4''-5^-. — In these verses, the last and most intri- cate section of the Epistle, we have the third pre- sentation of the two theses. The remainder of ch. 4 is predominantly ethical, the opening verses of ch. 5 christological, or at least doctrinal. But the two theses are interwoven, and can hardlj' be separated. Love is the proof of fellowship with God, for God is Love. The true nature of love has been made clear, in terms intelligible to men, in the sending of His Son, as faith conceives it.
In tlie first explanation of the two combined ideas (4'^'^^), it is shown that love based on faith in the revelation of love given in Christ's life and work is the proof of ' knowing God ' and of being 'loved of God.' In the second explanation (S^^-) faith is first. Victory over the world — the forces opposed to God — is gained by faith in Jesus as the Messiah, the Son of God. This faith rests histori- cally on a three-fold witness — of the water (the Baptism in which He was set apart for His Messianic work), of the sutlering (wliich culmin- ated on the Cross, and which has dealt with sin), and of the Spirit (who interprets these facts to men). And the work of the Spirit continues in those who follow Christ as thus conceived. They realize the truth in their own experience.
513-21 — gQ ^j^g la^st, christological statement passes out into j'et another answer to the question, ' How can we know?' (vv. ''■'''). True confidence is established when men know that prayer is heard because what is asked is in accordance with God's will. The true answer to prayer is the immediate consciousness that what is taken to God has reached His ear, and may be safely left in His care. Where intercession is possil)le it will suc- ceed. Then (vv.^*"^'), with a triple oldafiev, the writer sums up the things he has to say which matter most. Sin can be conquered ; we belong to God, whom we have learned to know in the revela- tion of Him which His Son has brought down to men. The Epistle closes witii the terse warning that His ' children ' must reject all m*>aner concep tions of God.
JOHI^, EPISTLES OF
JOKN", EPISTLES OF
645
2. The false teachers. — If the analysis given of the teaching of the First Epistle is correct, it follows that edihcation and exhortation rather than controversy are the writer's primary objects. He reiterates the leading ideas of his teaching, already familiar to his readers, to kindle once more the enthusiasm of their faith and hrst love, which is growing cold, to guard them from the dangers -which threaten, and to give them tests by which they may ' know ' the security of their Christian position.
At the same time it is clear that in all he writes he has in view dehnite forms of false teaching which have proved dangerous, errors both doc- trinal and ethical, the fascination of which is a serious menace to their Christian life.
A careful study of the language of the Epistle makes it probable that the author is combating more than one kind of false teaching. His oppon- ents are not all to be found in the same camp. The opinions which he refutes might all have been held by the same opponents ; but they do not form a complete system : still less can they be separated into a series of complete homogeneous systems. Probably he otters a few leading truths which in his opinion are the antidote to the manifold errors by which his readers are threatened, while there is one particular party, to whose opinions recent circumstances have given a predominant import- ance.
The expressions used suggest variety. Many antichrists have come (2^^) ; all of them, whatever their differences may be, are aliens to the truth (v.i**). The repeated use of Tras (vv.-^- ^) suggests manifold and varied opposition. ' Those who lead astray ' are spoken of in the plural (v.^**). The one xP'o'Mci) "which all have, should have taught them all things. The same variety is suggested by ch. 4. Many false prophets are gone out into the world. Every spirit which does not confess (dissolves ?) Jesus is ' not of God ' ; Antichrist is Avorking in many subordinates (vv.^* ^). It is only in ch. 5 that the writer seems to narrow the issues down to one particular form of error : the denial that the sufferings and death of Jesus were an essential part of His Messianic work. Even here his method is the same. He emphasizes a few fundamental truths which should safeguard his readers from all the varied dangers which threaten. A special incident is the occasion of his writing. He has in view several forms of error.
(1) JucUiism. — Jews wlio have never accepted Christianity are not the only enemy. The words el 17/01(2)1' i^r)\dov (2^^) must refer to a definite seces- sion of tiiose who were generally recognized as Christians. But Jewish opposition is clearly a serious danger. This is shown by the writer's insistence on the confession that Jesus is the Messiah (2^ ; cf. 4^ 3°). The Jewish controversy is prominent throughout. The Jewish AVar and the Destruction of Jerusalem must have pro- foundly afi'ected the relation of Judaism to Chris- tianity. Jewish Christians were placed in a desperate position. Hitherto they had no doubt hoped against hope for the recognition of Jesus as Messiah by the majority of their countrj'men. But the final catastrophe had come, and the Lord had not returned to save His people. Christians had not been slow to draw the obvious conclusion from the fate of Jerusalem. And Jewish Chris- tians could expect nothing but the bitterest hos- tility from their fellow-countrymen. Apostasy was now the only possible condition of reunion. If some openly accepted the condition, many Jewish Christians must have been sorely tempted to think that their estimate of Jesus as Messiah had been mistaken, and to regard Him as a Prophet indeed, but not as Messiah, still less as the unique Son