TRY, PROVE, TEST THE SPIRITS Stephen Wiggins An abundance of false teachers circulated among the brotherhood of God’s people during the first century. It was therefore necessary for biblical writers to frequently call attention to this phenomenon. One writer who repeatedly warns the brethren was the apostle John. In one of these statements he declares: “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but prove the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets are gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1, ASV). God’s people must heed this same warning today. As false teachers saturated society within the first century, it is no less true in the twenty-first century. The Lord’s church today is assaulted on every side by those teaching destructive heresies. It is incumbent upon God’s people to take seriously their responsibility as guardians of the truth. God expects and demands this of us. Following, is an exposition of 1 John 4:1. An appreciation for this divine directive will help motivate us to “test the spirits” in order to determine whether certain doctrines originate with God or man. FALSE PROPHETS The phrase “false prophets” translates a single term in the original, a compound word composed of pseudo and prophetes. The term occurs 11 times in the New Testament. Its first occurrence is when Jesus warned the disciples of the deceptive nature of false teachers — “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravening wolves” (Matt. 7:15). Within the biblical context, a “prophet” is a proclaimer of the divine will which could not ordinarily be known except by special revelation. The true prophet was an inspired spokesman for God. The term pseudo is often prefixed to words in the New Testament to denote the spurious (false) character of the one mentioned or the deceptive nature of the thing referred. For example, besides “false prophets” there are “false Christs” (Matt. 24:24), “false teachers” (2 Peter 2:1), “false apostles” (2 Cor. 11:13), “false brethren” (Gal. 2:4) and “false witnesses” (Matt. 26:20). The apostle Paul even prefixes pseudo to the noun logos (word) to characterize the false teacher as a liar (1 Tim. 4:2). This latter sort is especially dangerous because through “hypocrisy” they are “like actors who play parts so well that their words have the ring of truth” (BDAG, 1096). Thus, the false prophet is the counterfeit whose claims are bogus concerning himself and his message. He is a fraud who pretends to speak by inspiration of the Spirit, or at least on God’s behalf, but in actuality preaches a message of human origin. His message does not comply with God’s word. When one preaches that which is not in harmony with divine revelation, that person is a false prophet. This kind must be rejected. Association on a spiritual plane cannot be extended because his efforts are detrimental to the cause of Christ. Those who sympathize with and support a false teacher becomes a “partaker” (fellow-shipper) of his corrupt works (2 John 9-11). MANY ARE GONE OUT The term “many” relates the numerous amounts of false prophets operating at the time the apostle wrote this epistle. John says “even now have there arisen many antichrists” (1 John 2:18). In his next epistle he continues to assert that “many deceivers are gone forth into the world” (2 John 7). This high quantity of false teachers agitating the brotherhood was anticipated by Jesus: “And many false prophets shall arise and shall lead many astray” (Matt. 24:11). Paul states there were “many adversaries” (1 Cor. 16:9), “many corrupting the word of God” (2 Cor. 2:17), “many enemies of the cross of Christ” (Phil. 3:18), and “many unruly men, vain talkers and deceivers” (Titus 1:10). Notice that the ratio of those misled by doctrinal error is proportionate to the abundance of false prophets. The existence of many false teachers results in the deception of many innocent people. These are the percentages Peter had in mind when he wrote, “And many shall follow their lascivious doings; by reason of whom the way of the truth shall be evil spoken of” (2 Peter 2:2). Sadly, we have a large class of brethren today who do not believe there are any false teachers. But the Bible clearly depicts that there were many in existence even while the apostles were still living. A quick survey of doctrinal deviations dispensed throughout the land suggests there is no reason to believe their tribe has decreased in modern times. The phrase “gone out” translates a single verb. Grammatically, the form is a perfect tense which may be the most exegetically significant of all the Greek tenses (Moulton, 140). Since the perfect is employed less frequently than the present, aorist, future, or imperfect tenses, when it is used there is usually a deliberate choice on the part of the writer. The force of the perfect is that it describes an event completed in the past (in the indicative mood) which has results in the present time (i.e., in relation to the time of the speaker/author). The resultant state which proceeds from the past action is presented as a continuous state. It is a combination of the aorist and present tenses. In this sense, the perfect relates a completed action with continuous, existing results (Wallace, 572-573). Another describes the perfect tense as indicating a “present state of affairs” resulting from a past action (Zerwick, 96). The specific use of this tense here is called an “intensive” (or “resultative“) perfect. This kind of perfect is used when the writer wishes to emphasize not so much the past event but rather the results or present state produced by the action of the past. It is not that the use of the perfect excludes the notion of a completed act, but rather that the focus is on the results which follows. The significance of this is that John wants to call special attention, not merely to the fact that false teachers had gone forth into society (a past event), but specifically that the insidious influence of their error was presently continuing to affect the brotherhood of God’s people at the very time he wrote this warning to the brethren (Vincent, 2:355). Although the difference is subtle, the KJV (followed by the ASV) captures this nuance better than the modern translations — “many false prophets are gone out into the world” in contrast to “have gone out” (NIV, NRSV, etc.). This is not surprising. Reputable scholars are on record as acknowledging the KJV’s “superior rendering of the Greek Perfect over many modern translations” (Wallace, 575). A comparison of the passage under discussion with 1 John 2:19 where the apostle says the false teachers “went out from us” and 2 John 7 where he says they “are gone forth into the world,” results in some grammatical dividends. In all three passages the apostle employs the same verb to describe the going forth of the false teachers, but in the latter two passages he portrays this action with the aorist tense rather than the perfect. This is significant because often the choice of tense used by the speaker/writer is made for the specific purpose of describing the specific kind of action he wishes to portray. The significance of the perfect tense is that John wants to call special attention to the fact that the influence of the false teachers was presently continuing to affect the brotherhood at the very time he wrote this warning to the brethren. But with the aorist tense, John is concerned more with emphasizing the simple fact that the false teachers have left. This is done with the aorist which is the way an action is portrayed in summary form; the action is portrayed as a whole, including both the beginning and ending point. The whole occurrence of the false teachers’ exit from the faithful is viewed as a single entity regardless of its internal make-up. This is not to deny that the false teacher continued to influence God’s people in a negative way as portrayed elsewhere with the perfect tense. There is simply a different emphasis underscored with the use of the aorist. The fact that the false teachers “went out” is given in snap shot form by the aorist tense — the false teachers have left (“they went out from us“). The significance of the aorist tense here is that with it John articulates that now the false teachers are gone, they have left, and are no longer to be considered a part of the fellowship of God’s people (Fanning, 255- 256). BELIEVE NOT EVERY SPIRIT John uses a couple of imperatives to set forth the obligation which God’s people are to implement toward false teachers. The first comes negatively whereas the second takes the force of a positive command. The apostle has just referenced the commandment to “believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ” (1 John 3:23). He then offers an immediate contrast at 4:1 with the first of two imperatives — “believe not every spirit.” While there are several uses for the imperative in biblical Greek, the primary usage it to set forth a command. Here, this one takes the form of a prohibition. An action is being forbidden. Since the imperative is the mood of intention, it moves in the realm of volition which involves one imposing their will upon another. In this context, God imposes his will upon his children by commanding them not to believe certain doctrines even though they fly under the banner of a religious message. As in any command, it sets forth an obligation and not an optional choice. It might initially seem strange that God would command his people not to be gullible or naive in doctrinal matters. Yet, this is exactly what this prohibition entails. There are some doctrines God absolutely forbids people to believe. When God says “believe not every spirit but prove the spirits,” the meaning is that one is not to believe any religious teaching without proper discrimination. The term “spirits” is an allusion to the prophets and their messages. This is indicated by the immediate reference to “prophets” in the second half of this verse. The Holy Spirit miraculously inspired prophets in the first century church so as to progressively reveal truth through them. These inspired prophets were called “spirits” (2 Thess. 2:2) or “spiritual” (1 Cor. 14:37) because they possessed the spiritual gift of prophecy. But the term “spirit” can reference “an activating spirit that is not from God... [and] Because there are persons activated by such spirits, it is necessary to test the various kinds of spirits” (BDAG, 836). This being the case, the term pneuma (spirit) in the passage under consideration is used as “metonymy of the cause.” This is a figure of speech whereby the term is put for the prophets and special revelation communicated through them (Bullinger, 543). The sense of the passage, then, is as follows: “believe not every spirit [i.e., every doctrine spoken by a prophet presumably inspired of the Spirit], but prove the spirits [i.e., doctrines supposedly given from prophets inspired by the Spirit], whether they [i.e., the presumably prophetic doctrines] originate with God.” To test the “spirits” then, was in effect, to test the particular pneuma under whose impulsion the prophets spoke — the “Spirit of truth” (cf. John 16:13) or the “spirit of error” (v.6). PROVE THE SPIRITS The second imperative complements the first — “prove the spirits, whether they are of God.” One is to reject (believe not) certain doctrines, but only after those teachings have been evaluated in light of God’s inspired will and found to be in noncompliance with revealed truth. The term “prove” relates this evaluative process. Paul uses the exact same imperative form — “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good” (1 Thess. 5:21). The word can express a couple of different nuances of which both may be embedded in its meaning here. First, it means to make a critical examination of something in order to determine its authenticity, put to the test, examine. Second, it signifies to draw a conclusion about something as genuine or worthy on the basis of that testing, to prove, approve (BDAG, 255; Louw/Nida, 364). This evaluative process cannot be accomplished without the first idea and pragmatically would include the second. Once a doctrine has been examined, if it passes or fails the test, it must then, from a practical standpoint, be approved or disapproved. Every doctrine is to be critically examined in light of whether or not it is genuine. But a part of the complete process involves the second definition as well — the doctrine examined now must receive approval when it passes the test. It is not enough to merely test a doctrine. It must then receive approbation if part of authentic truth. Only then should any teaching be embraced by faith and obeyed as saving truth. Our responsibility in this matter should never be taken frivolously. The eternal welfare of souls is at stake. That John uses the imperative in the present tense is significant. What must be appreciated is that “time” as an element of tense is basically non-existent in non-indicative moods such as the imperative. At the forefront is “aspect” or the way in which the writer wants to portray the action of the verb. John could have placed the imperative in another tense to relate a different kind of action. He chose, however, to use the present tense and probably for a specific reason. While contextual considerations must always be allowed for, the unaffected meaning of a present tense basically relates an activity as a continuous process, without the beginning or end in view. Thus, John not only commands brethren to “prove the spirits” but to do so as an ongoing process of operation. This specific kind of present is categorized as the “iterative present” (which is frequently used with the imperative mood). Therefore the idea conveyed is that of repeated, continuous action. This is repetitive action in the sense that it is done over and over, again and again (Wallace, 514, 520). The implication of this is that as long as false teachers circulate within society, the Lord’s church will continuously be under the God-given responsibility to keep on repeatedly testing the doctrines taught by those claiming to speak on God’s behalf. John says doctrines are to be tested to see whether or not they are “of God.” A consideration of the syntax here offers some exegetical dividends. In the original this grammatical construction consists of a preposition coupled with a noun in the genitive case. It may be categorized as a “genitive of source” (origin). This relates that a doctrine must have God as its source for it to pass the test and receive approval — it must be of God in the sense of being from God. If a religious teaching does not originate with God (if it is not derived from a Divine source), then it must be rejected as arising from some other cause (cf. “doctrines of demons,” 1 Tim. 4:1; but not the unwarranted “taught by demons” per the NIV). Today, if a religious teaching cannot be substantiated as coming from God’s book (the Bible), it ought not to be embraced as part of the “apostles’ doctrine” or the “doctrine of Christ” (Acts 2:42; 2 John 9). A false doctrine is nothing more than a religious message which does not come from God. Likewise, a false prophet is nothing more than one who preaches a religious message which cannot be substantiated by God’s Book (the Bible). Brethren will do well to heed these matters. Following is my translation of the verse under consideration. It is intended to be paraphrastic for the purpose of highlighting the verbal tenses and moods used by the inspired apostle: “Beloved, I command you, don’t believe every spirit! But I command you to repeatedly test the spirits to determine whether they originate with God, the reason why is because many false prophets are gone out into the world.” Sources Bullinger, E. W. 1968. Figures of Speech Used in the Bible. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House. Danker, Frederick William et al. 2000. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Fanning, Buist M. 1990. Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Louw, Johannes P. and Eugene A. Nida. 1988. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains. Moulton, James Hope. 1906. Prolegomena. A Grammar of New Testament Greek. Edinburgh: T & T Clark. Vincent, Marvin R. n.d. Word Studies in the New Testament. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers. Wallace, Daniel B. 1996. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Zerwick, Maximilian. 1963. Biblical Greek. Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico. 105 East Planters San Augustine, TX 75972
Posted on: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 08:53:50 +0000