aethiopic, Vulgate, &c.) we must omit the words ‘that Christ is come in the flesh’, retaining only confesseth not Jesus: the additional words are an obvious interpolation by one who wished to make the two sides of the antithesis exactly equal. But, as we have repeatedly seen (1Jn_1:5-8; 1Jn_1:10, 1Jn_2:10; 1Jn_2:22-23, &c.), this is rarely the case in S. John’s oppositions.

There is yet another very ancient and very interesting difference of reading here: every spirit which severeth Jesus, or, unmaketh Jesus, or, destroyeth Jesus, or, as the margin of R. V., which annulleth Jesus (ὃ λύει, qui solvit), the verb which in 1Jn_3:8 is used for ‘to destroy’. This reading appears to have been known to Tertullian (a.d. 210), who quotes S. John as speaking of “the forerunners of Antichrist denying that Christ has come in the flesh and severing (solventes) Jesus” (Adv. Marcion V. xvi.), and to Irenaeus (a.d. 180), who quotes the whole passage, and in this place has “every spirit which severeth (qui solvit) Jesus” [Haer. III. xvi. 8). But it can scarcely be genuine, for it is not found in a single Greek MS., nor in any version except the Vulgate. And we have no certain knowledge that any Greek Father had this reading. ‘Qui solvit’ in Irenaeus may be interpretation rather than literal translation. Socrates the historian (a.d. 440) charges the Nestorians with tampering with the text and ignoring the reading ‘which severeth Jesus’; just as Tertullian accuses the Valentinians of falsifying the text of Joh_1:13, and S. Ambrose the Arians of mutilating Joh_1:6. In all these cases the supposed heretical reading is the right one.

The passage in S. Polycarp’s Epistle already alluded to (see on 1Jn_2:18) is against the reading advocated by Socrates: ‘For every one who confesseth not that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is an Antichrist; and whosoever confesseth not the witness of the Cross is of the devil’ (Phil. VII.). The expressions ‘confess’, ‘come in the flesh’, ‘Antichrist’, ‘is of the devil’, place S. Polycarp’s knowledge of his master’s First Epistle beyond all reasonable doubt. This is very early testimony (a.d. 140–155) to the existence of the First Epistle.

The variations as regards reading are testimony to the same effect. Such things take time to arise and spread. If a corrupt reading is known to Tertullian in Africa, and (apparently) adopted by Irenaeus in Gaul, before the end of the second century, then the original document written in Asia Minor cannot be much later than the end of the first century, at which time S. John was still living.

is not of God] S. John gives two tests, one for trying human conduct, and one for trying spiritual claims: ‘Every one that doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother’ (1Jn_3:10); and ‘Every spirit which confesseth not Jesus is not of God.’

and this is that spirit of Antichrist] ‘That’ should rather be ‘the’, as in R. V. The word ‘spirit’ is not expressed in the Greek, but is rightly understood from the context. The similar Greek expressions in Mat_21:21; 1Co_10:24; Jas_4:14; 2Pe_2:22 are not quite parallel.

that it should come] Better, with R. V., that it cometh. Wiclif and the Rhemish have ‘that he cometh’. Most English Versions before 1611 have ‘he’ for ‘it’; as also has Luther. This is due to the Vulgate, which has ‘Antichrist’ for ‘the (spirit) of Antichrist’. ‘It’ is certainly right. Not Antichrist, but the antichristian nature is affirmed to be now in the world already. The spirit of antagonism to Christ has passed from “the invisible world of spiritual wickedness” to the visible world of human action. The addition of ‘already’ hints that something more may be expected to follow. Comp. ‘The mystery of lawlessness doth already work’ (2Th_2:7).

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

And every spirit that confesseth not,.... The proper deity and sonship of Christ, his true and real humanity, and his Messiahship; or any of his offices, doctrines, and ordinances; or his satisfaction and righteousness; or that peace, pardon, justification, life, and salvation, are by him; all which are meant by what follows,

that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh: this clause is left out in the Ethiopic version, and that without hurting the sense, since it is easily supplied from the preceding verse; and the Alexandrian copy, and the Vulgate Latin version, only read "Jesus": and the latter reads the whole thus, "and every spirit that dissolves Jesus"; that separates the two natures, human and divine, in him, and makes two persons of them; or denies either of them, either that he is truly God, or really man, or denies him to be Jesus, the Saviour; who, as much as in him lies, destroys his person, office, and work, and makes void his obedience, sufferings, and death:

is not of God; neither he nor his doctrine are of God; his doctrine cannot come from God, being contrary to the word of God; and he himself is neither born of God, nor on his side.

And this is that spirit of antichrist: who is against Christ, or opposes himself to him; as he who denies his sonship, his deity, his humanity, his offices, and his grace, manifestly does; every doctrine that is calculated against these truths is the spirit and doctrine of antichrist:

whereof you have heard that it should come, and even now already is it the world; in the false teachers, the forerunners of antichrist; See Gill on Jo1 2:18.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

Ver. 3. Is not of God] And yet he is not called an Atheist, or an Antitheist, but Antichrist, that is, an opposite to Christ; as if his opposing should not be so much to Christ’s nature or person, as to his unction and function.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

And every spirit that confesseth not ... - That is, this doctrine is essential to the Christian system; and he who does not hold it cannot be regarded either as a Christian, or recognised as a Christian teacher. 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 delude the senses. 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, therefore, of the doctrine that the Son of God had come in the flesh, was in fact a denial of the doctrine of expiation for sin. The Latin Vulgate here reads “qui solvit Jesum,” “who dissolves or divides Jesus;” and Socrates (H. E. vii. 32) says that in the old copies of the New Testament it is written ὅ λίει τὸν Ἱησοῦν ho liei ton Hiēsoun, “who dissolves or divides Jesus;” that is, who “separates” his true nature or person, or who supposes that there were “two” Christs, one in appearance, and one in reality. This reading was early found in some manuscripts, and is referred to by many of the Fathers, (see Wetstein,) but it has no real authority, and was evidently introduced, perhaps at first from a marginal note, to oppose the prevailing errors of the times. The common reading, “who confesseth not,” is found in all the Greek manuscripts, in the Syriac versions, in the Arabic; and, as Lucke says, the other reading is manifestly of Latin origin. The common reading in the text is that which is sustained by authority, and is entirely in accordance with the manner of John.

And this is that spirit of antichrist - This is one of the things which characterize antichrist. John here refers not to an individual who should be known as antichrist, but to a class of persons. This does not, however, forbid the idea that there might be some one individual, or a succession of persons in the church, to whom the name might be applied by way of eminence. See the notes at 1Jo 2:18. Compare the notes at 2Th 2:3 ff.

Whereof ye have heard that it should come - See the notes at 1Jo 2:18.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

That dissolveth Jesus, viz. either by denying his humanity or his divinity. (Challoner) --- This is antichrist;[2] i.e. such is the spirit of antichrist, of whom you have heard that he cometh, or is to come in the latter times. --- And he is now already in the world, not the chief and great antichrist, but his precursors, in whom he may be said to come. (Witham) --- And he is now already in the world. Not in his person, but in his spirit and in his precursors. (Challoner)

===============================

[BIBLIOGRAPHY]

Et hic est antichristus, Greek: kai touto (pneuma) to tou antichristou. By the Greek hic cannot agree with the man, and so the construction in Latin must be, hic est ille spiritus antichristi.

====================

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

But on the contrary, concerning them who against so plain evidence denied him to be so come, the case was plain; as with the Jews, Joh 8:24, and with the present heretics, who denying the true manner, could not but deny the true end of his coming; and who also lived so impure lives as imported the most open opposition and hostility thereto, and so discovered must evidently that antichristian spirit, which it was foreknown would show itself in the world.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

3. Every spirit that confesseth not—The Vulgate has this remarkable reading of this verse: “Every spirit which separates Jesus is not of God.” This alludes to the heresy of Cerinthus, the contemporary of John, who taught that Jesus was merely the son of human parents, but that the Christ was an aeon, or superhuman being? who descended upon Jesus at his baptism; thus separating the person of Jesus. It would seem that the ancient Greek Church historian, Socrates, recognised this reading in ancient manuscripts, as well as Tertullian, Irenaeus, and Origen. But all the Greek MSS., and all the Versions except the Vulgate, have the present reading.

That spirit of antichrist—The special doctrine of emphatically the antichrist, based on the affirmation that all evil is identical with matter.

Should come—Was prophesied as to come immediately before the second advent.

Already is it—See note on 1Jn_2:18.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Every spirit (not so much the personal teacher as the principle or tendency of the doctrine) which confesseth not Jesus. This is the true reading, the words Criston ejn sarkita being a spurious addition from verse 1. As so often, St. John states the ease both negatively and positively for emphasis. There is an ancient variant reading of much interest, probably of Latin origin, which can be traced back to the second century, being known to Tertullian and Iranaeus. For mh oJmologei ton jIhsoun it gives luei ton jIhsoun, solvit Jesum. This corruption of the text was evidently aimed at those who distinguished the man Jesus from the Divine Christ, and thus "dissolved" his Personality. The Greek manuscripts are quite unanimous against the reading. Is not of God; and therefore is of the evil one. (see on 1Jn_3:10) These professedly Christian teachers are ever among the most dangerous who treat the Divinity of Jesus Christ as more or less of an open question, or as a matter of indifference. Tostou probably means "the spirit of antichrist," understanding pneuma from the preceding clause rather than (quite vaguely) "the characteristic of antichrist" (see onate 1Jn_2:18, to which passage, however, ajkhko does not refer, (but to Christian teaching in general). And now it is in the world already. This is an independent statement; St. John does not say that they had heard this previously.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Ye have heard - From our Lord and us, that it cometh.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

world kosmos = world-system. 1Jn 5:4; 1Jn 5:5; 1Jn 5:19; Joh 7:7. (See Scofield "Rev 13:8").

The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

3. Every spirit that confesseth not. If Christ is denied, it is not God's Spirit, which always speaks truth, but that of antichrist. See notes on 2:18, 19.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

3. For ὃ μὴ ὁμολογεῖ (all Greek MSS. and all Versions except the Latin) some ‘old copies’ mentioned by Socrates read ὃ λύει, which is supported by nearly all Latin authorities with solvit or destruit. After Ἰησοῦν omit Χριστὸν ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθότα with [717][718], Vulgate, and Thebaic against [719][720][721]. For Χριστὁν [722] has Κύριον. See Appendix G.

[717] 5th century. Brought by Cyril Lucar, Patriarch of Constantinople, from Alexandria, and afterwards presented by him to Charles I. in 1628. In the British Museum. All three Epistles.

[718] 4th century. Brought to Rome about 1460. It is entered in the earliest catalogue of the Vatican Library, 1475. All three Epistles.

[719] 4th century. Discovered by Tischendorf in 1859 at the monastery of S. Catherine on Mount Sinai, and now at Petersburg. All three Epistles.

[720] 9th century. All three Epistles.

[721] 9th century. All three Epistles.

[722] 4th century. Discovered by Tischendorf in 1859 at the monastery of S. Catherine on Mount Sinai, and now at Petersburg. All three Epistles.

3. δ μὴ ὁμολογεῖ τὸν Ἰ. The words inserted in [760] and some other authorities are an obvious interpolation by some early transcriber who wished to make the two sides of the antithesis exactly equal. But, as we have repeatedly seen (1Jn 1:5-8; 1Jn 1:10, 1Jn 2:10; 1Jn 2:22-23, &c.), this is rarely the case in S. John’s oppositions.

[760] 4th century. Discovered by Tischendorf in 1859 at the monastery of S. Catherine on Mount Sinai, and now at Petersburg. All three Epistles.

There is yet another very ancient and very interesting difference of reading here: every spirit which severeth Jesus, or unmaketh Jesus, or destroyeth Jesus, or, as the margin of R.V., which annulleth Jesus (ὁ λύει, qui solvit), the verb which in 1Jn 3:8 is used for ‘to destroy.’ This reading appears to have been known to Tertullian (A.D. 210), who quotes S. John, qui jam antichristos dicit processisse in mundum praecursores antichristi spiritus, negantes Christum in carne venisse, et solventes Jesum, scilicet in Deo creatore (Adv. Marcion. v. xvi.), and to Irenaeus (A.D. 180), who quotes the whole passage, and in this place has omnis spiritus qui solvit Jesum (Haer. III. xvi. 8). But it can scarcely be genuine, for it is not found in a single Greek MS., nor in any version except the Vulgate. And we have no certain knowledge that any Greek Father had this reading. ‘Qui solvit’ in the Latin translators of Irenaeus and of Origen may be interpretation rather than literal translation. Socrates the historian (A.D. 440) charges the Nestorians with tampering with the text and ignoring the reading ὃ λύει τὸν Ἰ.; just as Tertullian accuses the Valentinians of falsifying the text of Joh 1:13, and S. Ambrose the Arians of inserting οὐδὲ ὁ υἱός into Mar 13:32 and of mutilating Joh 1:6. In all these cases the supposed heretical reading is the right one. In this very verse Nestorius was blamed for a reading which his opponent Cyril has also. See Appendix G.

The passage in S. Polycarp’s Epistle already alluded to (see on 1Jn 2:18) is against the reading advocated by Socrates: ‘For every one who coniesseth not that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is an Antichrist; and whosoever confesseth not the witness of the Cross is of the devil’ (Phil. VII.). The expressions ‘confess’, ‘come in the flesh’, ‘Antichrist’, ‘is of the devil’, place S. Polycarp’s knowledge of his master’s First Epistle beyond all reasonable doubt. This is very early testimony (A.D. 112–118) to the existence of the First Epistle.

The variations as regards reading are testimony to the same effect. Such things take time to arise and spread. If a corrupt reading is known to Tertullian in Africa, and (apparently) adopted by Irenaeus in Gaul, before the end of the second century, then the original document written in Asia Minor cannot be much later than the end of the first century, at which time S. John was still living.

Note the μή after the relative; ‘every spirit who is of such a kind as not to confess’. Comp. ᾦ μὴ πάρεστι ταῦτα, τυφλός ἐστιν (2Pe 2:9). The μή in Col 2:18 is of very doubtful authority. Winer, 603.

ἐκ τ. Θεοῦ οὐκ ἔστιν. S. John gives two tests: one for trying human conduct, the other for trying spiritual claims. ‘Everyone that doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother’ (1Jn 3:10). And ‘Every spirit which confesseth not Jesus is not of God’.

τὸ τοῦ ἀντιχρίστου. The (spirit) of antichrist. Nothing better than ‘spirit’ can well be inserted in English, and some insertion is necessary. But we need not suppose that πνεῦμα is to be understood. Τὸ τοῦ ἀντ. is a comprehensive term covering all the principles and powers, all the essential characteristics of Antichrist: what Aristotle would call τὸ τί ἦν εἶναι (Eth. Nic. II. vi. 17), and we might call ‘the antichristian nature’. The nearest parallel is τὸ τῆς ἀληθοῦς παροιμίας (2Pe 2:22), ‘the very thing which the true proverb says’: Mat 21:21; 1Co 10:24; Jas 4:14 are parallel only as regards the grammatical construction.

ὅτι ἔρχεται. As R.V., that it cometh. Wiclif, Purvey, and the Rhemish have ‘he cometh’. Most English Versions before 1611 have ‘he’ for ‘it’; as also has Luther. This is due to the Vulgate, which has antichristus for illud antichristi. ‘It’ is certainly right. Not Antichrist, but the antichristian nature, is affirmed to be now in the world already. The spirit of antagonism to Christ has passed from “the invisible world of spiritual wickedness” to the visible world of human action. The addition of ‘already’ hints that something more may be expected to follow. Comp. τὸ γὰρ μυστήριον ἤδη ἐνεργεῖται τῆς ἀνομίας (2Th 2:7). Here ἤδη comes last for emphasis, as in λευκαί εἰσιν πρὸς θερισμὸν ἥδη (Joh 4:35); where, however, some editors put a stop at θερισμόν and join ἤδη to the next verse. The ἔρχεται points once more to the parallel and opposition between the Christ and the Antichrist: each may be spoken of as ὁ ἐρχόμενος (1Jn 2:18).

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

3 a.] Test, whereby the spirits are to be tried. In this (see above, ch. 3:10, &c.) ye know (apprehend, recognize. γινώσκετε is taken as imperative, on account of the preceding πιστεύετε and δοκιμάζετε, by Huther, De Wette, Lücke (most Commentators do not touch it). But on account of the very frequent ἐν τούτῳ γινώσκομεν, I should let analogy prevail, and take it as indicative) the Spirit of God (the Holy Spirit, present, inspiring, and working in men’s spirits). Every spirit which confesseth (“spiritui tribuitur actio quæ hominis est per spiritum.” Schlichting. The confession is necessarily, from the context here, not the genuine and ascertained agreement of lips and life, but the outward and open profession of faith: see 2Jn 1:7-10, where ταύτην τὴν διδαχὴν.… φέρειν is its equivalent) Jesus Christ come in the flesh (Ἰ. χρ. primary predicate: ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθότα, secondary predicate: = Ἰ. χρ. ἐρχόμενον ἐν σαρκί, 2Jn 1:7. Cf. the same arrangement of predicates 1Co 1:23, κηρύσσομεν χριστὸν ἐσταυρωμένον: 2Co 4:5, κηρύσσομεν χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν κύριον. In all these cases it is important to observe, that the construction is not equivalent to an accusative with an infinitive, Ἰ. χριστὸν ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθέναι. If it were, the confession, or the preaching, would be simply of the fact announced: whereas in each case it is the Person who is the object or primary predicate: the participle carrying the attributive or secondary predicate. This is abundantly shewn here, by the adversative clause, where it is simply μὴ ὁμολογοῦν τὸν Ἰησοῦν. The confession required is, “Jesus Christ come in the flesh:” ἐληλυθώς here standing midway between the ἐρχόμενος of 2Jn 1:7, which is altogether timeless, and the ἐλθών of ch. 5:6, which is purely historical. This perfect gives the present endurance of a past historical fact.

If we enquire what that fact is, we are met by two widely divergent interpretations. On the one side we have the Socinian view, which, while it keeps to the strict philological sense of the words, ἐν σαρκί and ἔρχεσθαι (see below), distorts the meaning to bring the Apostle into accord with the tenets of that school: e. g. Socinus: “Jesum Christum, i. e. Jesum qui dicitur Christus, non modo mortalem hominem fuisse, sed etiam innumeris malis et denique ipsi cruentæ morti obnoxium:” and Grotius,—“non cum regia pompa et exercitibus, sed in statu humili, abjecto, multisque malis ac postremum cruci obnoxio.” But no such sense of ἐν σαρκί can be or has been attempted to be adduced. On the other hand we have many of the orthodox expositors, who strive to make the words not implicative only, but directly assertive of the Incarnation. So Piscator, who plainly asserts that ἐν σαρκί = εἰς σάρκα: so others who waver between ἐν and εἰς, e. g. Hunnius,—“tunc venire in carne dicitur Jesus Christus, quando λόγος ex sua velut arcana sede prodiens assumta visibili carne se in terris manifestat:” so Bengel (apparently), al. And among this number must proximately be reckoned Augustine, who introduces in the train of the Incarnation the death and redeeming love of Christ, and makes the confession or denial depend on “caritatem habere:” “Deus erat et in carne venit: Deus enim mori non poterat, caro mori poterat: ideo ergo venit in carne ut moreretur pro nobis. Quemadmodum autem mortuus est pro nobis? Majorem hac caritatem nemo habet, quam ut animam suam ponat pro amicis suis. Caritas ergo illum adduxit ad crucem. Quisquis ergo non habet caritatem, negat Christum in carne venisse.” As between these two, the recent Commentators, Lücke, De Wette, Düsterd., Huther, appear to have taken the right path, in keeping ἐν strictly to its proper meaning, ‘in,’ ‘clothed with,’ = διὰ, ch. 5:6: and ἔρχεσθαι also to its proper meaning, to “come forward,” “appear,” “prodire:” and in interpreting the words as directed against the Docetæ, who maintained that the Son of God had only an apparent, not a real human body.

I cannot however agree in Huther’s view, that Ἰησοῦν is here to be taken alone as the object, and χριστὸν ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλ. together as predicate: Jesus as Christ come in the flesh. For first, it would be against the usage of our Apostle, see ch. 5:1, in this case, to leave out the article before χριστόν: secondly, Ἰησοῦν χριστόν thus in conjunction, could hardly but express the joint Name so well known: and thirdly, the sense required, that Jesus is the Christ, is assumed, by the very juxtaposition of the names. The words imply the præ-existence and incarnation by their very terms: but they do not assert these doctrines, only the verity of our Lord’s human nature), is of God (has its origin and inspiration from Him by His Spirit):

3 a.] ex adverso: and every spirit which does not confess (as Huther rightly remarks, μή sets forth, not only the non-confession as matter of fact, but the opposition to, the denegation of the confession: q. d. “refuseth to confess”) Jesus (τὸν Ἰησοῦν, in the complex of all that He is and has become, involved as it is in His having come in the flesh), is not of God. Some notice must be taken of the remarkable reading ὃ λύει τὸν Ἰησοῦν. The words of Socrates (see Digest) hardly seem to amount to an absolute assertion that the reading was found in any mss. extant in his time, and it appears to have been regarded rather as an interpretation against the Nestorians than as a part of the ancient text. Bengel says well of it, “humanam potius artem quam apostolicam redolet sapientiam.” The appearance of it in the vulgate is remarkable, seeing that not one of our present mss. has it, and not one version besides.

3 b.] This has been already virtually explained on ch. 2:18. And this is the (spirit) (so nearly all the Commentators supply the ellipsis, and rightly. Episcopius, Valla, Zeger, the R.-Cath. Mayer, and Huther, render it, this is “proprium antichristi.” But this would not surely be τὸ τοῦ ἀντιχρίστου, but τοῦ ἀντιχρίστου only. None of the passages cited by Huther touch the point, Mat 21:21, τὸ τῆς συκῆς, “this of the fig-tree;” 1Co 10:24, τὸ τοῦ ἑτέρου, “that which belongs to his brother;” 2Pe 2:22, τὸ τῆς παροιμίας, “that of the proverb;” Jas 4:14, τὸ τῆς σὔριον, “the event of to-morrow.” In every one of these the genitive belongs to the subject: but Huther would attach it to the predicate, “hoc est proprium antichristi,” in which case I cannot see how the article could be there. Besides, the ὃ ἀκηκόατε ὅτι ἔρχεται would be awkwardly said as applied merely to an abstract fact, the τὸ μὴ ὁμολογεῖν τὸν Ἰησοῦν, to which it must be referred if τοῦτο is subject, and the genitive imports proprium antichristi) of antichrist (of) which ye have heard (the reference is not to ch. 2:18 (ἠκούσατε), but to the course of their Christian instruction in which this had been taught them) that it cometh (the present used as so often of that which is a thing fixed and determined, without any reference to time: “that it should come” of the E. V. is in sense very good, but does not quite suit the perf. ἀκηκόατε, which seems grammatically in English to require “that it shall come;” “that it must come” would perhaps be better), and now it is (not, now is: this ἐστίν is not dependent on the preceding ὅτι, but introduces a fresh assertion) in the world already (viz., in the person of these ψευδοπροφῆται, who are its organs).

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

3. The simple accusative τὸν Ἰησοῦν is undoubtedly the true text. The variants Ἱησοῦν Χριστόν, κύριον, ἐληλυθότα ἐν σαρκί are natural attempts to expand an abrupt phrase from the preceding verse. The interesting variant λύει which is presupposed in several Patristic passages must be discussed separately. It is not the only instance of an explanatory gloss which has influenced the text of this Epistle.

The shorter text emphasizes clearly the personal character of the confession (see the notes on the preceding verse). And it lays the right stress on the danger which threatened the readers of listening to those who undervalued the importance of the human life and personality of Jesus of Nazareth.

τοῦτο] The denial of Jesus.

τὸ τοῦ ἀντιχρίστου] Either the Spirit which comes from Antichrist, or more probably the special characteristic of Antichrist. The work of Antichrist was already being done in the world.

ὃ ἀκηκόατε] Cf. 2:18, ἠκούσατε ὅτι Ἀντίχριστος ἔρχεται. The “coming” of Antichrist formed part of common Jewish expectation and Christian teaching. The readers had been taught what to expect, and ought to find no difficulty in detecting its beginnings among them.

ἤδη] Cf. Joh 4:35, ὅτι λευκαί εἰσιν πρὸς θερισμὸν ἤδη, and 9:27, εἶπον ὑμῖν ἤδη. With these three exceptions, of which 4:35 is doubtful, the Johannine use of ἤδη is to qualify the words which follow.

πνευμα (? 1:0)] om. H 257 (33) Ia 70, 65. 172 (505) | ο (? 1:0) + αν Ia 70 (505) | μη] om. Ib δ152 (491).

ο μη ομολογει] λυει vg. (soluit) Ir. Or. Aug. Fulg. cdd. uet. op. Socr. Cf. Lcif. Tert.

τον ιησουν Α Β h 13. 27. 29. 69 ascr cdduet ap. Socrat. Cyr. Thdt. vg. fu. harl. tol. syrutr boh-ed. arm-cod. aeth. Ir. Or. Lcif. Did.] ιησουν κυριον א : τον ιησουν χριστον L al. plu. boh-codd. cat. Oec.: τον χν̄ ιν̄ Ia 192, δ254, δ454 (318) Ic 364-208. δ299 (137): ιησουν χριστον K al. plus 30 Polyc.

Thyphl. am. demid. sah. arm-ed. Aug. Tert.: + εν σαρκι εληλυθοτα א K L al. pler. cat. syrutr arm. Thphyl. Oec. Tert. (uenisse) Cyp.: + εν σαρκι εληλυθεναι H δ48 (33) Aπρι (K) Polyc.

τον] κν̄ Ic 487 (-).

εκ] om. K L kscr al. plus10 cat.

τουτο- ο 2:0] hic est Antichristus quem sah. boh. arm.

το] om. I a δ203ff, 254 (205) K δ364 (51) | του2:0] om. Ia 264 (233).

ο2:0] ο τι א 5. 6. 39. 100: ου H δ6 (Ψ).

ακηκοατε] ακηκοαμεν H δ2 (א) Ia δ 453-173 (5).

The evidence for the reading λύει = soluit in this verse is mainly Latin; before von der Goltz’s discovery, described below, it was almost exclusively so. The statements of Clement, Origen, and Socrates are most naturally explained as proving the existence of such a reading in Greek. Taking the evidence roughly in chronological order, we must notice first that of Irenaeus, though it is unfortunately only preserved in a Latin dress. In 3:16. 8 (Massuet, 207), Irenaeus is denouncing the Gnostics who distinguish between Jesus, the Christ, the Only-begotten, the Saviour. He accuses them of making many Gods, and Fathers many, and of dividing up the Son of God. The Lord warns us to beware of such, and John, His disciple, in his afore-mentioned Epistle says, “lat (2Jn 1:7, 2Jn 1:8). lat.” The actual reading, “lat,” may be due to the Latin translator; but it must be noticed that it suits the preceding words of Irenaeus, comminuens autem et per multa diuidens Filium Dei, so much better than the common reading μὴ ὁμολογεῖ (non confitetur), that it is more natural to suppose that Irenaeus had in his Greek text either λύει or some equivalent phrase, unless his translator has very freely paraphrased the whole passage to bring it into agreement with the text of the Epistle with which he was acquainted. (See, however, Westcott,p. 157.)The evidence of Clement of Alexandria was also available only through Latin sources. The Latin summary of his Hypotyposes has no equivalent for this passage; but in the summary of the Second Epistle we find, “Adstruit in hac epistola perfectionem fidei extra caritatem non esse, et ut nemo diuidat Iesum Christum, sed unum credat Iesum Christum uenisse in carne,” words which do not go far towards proving that Clement knew of the reading λύει in Greek, but when taken in connection with two passages in Origen suggest the possibility that the reading was known at Alexandria in Clement’s time.In the Latin version of Origen’s Commentary on S.Matthew, § 65, the reading “soluit Jesum” is found. The passage is an explanation of the parable, Mat 24:14. The man who went on a journey being naturally identified with the Lord, Origen raises the difficulty, “How can He be said to go on a journey who promised that where two or three are gathered together in His name, He will be in their midst?” He finds a solution of the difficulty which he has raised in the distinction between the Lord’s divine and human natures. “Secundum hanc divinitatis suae naturam non peregrinatur, sed peregrinatur secundum dispensationem corporis quod suscepit.” He adds other instances of statements which must be referred to His human nature, and then adds, “Haec autem dicentes non soluimus suscepti corporis hominem, cum sit scriptum apud Joannem ‘Omnis spiritus qui soluit Iesum non est ex Deo’ sed unicuique substantiae proprietatem seruamus.” The whole argument is so thoroughly in Origen’s style, that we should hestitate to attribute the quotation of the verse in this form to the Translator, though we cannot be certain that Origen read λύει in his Greek text. The passage has been quoted frequently, but it is curious that another passage in the part of his Commentary on S.Matthew which is extant in Greek has been generally overlooked. I had noted the passage several years ago, but have seen no reference to it earlier than Dr. Zahn’s Introduction. In 16:8, Origen is commenting on the words δοῦναι τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ λύτρον ἀντὶ πολλῶν. He notices that the ψυχή is given as the λύτρον, not the πνεῦμα nor the σῶμα. He adds the caution that in saying this he has no wish to disparage the ψυχή of Jesus, but wishes only to insist on the exact statement made. And he adds, Πλὴν σήμερον ο ὐ λύω τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἀπὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἀλλὰ πολλῷ πλέον οἷδα ἓν εἶναι Ἰησοῦν τὸν Χριστόν. The passage may only be an echo of such expressions as are found, e.g., in Irenaeus III. xii. 7, “Qui autem Iesum separant a Christo.” But a comparison of these two passages in the same Commentary certainly leave the impression that the reading λύει was known to Origen. The matter is determined if the Scholion is correct which is found in the Athos MS, containing information about Origen’s text which von der Goltz has described in Texte und Untersuchungen, N. F. 2:4. The Scholion, which is quoted on p. 48 of von der Goltz’s work, is as follows: ὃ λύει τὸν Ἰησοῦν. Οὕτως ὁ Εἰρηναῖος ἐν τῷ τρίτῳ κατὰ τὰς αἱρέσεις λόγῳ καὶ Ὠριγενὴς ἐν τῷ ή τόμῳ τῶν εἰς τὸν πρὸς Ρωμαίους ἐξηγητικῶν καὶ Κλήμης ὁ Στρωματεὺς ἐν τῷ περὶ τοῦ πάσχα λόγῳ. Von der Goltz points out that the 8th Book of Origen’s Commentary would seem to have contained his exposition of Rom 5:17-16, and in Rufinus’ translation (v. 8; Lomm. p. 386) 1Jn 4:2 is quoted, so that it is not unlikely that in the original Greek the quotation included the third verse with the reading λύει. Thus, if we may trust the evidence of the Scholion, and there are no good grounds for not doing so, in the three instances where extant Latin evidence suggested that the reading was known to Greek writers, we have now definite evidence that it was found in their Greek text.

The only other Greek evidence for the reading is the well-known passage of Socrates about Nestorius (H. E. 7:32), αὐτίκα γοῦν ἠγνόησεν ὅτι ἐν τῇ καθολικῇ Ἰωάννου γέγραπτο ἐν τοῖς παλαίοις ἀντιγράφοις ὅτι πᾶν πνεῦμα ὃ λύει τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἀπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ οὐκ ἔστι. ταύτην γὰρ τὴν διάνοιαν ἐκ τῶν παλαιῶν ἀντιγράφων περιεῖλον οἱ χωρίζειν ἀπὸ τοῦ τῆς οἰκονομίας ἀνθρώπου βουλόμενοι τὴν θεότητα· διὸ καὶ οἱ παλαιοὶ ἑρμηνεῖς αὐτὸ τοῦτο ἐπεσημήναντο, ὥς τινες εἶεν ῥαδιουργήσαντες τὴν ἐπιστολήν, λύειν ἀπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ τὸν ἄνθρωπον θέλοντες. Again this language may be “satisfied by the supposition that he was acquainted with the Latin reading and some Latin commentary” (Westcott, p. 157). But this can hardly be called the most natural interpretation of his words.The evidence of Tertullian and Augustine points to the early existence of the phrase in connection with the passages in the Johannine Epistles, though it is not always certain whether this passage or the similar words in the Second Epistle are referred to. The most important passage is adv. Marc. 5:16, “Johannes dicit processisse in mundum praecursores Antichristi spiritus, negantes Christum in carne uenisse et soluentes Iesum.” Augustine in a somewhat different manner appears to comment on both readings. After explaining the words “qui non confitetur Iesum Christum in carne uenisse.” by the suggestion that the denial is to be found in the want of love which divides the Church, he continues, “adeo ut noueritis quia ad facta retulit et omnis spiritus, ait, qui soluit Iesum.” Later on he has “soluis Iesum et negas in carne uenisse.” The natural explanation of his treatment of the passage is that in his text the words “qui soluit Jesum, non est ex Deo” (the addition of “in carne uenisse” after “Iesum” in Migne must be an error) followed the clause “qui non confitetur Iesum Christum in carne uenisse.” There are other instances of supplementary glosses in Augustine’s text of this Epistle. The quotation in the Testimonia of Cyprian (2:8), “Omnis spiritus qui confitetur Iesum Christum in carne uenisse, de Deo est, qui autem negat in carne uenisse, de Deo non est, sed est de Antichristi spiritu,” shows that the reading “soluit” was not found in the earliest form of the old Latin text, in spite of its presence in all Latin MSS except Codex Frisianus. On the whole, then, the Latin evidence points to the probability that this reading crept into the Latin texts at an early date, being first introduced as an explanatory gloss, which subsequently displaced the reading it was inserted to explain. The history of its appearance in Greek authorities is still obscure, but may perhaps be explained in the same way.

And the internal evidence points in the same direction. It is far easier to explain ὃ λύει as an attempt to emphasize the bearing of the verse on the heretical views of the “Separators,” than vice versa. As Wurm has acutely observed, the reading ὃ μὴ ὁμολογεῖ, etc., could only have been introduced as an explanatory gloss on ὃ λύει at a time when the meaning of this phrase had been forgotten. But it is certainly found during the period when the reading “qui soluit” could cause no difficulty and was perfectly well understood. Neither reading can be later than Irenaeus, and at that date there could have been no motive for the alteration of λύει if it had been the original reading. On the other hand, the correction of μὴ ὁμολογεῖ into λύει would give special point to the passage as a condemnation of a particular form of heresy, which at that time had to be combated.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Is come in the flesh. Omit. Render, confesseth not Jesus. So Rev. An ancient reading is luei ton Ihsoun annulleth or destroyeth Jesus. " The simple Jesus emphasizes the humanity of our Lord considered in itself. See Rom 3:26; Rom 10:9; 2Co 11:4; Eph 4:21; Heb 2:9. This [τουτο] . Not this spirit, but this non - confession, summed up in all its manifestations.

Cometh. See on 2 18.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

3. καὶ πᾶν πν.] The negative statement is here directly joined to the positive. In ii. 23 the positive and negative statements are placed in simple parallelism.

ὃ μὴ op. τὸν 1.7] The substance of the confession which has been given in detail in the former verse is gathered up in the single human name of the Lord. To ‘confess Jesus,’ which in the connexion can only mean to confess ‘Jesus as Lord’ (1 Cor. xii. 3, Rom. x. 9), is to recognise divine sovereignty in One Who is truly man, or, in other words, to recognise the union of the divine and human in one Person, a truth which finds its only adequate expression in the fact of the Incarnation. 3

The very ancient reading ὃ λύει τὸν Ἰησοῦν (gut solvit Jesum V., qui destruit Lefr.: see Additional Note) expresses this view more directly. The meaning which it is designed to convey must be ‘which separates the divine from the human, which divides the one divine-human Person. But it may well be doubted ᾿ whether

Ἰησοῦς would be used in this comprehensive sense. In Scripture ‘Jesus’ always emphasises the humanity of the Lord considered in itself. The thought would be conveyed by ὃ Ave: Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν or even by ὃ λύει τὸν χριστόν. It seems likely that the verb was transferred to this context from some traditional saying of St John in which it was applied to false. teachers, such as of λύοντες τὸν yprστόν, or the like. The words of Polycarp which appear only indirectly, and yet certainly, to refer to the phrase in the Epistle indicate that St John dwelt upon the thought in various σοῦν Χριστὸν ἐν σαρκὶ ἔληλυθέναι ἀντίχριστός ἐστι, καὶ ὃς ἂν μὴ ὁμολογῇ τὸ μαρτύριον τοῦ σταυροῦ ἐκ τοῦ διαβόλου ἐστί (ad Phil. ς. vii.).

ὃ μὴ ὁμολογεῖ] The use of μή marks the character of the spirit which leads to the denial (‘such that it confesseth not’) as distinguished from the simple fact of the failure to confess (ὃ οὐχ

τὸν Ἶ.] Comp. i. 7 note. For the use of this simple human name of the Lord in similar connexions see Rom. iii. 26; (x. 9;) 2 Cor. xi. 4; Eph. iv. 21; Phil. li. 10; Hebr. ii. 9 note. Comp. 2 Cor. iv, Io f.

ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ οὐκ €.] The denial of the Incarnation is in fact the denial of that which is characteristic of the Christian Faith, the true union of God and man (comp. ii. 22 ff). By this form of statement (as distinguished from ‘is of the devil,’ or the like) St John meets the specious claims of the false prophets: such a spirit, whatever appearances may be, is not of God.

heareth not us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.

Brooke Foss Westcott (1825–1901), The Epistle to the Hebrews (1889) and The Epistles of St John (1883) — public domain (pre-1929). Text recovered from Internet Archive / Google Books OCR scans. Westcott’s Gospel of John commentary is not included (its OCR lost the chapter running-heads required for reliable verse-keying). Some Greek quoted in the Hebrews volume is imperfectly rendered by the OCR.