4:1-10  1 Dear people, do not be putting trust in every spirit, but be testing the spirits, if they are from God, because many ‘bogus prophets’ have already come into this world system. 2By this you recognize the Spirit of God—every spirit that confesses “Jesus [as] Messiah come in flesh” is from God, 3and every spirit that does not confess this Jesus is not from God. And this [spirit] is the one who is the Messiah’s opponent, that you have heard is coming and now already exists in this world system. 4You are from God, little offspring, and you stand victorious over them, because greater is the one in you than the one in this world system. 5 Their source is this world system because they speak from the world system and the world system listens to them. 6Our source is God. The one who knows God is listening to us. The one whose source is not God, does not listen to us. From this we recognize the true spirit and the deceptive spirit.
7Dear people, let us love one another because love has its source in God. And everyone who loves stands born from God and knows God. 8The one who does not love does not know God because God is love. 9In this the love of God has appeared among us, that God has sent his only son into this world system so that we might live through him. 10In this is love, not that we have come to love God, but that he loved us and sent his son as expiation/propitiation for our sins.

1Ἀγαπητοί, μὴ παντὶ πνεύματι πιστεύετε ἀλλὰ δοκιμάζετε τὰ πνεύματα εἰ ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐστιν, ὅτι πολλοὶ ψευδοπροφῆται ἐξεληλύθασιν εἰς τὸν κόσμον. 2ἐν τούτῳ γινώσκετε τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ θεοῦ· πᾶν πνεῦμα ὃ ὁμολογεῖ Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθότα ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐστιν, 3καὶ πᾶν πνεῦμα ὃ μὴ ὁμολογεῖ τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ οὐκ ἔστιν· καὶ τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ τοῦ ἀντιχρίστου ὃ ἀκηκόατε ὅτι ἔρχεται, καὶ νῦν ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ ἐστὶν ἤδη.
4Ὑμεῖς ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐστε, τεκνία, καὶ νενικήκατε αὐτούς, ὅτι μείζων ἐστὶν ὁ ἐν ὑμῖν ἢ ὁ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ. 5αὐτοὶ ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου εἰσίν, διὰ τοῦτο ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου λαλοῦσιν καὶ ὁ κόσμος αὐτῶν ἀκούει. 6ἡμεῖς ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐσμεν· ὁ γινώσκων τὸν θεὸν ἀκούει ἡμῶν· ὃς οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ, οὐκ ἀκούει ἡμῶν. ἐκ τούτου γινώσκομεν τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς πλάνης.
7Ἀγαπητοί, ἀγαπῶμεν ἀλλήλους,
ὅτι ἡ ἀγάπη ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐστιν,
καὶ πᾶς ὁ ἀγαπῶν ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ γεγέννηται
καὶ γινώσκει τὸν θεόν.
8ὁ μὴ ἀγαπῶν οὐκ ἔγνω τὸν θεόν,
ὅτι ὁ θεὸς ἀγάπη ἐστίν.
9ἐν τούτῳ ἐφανερώθη ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν ἡμῖν,
ὅτι τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ ἀπέσταλκεν ὁ θεὸς
εἰς τὸν κόσμον, ἵνα ζήσωμεν δι’ αὐτοῦ.
10ἐν τούτῳ ἐστὶν ἡ ἀγάπη,
οὐχ ὅτι ἡμεῖς ἠγαπήκαμεν τὸν θεόν,
ἀλλ’ ὅτι αὐτὸς ἠγάπησεν ἡμᾶς
καὶ ἀπέστειλεν τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ
ἱλασμὸν περὶ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν.

Verse 1:  J seems to mark a new section by using the vocative ἀγαπητοί, a prohibition, and the term πνεῦμα that he introduced in 3:24 for the first time and uses extensively in 4:1-6. He repeats the key idea in 3:24b in 4:13b. At the end of chapter 3 J urged his listeners to discern the truth and now in 4:1-6 he links this truth with discerning the “spirits from God.” J employs a present active imperative form πιστεύετε in the prohibition. The sense with the negative would be prohibition meaning “stop believing/trusting” or “do not be believing/trusting.” The dative case marks the object (παντὶ πνεύματι) and it is placed in the focal point of the clause. Presumably some spirits can be trusted and some cannot. He does not at this point explain what these ‘spirits’ might be or how they express their message.

The particle ἀλλά signals a contrast that offers the correct response. It continues the imperative tone with another present active imperative form δοκιμάζετε. J only uses this verb once and does not employ any terms cognate with it. It means “to test, examine, determine that something is genuine” (BDAG, 255). J expects that members of his audience have the competence to do this. The object τὰ πνεύματα follows the verb, creating a chiastic structure between the two initial clauses. An indirect question introduced by εἰ interrogative “whether” modifies δοκιμάζω (see Eph. 5:10 for a similar construction). It describes why such examination is necessary, namely to discern whether the ‘spirits’ have their source with God and thus are trustworthy or not. If their source is ἀντίχριστος (v. 3), then they are not trustworthy. The subject of the indirect question is the neuter plural πνεύματα and so the verb is a third person singular form (ἐστιν).

The clause concludes with a causal clause marked by ὅτι. It explains the present danger and why such testing is necessary. In this subordinate clause J puts the subject first, giving it prominence. He links ψευδοπροφῆται with πνεύματα who are not trustworthy. This lexeme ψεθδοπροφήτης is first attested in the LXX (e.g., Zech. 13.2 and Jer.) to mark cases where the Hebrew nounנביא  designates a ‘false/bogus prophet’. It is confined to Jewish literature. The perfect verb form ἐξεληλύθασιν indicates that they appeared previously and continue to be present. The verb means “to go out” and so to appear and the adverbial phrase εἰς τὸν κόσμον indicates the location of their presence. Presumably J is referring to humans acting as ψευδοπροφήτης. However, to what does he refer when he says “they stand dispersed into this world system?” What is their source and who has dispersed them? In what sense are they “spirits?” Perhaps these are the ‘messianic opponents’ described earlier in 2:18-27, who seek to lead them astray.

Verse 2:  J proceeds to instruct his audience how to “test the spirits.” ἐν τούτῳ probably points forward to πᾶν πνεῦμα…ἐστιν. The main verb γινώσκετε indicates that in this present context they can “know” or “recognize” or “discern” which spirits represents God. If deceptive spirits speak through false prophets, do “spirits that represent God” speak through true prophets? J does not make this explicit. The phrase τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ θεοῦ often refers to the Holy Spirit, but the following πᾶν πνεῦμα, an expression of inclusivity, suggests that there are multiple spirits who represent God. Does this refer to multiple ‘prophets’? The second clause has no particle indicating how it is linked with what precedes, other than the phrase ἐν τούτῳ. It is an equative clause that defines the character of the spirits that represent God. The adjectival relative clause (ὃ ὁμολογεῖ…) modifies πᾶν πνεῦμα. For ὁμολογέω see 2:23 where the language of denial is contrasted with the terminology of confession. Confession in that context defines humans loyal to God.

The construction Ἰησοῦν…ἐληλυθότα probably serves as object of ὁμολογεῖ and functions as a clause of indirect (participles can function as verbs in such clauses). If this is how J intends it to function it would mean “that Jesus Messiah has come in flesh.” Alternatively, the indirect discourse clause might be Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν with an implicit ἐστίν and the participle is adjectival (“that Jesus is the Messiah who has come in flesh”). Either is possible. J employs a perfect active participle ἐληλυθότα that perhaps expresses Jesus’ current status. A third option is to read Ἰησοῦν as the object of ὁμολογεῖ and Χριστόν as an appositional modifier of Ἰησοῦν, with the sense “Jesus [as] Messiah come in flesh.

Verse 3:  J continues to explain the test his audience should employ to discern good spirits from bad spirits. The coordinating conjunction καί indicates a second part of the test. J uses the same syntactical structure that constitutes the first clause. The subject πᾶν πνεύμα has the prominent first place and it is defined by the adjectival relative clause ὃ μὴ ὁμολογεῖ τὸν Ιησοῦν, followed by the predicate. The article with Ἰησοῦν may be deictic, meaning “this Jesus” who was described in the previous clause. ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ describes ‘spirits’ (vv. 1-2) and functions as the predicate of the equative clause (ἐστιν). A large number of texts read εν σαρκι εληλυθοτα, probably a plus influenced by the previous clause.

J adds further explanation, marked by another καί. The equative clause uses a demonstrative pronoun τοῦτο as the subject and its antecedent is πᾶν πνεῦμα. The predicate is τὸ τοῦ ἀντιχρίστου, with the initial article τό referencing an implicit πνεῦμα. The genitive τοῦ ἀντιχρίστου could define source, but more probably expresses the character of this spirit, using an attributive genitive. Alternatively, it could describe subordination, namely “the spirit under the authority of the messianic opponent.”

He then adds a relative clause that affirms the presence of this anti-messiah spirit in this world system. The relative pronoun ὃ is probably an accusative of reference modifying ἀκηκόατε and its antecedent is πνεῦμα. The ‘object’ of ἀκηκόατε would be the ὅτι clause of indirect discourse. The report is this: “the anti-messianic spirit is coming.” J affirms with the second part of the ὅτι clause that this prophecy is now fulfilled. The adverb νῦν indicates a contemporary reality (“now”). This ant-messianic spirit “exists in the world system.” J emphasizes this reality by adding another temporal adverb ἤδη (“already”). J does not indicate what has caused this change in the spiritual reality of human society.

Verse 4:  Having described the danger in vv. 1-3, J shifts his message to affirmation of his audience’s spiritual reality. The pronoun ὑμεῖς is the subject, further defined by the vocative τεκνία. Its position indicates the shift in topic. The phrase ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ, used repeatedly in vv. 1-3 to scribe spirits who reveal truth, now defines J’s audience. It is in the focal point of the clause. He adds a second affirmation marked by καί and the perfect verb tense form νενικήκατε indicating their current status as victors in this spiritual conflict. The object is the masculine plural pronoun αὐτούς. What is its antecedent? ψευδοπροψήται (v.1)?

The subordinate conjunction ὅτι is probably causal and explains the cause of their victory. The comparative adjective μείζων is the predicate, but it comes first for emphasis. The subject is ὁ ἐν ὑμῖν. The masculine form suggests that the antecedent is God or Christ. The item being compared is introduced by the particle ἤ that is followed by another equative clause with an implicit ἐστίν. The subject of this clause is ὁ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ. Is the referent ὁ ἀντίχριστος? What are we to make of the two different locations — ἐν ὑμῖν and ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ?

Verse 5:  J contrasts ὑμεῖς (v. 4) who are ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ with αὐτοί (v. 5), defining them as ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου. He explains why (διὰ τοῦτο [“for this reason”]) they have their source/origin “from this world system” giving two reasons. First, they “speak” (present tense form λαλοῦσιν) ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου, a phrase that is in the focal point of the first clause. Their message has its origins in this world system. Secondly, this world system (presumably those living under its authority) “heeds, pays attention to” (present tense form ἀκούει) them (genitive complement αὐτῶν).

Verse 6:  J switches his attention back to his audience using the first person plural pronoun ἡμεῖς, including himself in the group that is ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ. The second clause gives a rationale for this declaration, similar to the rationale provided in v. 5. The subject of the verb ἀκούει is the substantival present participle ὁ γινώσκων whose object is τὸν θεόν. The genitive complement ἡμῶν suggests that the sense of the verb is “heeds, pays attention.” With this language J suggests that as a teacher he has “a spirit from God” that gives him the wisdom he is teaching.

He offers a second rationale in the third clause. The subject is the relative clause marked by ὃς. It is an equative clause with οὐκ ἔστιν, in which the subject is characterized by the predicate. Such people “who are not from God” refuse to pay attention to J’s teaching (οὐκ ἀκούει ἡμῶν). Perhaps this is similar to the reaction that Jesus experienced during his ministry.

The fourth clause summarizes J’s argument in 4:1-6. ἐκ τούτου indicates source, almost with a sense of means, and τούτου has an anaphoric function. The present tense verb form γινώσκομεν emphasizes the current status of his audience – they know/recognize “the spirit of truth,” the object of this verb. The genitive ἀληθείας may be an attributive genitive meaning “the true/genuine spirit,” contrasting with “the deceiving spirit.”

Verse 7:  J marks a shift in topic with the vocative ἀγαπητοί (see 4:1) and the first person imperative ἀγαπῶμεν. In vv. 7-10 he employs the verb ἀγαπάω, its cognate noun ἀγάπη, and cognate adjective ἀγαπητός ten times, indicating clearly the topic he is addressing. It includes love for fellow humans, love for God, and God’s love for humans. This is the third time he has written this command ἀγαπῶμεν (see 3:11, 23). Repetition reveals importance in the mind of the writer/speaker. ἀλλήλους is the reciprocal pronoun that only occurs in oblique cases. The others are the ἀδελφοί (3:10-11).

J offers a rationale for this command signaled by the subordinate, clausal conjunction ὅτι. ἡ ἀγάπη has its source in God himself (ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ) who is also the source of their new spiritual life as he continues to explain. The predicate is placed before the equative verb ἐστιν.

The causal clause has a second clause that contains a compound verb construction (γεγέννηται καὶ γινώσκει), but one subject (πᾶς ὁ ἀγαπῶν). The subject is a substantival present active participle modified by πᾶς, creating an inclusive category. How should we interpret this part of the rationale? Is J claiming that only believers in the Messiah can express love? The first verb is a perfect passive tense form and the second is a present active tense form. What semantic content might this variation in tense form convey? Note again that ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ is in the focal point of the clause, preceding the verb. The coordinated clauses have a chiastic word order.

Verse 8:  J affirms the opposite reality in this next clause, using the negatived substantival present active participle ὁ μὴ ἀγαπῶν as the subject. He repeats the last verb used in v. 7 and makes it negative, but employs the aorist tense form (οὐκ ἔγνω). Once more he provides a rationale marked by the subordinate causal conjunction ὅτι. He uses an equative clause to affirm that the deity “is” love. The arthrous θεός is the subject and the anarthrous ἀγάπη is the complement. With this affirmation what exactly do you think J is affirming about the deity? How radical is such a statement? Do other NT writers use similar kinds of language in their God-talk? Is this an inner-Trinitarian reality that the deity is willing to share with humans?

Verse 9:  J discusses what knowledge humans might have of the deity’s love. He claims that “this love of God” (subjective genitive) “has appeared or become visible” (ἐφανερώθη – aorist passive indicative) for human observation. ἐν ἡμῖν could have the general locative sense “among us,” among humans” or the more specific locative sense “in us personally.” However, I think the first is the intended sense, given the content of the following ὅτι clause. The content of 1:1-3 parallels such a declaration. ἐν τούτῳ anticipates the ὅτι clause and probably has an instrumental sense (“by this”).

ὅτι probably marks an epexegetical qualification of τούτῳ. J fronts the object (τὸν υἱόν) giving it prominence and employing a perfect active tense form ἀπέσταλκεν. αὐτοῦ is probably a genitive of relationship. However, it identifies the deity as “father.” By placing the attributive adjective τὸν μονογενῆ after τὸν υἱόν J gives it emphasis. The subject ὁ θεός follows the verb. The adverbial prepositional phrase εἰς τὸν κόσμον indicates the place where the deity has sent his son, this dangerous world system that hates believers.

J adds a ἵνα clause either of purpose or result. It explains why the deity has acted in this way. ζήσωμεν is an aorist active subjunctive form and probably refers to life of an eternal quality. δι’ αὐτοῦ presumably has υἱός as its antecedent (given the content of v. 10b) and describes the intermediate agent responsible for this possibility of life. Since God the father sent him, God is the primary agent.

Verse 10:  J repeats the proleptic instrumental prepositional phrase ἐν τούτῳ (see v. 9) that references the two contrasting epexegetical ὅτι clauses that follow. The main clause is an equative clause whose subject is ἡ ἀγάπη whose predicate is ἐν τούτῳ. Presumably the reference is to God’s love for humans, given the information in the two ὅτι clauses. The first ὅτι clause denies one kind of love, namely ἡμεῖς ἠγαπήκαμεν τὸν θεόν. The negative οὐχ by position negatives the entire clause, creating a “not this…but this” set of contrasting clauses. Human love directed toward the deity is not the example of love that J is referencing. J makes the subject ἡμεῖς explicit in order to heighten the contrast with the subject of the second clause, namely αὐτός, whose antecedent is God. Many manuscripts read an aorist form ηγαπησαμεν and this creates greater parallelism with the aorist verb in the second clause. What nuance would the perfect tense verb add?

J introduces the second ὅτι clause with ἀλλ’ ὅτι and this signals that the declaration in the second clause is completing replacing the declaration in the first clause. The reversal of subject and object in the two clauses expresses the contrast. Having made the contrast, J expands the significance of the second declaration, defining how the deity’s love has become visible. He uses another aorist verb tense form ἀπέστειλεν (he used the perfect tense form in v. 9). The object is τὸν υἱὸν, but it is positioned after the verb. αὐτοῦ functions as a genitive of relationship. The purpose for which someone is sent can be expressed by a second accusative (as with ἱλασμόν; see 2:2). See Acts 7:35 and 1 Jn 4:11 for similar constructions. The same prepositional phrase περὶ τῶν ἀμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν modifies ἱλασμός in 2:2. ἡμῶν is a subjective genitive (the sins we committed). περί + genitive indicates the purpose of the propitiation.