1 John 4:3

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 (1 John 1:5-8; 1 John 1:10; 1 John 2:10; 1 John 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 1 John 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 John 1:13, and S. Ambrose the Arians of inserting οὐδὲ ὁ υἱός into Mark 13:32 and of mutilating John 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 1 John 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 (2 Peter 2:9). The μή in Colossians 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’ (1 John 3:10). And ‘Every spirit which confesseth not Jesus is not of God’.

τὸ τοῦ�. 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�. 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� (2 Peter 2:22), ‘the very thing which the true proverb says’: Matthew 21:21; 1 Corinthians 10:24; James 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� (2 Thessalonians 2:7). Here ἤδη comes last for emphasis, as in λευκαί εἰσιν πρὸς θερισμὸν ἥδη (John 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 (1 John 2:18).