The Pulpit Commentary — 1 John — Section 110

J. THE BIG ITT OF "'rRnNG TTIF. SPIRITS" DET.ONGB TO EVERY Ct1RIBTIAN AND 18 INALIE1'ADLE: A Christian is under no oblijp1tion to let any new prophet. 'gain hia 11cceptancc without severely testing him. 1. 'l he Lord Jesus Christ himself h::ul ncv1·r called for a blind_11cce_ptan_ce ?f his claims. He courted inquiry. He repelled objectors by statements or mfimtc d1gn1ty and power. Ile appealed to their reason, their candour and their sense of right. One assertion indeed he made and maintained-that he wo.~ the Son of God and the King of men. This was the sole charii;e ,vhich led him to the ~r0ss. For th_e first part of the assertion he was condemned by the Sanhedrin, ns 1f he were ag:unst Moses; for the second by the Roman power, as if he were the rival of Cresar. But no fewer than six different lines did he suggest on which the proof of h~s claims might be tried. (1) His ~haracter (John viii. 46). (2) His works (John xiv. 10, 11). (3) Prophecy (Luke xx1v. 27). (4) Testimony (John viii. 17, 18). (5) His _re_surrection (John ii. 19).. (6) The promise of the Holy Ghost (Acts i. 4). 2. Jn rece1nng the Lord Jesus, believers, whether Jew or Gentile, had found their very strongest prepossessions in an opposite direction overborne by the accumulated force of the evidence that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God (John xx. 30, 31). 3. The reception of Christ as a living and reigning Saviour had been followed by a new and regenerated socia.l life. 4. Consequently, it could never be right to consent to imperil all this at the bidding of any new prophet that might arise, until they had submitted that prophet to a scrutiny as severe and as searching as their own Lord and Master had invited when he called for the adhesion of their hearts. 'l'he reason was satisfied when the Christ was accepted ; and if any further claims arise the reason must still assert iu; right to examine them, and to be equally satisfied on them before accepting them. So in every age. New critics must be criticized. II. THERE IS o:tIE UNIFORM TEST TO WHICH THE "SPIRITS " ARE TO BE BROUGHT. Note here: 1. The point to be tested-" whether they are of God." 2. The one point which will be the test of that-Do they or do they not confess that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh? i.e. Do they in all their teachings maintain .the honour of our Lord Jesus, as the incarnate Son of God, tbe Saviour of the world, the Christ, the Lord and King of men? Yes or no! It is a plain iss.ue. And it is manifestly reasonable to compel men to try the whole question at issue, as to the truth or otherwise of any new prophet on a point so distinct and so sharply defined. For: (1) It is the point. For if the Lord Jesus is &ll that he claimed to be, Christianity stands. If he be not, it falls with a crash. (2) The claims of Christ are so vast that they stand absolutely alone. (3) Some point of invalidity in them must be shown before those claims can be dis- placed. (4) This never has been, never will be, never can be done. (5) Hence any "spirit" that would relegate Christ to an inferior place, is to be rejected forthwith. llL APPLYING THIS TEST, WE BA VE THE EXTENT AND THE LIMIT OF ~'HE CHBISTUN DBOTHEllBOOD. L If he confesses the glory of Christ as .the incarnate Son, he is "of God." He may not "follow with us;" he may be uncertain and inaccurate on minor points. He may come in no line of succession, and have felt the imposition of no priestly hand; still, if be avows "the Christ," he is "of Goel." 2. If be disavows the Christ, he is "not of God," however plausible his pretensions or captivating his words. Without the Christ, no Christian truth stands. "In him all things consist" (see Greek); Col. L 11. There may indeed be--there are-demurs against drawing the division so sharply as yes or ,w--true or false; and Sf&inst the applicability of a like test to.every age, E.g. it is objected: 1. It may surely be contended that, through prepossession on the part of the sacr~ writers, embellishments may have gathered round the history of a true Jesus, without insinuating that either it or he was o.bsolutely false. We reply: The theory of prepossession _will not h~ld; for the euprem~ testimony o~ all the Ntw Testament is to the reeurrect10n of Christ: as for the Jew, 1t was most v10lently contrary to all his prepossess:ons that the one whom hie own nation hanged on a tree should have risen from the dead; aud as for the Gentile, it was equally contrary to hie prepossessions to believe in a resurrection at all I It is objected: 2. We admire Christ txtremeiy; we honour him as the Prince of teachers. In fact, no praise of l!im c:3-n be exccs~ive, if be be but put on the merely human platform. We reply: 'Ibat rnter- mediate p-3sition cannot consistently be held. So strongly was this felt at the outset, that the watch v.ord of the pagan camp was, "Jesus Christ is anathema;'' that of th11 OH, 1v. 1-21.l TlIE F!IlS'r EPISTLE GENERAL OF JOII~T. 107