1 John 2
Tap any word to open its Greek or Hebrew word and Strong’s lexicon entry right here, and any name to open its Bible Dictionary entry. Read this chapter with JFB commentary · Search the Bible
THY WORD IS TRUTH
The Law
History
Poetry & Wisdom
The Prophets
The Gospels & Acts
The Letters
Prophecy
“Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.” — John 5:39
1 John 2
Christ Our Advocate
1My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown
CHAPTER 2
1Jo 2:1-29. The Advocacy of Christ Is Our Antidote to Sin While Walking in the Light; for to Know God, We Must Keep His Commandments and Love the Brethren, and Not Love the World, Nor Give Heed to Antichrists, against Whom Our Safety Is through the Inward Anointing of God to Abide in God: So at Christ's Coming We Shall Not Be Ashamed.
1. (1Jo 5:18.)
My little children--The diminutive expresses the tender affection of an aged pastor and spiritual father. My own dear children, that is, sons and daughters (see on 1Jo 2:12).
these things--(1Jo 1:6-10). My purpose in writing what I have just written is not that you should abuse them as giving a license to sin but, on the contrary, "in order that ye may not sin at all" (the Greek aorist, implying the absence not only of the habit, but of single acts of sin [Alford]). In order to "walk in the light" (1Jo 1:5, 7), the first step is confession of sin (1Jo 1:9), the next (1Jo 2:1) is that we should forsake all sin. The divine purpose has for its aim, either to prevent the commission of, or to destroy sin [Bengel].
And, &c.--connected with the former; Furthermore, "if any man sin," let him, while loathing and condemning it, not fear to go at once to God, the Judge, confessing it, for "we have an Advocate with Him." He is speaking of a BELIEVER'S occasional sins of infirmity through Satan's fraud and malice. The use of "we" immediately afterwards implies that we all are liable to this, though not necessarily constrained to sin.
we have an advocate--Advocacy is God's family blessing; other blessings He grants to good and bad alike, but justification, sanctification, continued intercession, and peace, He grants to His children alone.
advocate--Greek, "paraclete," the same term as is applied to the Holy Ghost, as the "other Comforter"; showing the unity of the Second and Third Persons of the Trinity. Christ is the Intercessor for us above; and, in His absence, here below the Holy Ghost is the other Intercessor in us. Christ's advocacy is inseparable from the Holy Spirit's comfort and working in us, as the spirit of intercessory prayer.
righteous--As our "advocate," Christ is not a mere suppliant petitioner. He pleads for us on the ground of justice, or righteousness, as well as mercy. Though He can say nothing good of us, He can say much for us. It is His righteousness, or obedience to the law, and endurance of its full penalty for us, on which He grounds His claim for our acquittal. The sense therefore is, "in that He is righteous"; in contrast to our sin ("if any man sin"). The Father, by raising Him from the dead, and setting Him at His own right, has once for all accepted Christ's claim for us. Therefore the accuser's charges against God's children are vain. "The righteousness of Christ stands on our side; for God's righteousness is, in Jesus Christ, ours" [Luther].
CHAPTER 2
1Jo 2:1-29. The Advocacy of Christ Is Our Antidote to Sin While Walking in the Light; for to Know God, We Must Keep His Commandments and Love the Brethren, and Not Love the World, Nor Give Heed to Antichrists, against Whom Our Safety Is through the Inward Anointing of God to Abide in God: So at Christ's Coming We Shall Not Be Ashamed.
1. (1Jo 5:18.)
My little children--The diminutive expresses the tender affection of an aged pastor and spiritual father. My own dear children, that is, sons and daughters (see on 1Jo 2:12).
these things--(1Jo 1:6-10). My purpose in writing what I have just written is not that you should abuse them as giving a license to sin but, on the contrary, "in order that ye may not sin at all" (the Greek aorist, implying the absence not only of the habit, but of single acts of sin [Alford]). In order to "walk in the light" (1Jo 1:5, 7), the first step is confession of sin (1Jo 1:9), the next (1Jo 2:1) is that we should forsake all sin. The divine purpose has for its aim, either to prevent the commission of, or to destroy sin [Bengel].
And, &c.--connected with the former; Furthermore, "if any man sin," let him, while loathing and condemning it, not fear to go at once to God, the Judge, confessing it, for "we have an Advocate with Him." He is speaking of a BELIEVER'S occasional sins of infirmity through Satan's fraud and malice. The use of "we" immediately afterwards implies that we all are liable to this, though not necessarily constrained to sin.
we have an advocate--Advocacy is God's family blessing; other blessings He grants to good and bad alike, but justification, sanctification, continued intercession, and peace, He grants to His children alone.
advocate--Greek, "paraclete," the same term as is applied to the Holy Ghost, as the "other Comforter"; showing the unity of the Second and Third Persons of the Trinity. Christ is the Intercessor for us above; and, in His absence, here below the Holy Ghost is the other Intercessor in us. Christ's advocacy is inseparable from the Holy Spirit's comfort and working in us, as the spirit of intercessory prayer.
righteous--As our "advocate," Christ is not a mere suppliant petitioner. He pleads for us on the ground of justice, or righteousness, as well as mercy. Though He can say nothing good of us, He can say much for us. It is His righteousness, or obedience to the law, and endurance of its full penalty for us, on which He grounds His claim for our acquittal. The sense therefore is, "in that He is righteous"; in contrast to our sin ("if any man sin"). The Father, by raising Him from the dead, and setting Him at His own right, has once for all accepted Christ's claim for us. Therefore the accuser's charges against God's children are vain. "The righteousness of Christ stands on our side; for God's righteousness is, in Jesus Christ, ours" [Luther].
The Pulpit Commentary
My little children; or, perhaps, my dear children; or, simply, my children. The diminutive τεκνία, if it retains any force, expresses endearment rather than smallness or youth. The word occurs only once outside this Epistle (Joh_13:33), and it was, perhaps, from Christ's use of it then that St. John adopted it (verses 12, 28; 1Jn_3:7, 1Jn_3:18; 1Jn_4:4; 1Jn_5:21). In Gal_4:19 the reading is doubtful Cf. Τί με φεύγεις, τέκνον τὸν σαυτοῦ πατέρα; in the beautiful story of St. John and the young robber (Eusebius, 'Hist. Eccl.,' III. 23:17). As distinct from παιδία (1Jn_2:13, 1Jn_2:18), the word seems to imply spiritual fatherhood. These things (the section, 1Jn_1:5-10) I write to you, that ye may not sin. The aorist forbids the rendering, "continue in sin;" as before, those who are walking in light and yet sin through frailty are addressed. Two apparently contradictory principles have been set forth: you must walk in light; you must confess that you sin. St. John now goes on to reconcile them. I write
(1) to charge you not to sin;
(2) [to tell you that] if we sin, we have an Advocate.
Instead of understanding "to tell you that," we may take καί as "and yet"—a frequent use in St. John. There are two seemingly opposite truths—sin is wholly alien from the Christian, and the Christian is never wholly free from sin; and St. John struggles to give them their right balance, not in the dialectical manner of St. Paul, but by stating them alternately, side by side, varying the point of view. We have an Advocate. The possession of the Advocate is as continual ἔχομεν as of the sin (1Jn_1:8). Every one feels that "a Comforter with the Father" is an impossible rendering. But St. John alone uses the word Παράκλητος, four times in his Gospel of the Spirit (see on Joh_14:16), and once here of Christ. Is it likely that he would use so unusual and important a word in two different senses, and that in two writings intended as companions to one another? The rendering "Advocate," necessary here, carries with it the rendering "Advocate" in the Gospel. Moreover, what is the meaning of ἄλλος Παράκλητος, if Christ is an Advocate, but the Spirit a Comforter? If Christ is one Advocate and the Spirit "another Advocate,'' all is intelligible. Philo frequently uses παράκλητος of the high priest as intercessor for the people, and also of the Divine Λόγος. There is a difference, however, between "Paraclete" as used of the Spirit and as used of Christ. It is applied to the Spirit in his relation to the disciples; to Christ in his relation to the Father. Christ is our Advocate πρὸς τὸν Πατέρα: his advocacy turns towards the Father to propitiate him. And not in vain; for he is himself "righteous." A sinner could not reconcile God to sinners; but a righteous Advocate can, for his character is a warrant for the righteousness of his cause. Thus, δίκαιον is the set-off to ἐάν τις ἁμάρτῃ. One who has sinned needs an advocate; one who has not sinned can best undertake the office. Δίκαιον at the end, without the article, is gently suggestive of the plea, "Jesus Christ, a Righteous One."
My little children; or, perhaps, my dear children; or, simply, my children. The diminutive τεκνία, if it retains any force, expresses endearment rather than smallness or youth. The word occurs only once outside this Epistle (Joh_13:33), and it was, perhaps, from Christ's use of it then that St. John adopted it (verses 12, 28; 1Jn_3:7, 1Jn_3:18; 1Jn_4:4; 1Jn_5:21). In Gal_4:19 the reading is doubtful Cf. Τί με φεύγεις, τέκνον τὸν σαυτοῦ πατέρα; in the beautiful story of St. John and the young robber (Eusebius, 'Hist. Eccl.,' III. 23:17). As distinct from παιδία (1Jn_2:13, 1Jn_2:18), the word seems to imply spiritual fatherhood. These things (the section, 1Jn_1:5-10) I write to you, that ye may not sin. The aorist forbids the rendering, "continue in sin;" as before, those who are walking in light and yet sin through frailty are addressed. Two apparently contradictory principles have been set forth: you must walk in light; you must confess that you sin. St. John now goes on to reconcile them. I write
(1) to charge you not to sin;
(2) [to tell you that] if we sin, we have an Advocate.
Instead of understanding "to tell you that," we may take καί as "and yet"—a frequent use in St. John. There are two seemingly opposite truths—sin is wholly alien from the Christian, and the Christian is never wholly free from sin; and St. John struggles to give them their right balance, not in the dialectical manner of St. Paul, but by stating them alternately, side by side, varying the point of view. We have an Advocate. The possession of the Advocate is as continual ἔχομεν as of the sin (1Jn_1:8). Every one feels that "a Comforter with the Father" is an impossible rendering. But St. John alone uses the word Παράκλητος, four times in his Gospel of the Spirit (see on Joh_14:16), and once here of Christ. Is it likely that he would use so unusual and important a word in two different senses, and that in two writings intended as companions to one another? The rendering "Advocate," necessary here, carries with it the rendering "Advocate" in the Gospel. Moreover, what is the meaning of ἄλλος Παράκλητος, if Christ is an Advocate, but the Spirit a Comforter? If Christ is one Advocate and the Spirit "another Advocate,'' all is intelligible. Philo frequently uses παράκλητος of the high priest as intercessor for the people, and also of the Divine Λόγος. There is a difference, however, between "Paraclete" as used of the Spirit and as used of Christ. It is applied to the Spirit in his relation to the disciples; to Christ in his relation to the Father. Christ is our Advocate πρὸς τὸν Πατέρα: his advocacy turns towards the Father to propitiate him. And not in vain; for he is himself "righteous." A sinner could not reconcile God to sinners; but a righteous Advocate can, for his character is a warrant for the righteousness of his cause. Thus, δίκαιον is the set-off to ἐάν τις ἁμάρτῃ. One who has sinned needs an advocate; one who has not sinned can best undertake the office. Δίκαιον at the end, without the article, is gently suggestive of the plea, "Jesus Christ, a Righteous One."
2And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown
2. And he--Greek, "And Himself." He is our all-prevailing Advocate, because He is Himself "the propitiation"; abstract, as in 1Co 1:30: He is to us all that is needed for propitiation "in behalf of our sins"; the propitiatory sacrifice, provided by the Father's love, removing the estrangement, and appeasing the righteous wrath, on God's part, against the sinner. "There is no incongruity that a father should be offended with that son whom he loveth, and at that time offended with him when he loveth him" [Bishop Pearson]. The only other place in the New Testament where Greek "propitiation" occurs, is 1Jo 4:10; it answers in the Septuagint to Hebrew, "caphar," to effect an atonement or reconciliation with God; and in Eze 44:29, to the sin offering. In Ro 3:25, Greek, it is "propitiatory," that is, the mercy seat, or lid of the ark whereon God, represented by the Shekinah glory above it, met His people, represented by the high priest who sprinkled the blood of the sacrifice on it.
and--Greek, "yet."
ours--believers: not Jews, in contrast to Gentiles; for he is not writing to Jews (1Jo 5:21).
also for the sins of the whole world--Christ's "advocacy" is limited to believers (1Jo 2:1; 1Jo 1:7): His propitiation extends as widely as sin extends: see on 2Pe 2:1, "denying the Lord that bought them." "The whole world" cannot be restricted to the believing portion of the world (compare 1Jo 4:14; and "the whole world," 1Jo 5:19). "Thou, too, art part of the world, so that thine heart cannot deceive itself and think, The Lord died for Peter and Paul, but not for me" [Luther].
2. And he--Greek, "And Himself." He is our all-prevailing Advocate, because He is Himself "the propitiation"; abstract, as in 1Co 1:30: He is to us all that is needed for propitiation "in behalf of our sins"; the propitiatory sacrifice, provided by the Father's love, removing the estrangement, and appeasing the righteous wrath, on God's part, against the sinner. "There is no incongruity that a father should be offended with that son whom he loveth, and at that time offended with him when he loveth him" [Bishop Pearson]. The only other place in the New Testament where Greek "propitiation" occurs, is 1Jo 4:10; it answers in the Septuagint to Hebrew, "caphar," to effect an atonement or reconciliation with God; and in Eze 44:29, to the sin offering. In Ro 3:25, Greek, it is "propitiatory," that is, the mercy seat, or lid of the ark whereon God, represented by the Shekinah glory above it, met His people, represented by the high priest who sprinkled the blood of the sacrifice on it.
and--Greek, "yet."
ours--believers: not Jews, in contrast to Gentiles; for he is not writing to Jews (1Jo 5:21).
also for the sins of the whole world--Christ's "advocacy" is limited to believers (1Jo 2:1; 1Jo 1:7): His propitiation extends as widely as sin extends: see on 2Pe 2:1, "denying the Lord that bought them." "The whole world" cannot be restricted to the believing portion of the world (compare 1Jo 4:14; and "the whole world," 1Jo 5:19). "Thou, too, art part of the world, so that thine heart cannot deceive itself and think, The Lord died for Peter and Paul, but not for me" [Luther].
The Pulpit Commentary
And he (not quia nor enim, but idemque ille) is a Propitiation for our sins. Ἱλασμός occurs here and 1Jn_4:10 only in the New Testament. St. Paul's word is καταλλαγή (Rom_5:11; Rom_11:15; 2Co_5:18, 2Co_5:19). They are not equivalents; ἱλασμός has reference to the one party to be propitiated, καταλλαγή to the two parties to be reconciled. ̓Απολύτρωσις is a third word expressing yet another aspect of the atonement—the redemption of the offending party by payment of his debt (Rom_3:24, etc.). Although ἱλασμός does not necessarily include the idea of sacrifice, yet the use of the word in the LXX, and of ἱλάσκεσθαι (Heb_2:1-18 :27) and ἱλαστήριον (Rom_3:25; Heb_9:5) in the New Testament, points to the expiation wrought by the great High Priest by the sacrifice of himself. It is ἱλασμός, and not ἱλαστήρ, because the prominent fact is Christ as an Offering rather than as One who offers. With the περί, cf. Joh_8:46; Joh_10:33; Joh_16:8. Our sins are the subject-matter of his propitiatory work. And not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world. Again we seem to have an echo of the prayer of the great High Priest (Joh_17:20, Joh_17:24). The propitiation is for all, not for the first band of believers only. The sins of the whole world are expiated; and if the expiation does not effect the salvation of the sinner, it is because he rejects it, loving the darkness rather than the light (Joh_3:19). No man—Christian, Jew, or Gentile—is outside the mercy of God, unless he places himself there deliberately. "It seems clear that the sacrifice of Christ, though peculiarly and completely available only for those who were called, does in some particulars benefit the whole world, and release it from the evil in which the whole creation was travailing" (Jelf).
And he (not quia nor enim, but idemque ille) is a Propitiation for our sins. Ἱλασμός occurs here and 1Jn_4:10 only in the New Testament. St. Paul's word is καταλλαγή (Rom_5:11; Rom_11:15; 2Co_5:18, 2Co_5:19). They are not equivalents; ἱλασμός has reference to the one party to be propitiated, καταλλαγή to the two parties to be reconciled. ̓Απολύτρωσις is a third word expressing yet another aspect of the atonement—the redemption of the offending party by payment of his debt (Rom_3:24, etc.). Although ἱλασμός does not necessarily include the idea of sacrifice, yet the use of the word in the LXX, and of ἱλάσκεσθαι (Heb_2:1-18 :27) and ἱλαστήριον (Rom_3:25; Heb_9:5) in the New Testament, points to the expiation wrought by the great High Priest by the sacrifice of himself. It is ἱλασμός, and not ἱλαστήρ, because the prominent fact is Christ as an Offering rather than as One who offers. With the περί, cf. Joh_8:46; Joh_10:33; Joh_16:8. Our sins are the subject-matter of his propitiatory work. And not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world. Again we seem to have an echo of the prayer of the great High Priest (Joh_17:20, Joh_17:24). The propitiation is for all, not for the first band of believers only. The sins of the whole world are expiated; and if the expiation does not effect the salvation of the sinner, it is because he rejects it, loving the darkness rather than the light (Joh_3:19). No man—Christian, Jew, or Gentile—is outside the mercy of God, unless he places himself there deliberately. "It seems clear that the sacrifice of Christ, though peculiarly and completely available only for those who were called, does in some particulars benefit the whole world, and release it from the evil in which the whole creation was travailing" (Jelf).
Keeping His Commandments
3And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown
3. hereby--Greek, "in this." "It is herein," and herein only, that we know (present tense) that we have knowledge of (perfect tense, once-for-all obtained and continuing knowledge of) Him" (1Jo 2:4, 13, 14). Tokens whereby to discern grace are frequently given in this Epistle. The Gnostics, by the Spirit's prescient forewarning, are refuted, who boasted of knowledge, but set aside obedience. "Know Him," namely, as "the righteous" (1Jo 2:1, 29); our "Advocate and Intercessor."
keep--John's favorite word, instead of "do," literally, "watch," "guard," and "keep safe" as a precious thing; observing so as to keep. So Christ Himself. Not faultless conformity, but hearty acceptance of, and willing subjection to, God's whole revealed will, is meant.
commandments--injunctions of faith, love, and obedience. John never uses "the law" to express the rule of Christian obedience: he uses it as the Mosaic law.
3. hereby--Greek, "in this." "It is herein," and herein only, that we know (present tense) that we have knowledge of (perfect tense, once-for-all obtained and continuing knowledge of) Him" (1Jo 2:4, 13, 14). Tokens whereby to discern grace are frequently given in this Epistle. The Gnostics, by the Spirit's prescient forewarning, are refuted, who boasted of knowledge, but set aside obedience. "Know Him," namely, as "the righteous" (1Jo 2:1, 29); our "Advocate and Intercessor."
keep--John's favorite word, instead of "do," literally, "watch," "guard," and "keep safe" as a precious thing; observing so as to keep. So Christ Himself. Not faultless conformity, but hearty acceptance of, and willing subjection to, God's whole revealed will, is meant.
commandments--injunctions of faith, love, and obedience. John never uses "the law" to express the rule of Christian obedience: he uses it as the Mosaic law.
The Pulpit Commentary
Thirdly, walking in the light involves obedience.
And herein we perceive that we know him, if we keep his commandments γινώσκομεν, we come to know, we recognize; ἐγνώκαμεν, we have come to know, we know). The token of our having this knowledge is stated hypothetically; not because, but if, we obey. To serve under another and obey him is one of the best ways of knowing his character. The knowledge is no mere intellectual apprehension, such as the Gnostic, postulated, but a moral and spiritual affection and activity. It is possible to know and hate (Joh_16:24). Again, the knowledge is not a mere emotional appreciation. Christianity knows nothing of piety without morality. To know Christ is to love him, and to love him is to obey and imitate him. By "keep" τῆρῶμεν is recant "keep the eye fixed upon, observe."
Thirdly, walking in the light involves obedience.
And herein we perceive that we know him, if we keep his commandments γινώσκομεν, we come to know, we recognize; ἐγνώκαμεν, we have come to know, we know). The token of our having this knowledge is stated hypothetically; not because, but if, we obey. To serve under another and obey him is one of the best ways of knowing his character. The knowledge is no mere intellectual apprehension, such as the Gnostic, postulated, but a moral and spiritual affection and activity. It is possible to know and hate (Joh_16:24). Again, the knowledge is not a mere emotional appreciation. Christianity knows nothing of piety without morality. To know Christ is to love him, and to love him is to obey and imitate him. By "keep" τῆρῶμεν is recant "keep the eye fixed upon, observe."
4He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown
4. I know--Greek, "I have knowledge of (perfect) Him." Compare with this verse 1Jo 1:8.
4. I know--Greek, "I have knowledge of (perfect) Him." Compare with this verse 1Jo 1:8.
The Pulpit Commentary
The participial substantive ὁ λέγων now takes the place of ἐάν with the subjunctive, but the two are equivalent (cf. 1Jn_1:6, which is almost exactly parallel to this, and shows what "knowing him" really is, viz. having fellowship with him, just as not keeping his commandments is the same as walking in darkness). St. John says, μὴ τηρῶν, not, οὐ τηρῶν, the case being hypothetical—if there be such a man, he is a liar, and has no idea of truth (see on 1Jn_1:8). He must have lost the very power of recognizing truth to maintain that he knows Christ, when he habitually transgresses his commands. It is no great thing, as Bode says, to know as the devils do, who "believe and tremble."
The participial substantive ὁ λέγων now takes the place of ἐάν with the subjunctive, but the two are equivalent (cf. 1Jn_1:6, which is almost exactly parallel to this, and shows what "knowing him" really is, viz. having fellowship with him, just as not keeping his commandments is the same as walking in darkness). St. John says, μὴ τηρῶν, not, οὐ τηρῶν, the case being hypothetical—if there be such a man, he is a liar, and has no idea of truth (see on 1Jn_1:8). He must have lost the very power of recognizing truth to maintain that he knows Christ, when he habitually transgresses his commands. It is no great thing, as Bode says, to know as the devils do, who "believe and tremble."
5But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown
5. Not merely repeating the proposition, 1Jo 2:3, or asserting the merely opposite alternative to 1Jo 2:4, but expanding the "know Him" of 1Jo 2:3, into "in Him, verily (not as a matter of vain boasting) is the love of (that is towards) God perfected," and "we are in Him." Love here answers to knowledge in 1Jo 2:3. In proportion as we love God, in that same proportion we know Him, and vice versa, until our love and knowledge shall attain their full maturity of perfection.
his word--His word is one (see on 1Jo 1:5), and comprises His "commandments," which are many (1Jo 2:3).
hereby--in our progressing towards this ideal of perfected love and obedience. There is a gradation: 1Jo 2:3, "know Him"; 1Jo 2:5, "we are in Him"; 1Jo 2:6, "abideth in Him"; respectively, knowledge, fellowship, abiding constancy. [Bengel].
5. Not merely repeating the proposition, 1Jo 2:3, or asserting the merely opposite alternative to 1Jo 2:4, but expanding the "know Him" of 1Jo 2:3, into "in Him, verily (not as a matter of vain boasting) is the love of (that is towards) God perfected," and "we are in Him." Love here answers to knowledge in 1Jo 2:3. In proportion as we love God, in that same proportion we know Him, and vice versa, until our love and knowledge shall attain their full maturity of perfection.
his word--His word is one (see on 1Jo 1:5), and comprises His "commandments," which are many (1Jo 2:3).
hereby--in our progressing towards this ideal of perfected love and obedience. There is a gradation: 1Jo 2:3, "know Him"; 1Jo 2:5, "we are in Him"; 1Jo 2:6, "abideth in Him"; respectively, knowledge, fellowship, abiding constancy. [Bengel].
The Pulpit Commentary
Once more (cf. 1Jn_1:7, 1Jn_1:9) the opposite is stated and the thought carried further. But whoso keepeth his word, of a truth in him hath the love of God been perfected; i.e., as an accomplished fact; the relation of love has been established. In St. John ἀληθῶς is no mere expletive; it expresses reality, and reality that is known. From verse 4 we might have expected "of a truth he knoweth God;" but the apostle goes beyond this, and shows that really knowing God involves loving him. The context shows that τοῦ Θεοῦ is objective—his love of God rather than God's love of him. The insertion of τοῦ Θεοῦ here, and the drift of the Epistle thus far, are in favour of αὐτόν and αὐτοῦ in verses 3-5 meaning God rather than Christ, although αὐτός in verse 2 tells the other way. The last clause sums up and reaffirms, but as usual with a new turn of thought, the whole section (verses 3-5), which begins and ends with ἐν τούτῳ γινώσκομεν. Knowing God implies keeping his Word; and keeping his Word involves loving him; and all this implies being in him, i.e., having that fellowship with him and his Son in which the Christian's life (which is eternal life) consists, and to promote which St. John publishes his Gospel (1Jn_1:3, 1Jn_1:4).
Once more (cf. 1Jn_1:7, 1Jn_1:9) the opposite is stated and the thought carried further. But whoso keepeth his word, of a truth in him hath the love of God been perfected; i.e., as an accomplished fact; the relation of love has been established. In St. John ἀληθῶς is no mere expletive; it expresses reality, and reality that is known. From verse 4 we might have expected "of a truth he knoweth God;" but the apostle goes beyond this, and shows that really knowing God involves loving him. The context shows that τοῦ Θεοῦ is objective—his love of God rather than God's love of him. The insertion of τοῦ Θεοῦ here, and the drift of the Epistle thus far, are in favour of αὐτόν and αὐτοῦ in verses 3-5 meaning God rather than Christ, although αὐτός in verse 2 tells the other way. The last clause sums up and reaffirms, but as usual with a new turn of thought, the whole section (verses 3-5), which begins and ends with ἐν τούτῳ γινώσκομεν. Knowing God implies keeping his Word; and keeping his Word involves loving him; and all this implies being in him, i.e., having that fellowship with him and his Son in which the Christian's life (which is eternal life) consists, and to promote which St. John publishes his Gospel (1Jn_1:3, 1Jn_1:4).
6He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown
6. abideth--implying a condition lasting, without intermission, and without end.
He that saith ... ought--so that his deeds may be consistent with his words.
even as he--Believers readily supply the name, their hearts being full of Him (compare Joh 20:15). "Even as He walked" when on earth, especially in respect to love. John delights in referring to Christ as the model man, with the words, "Even as He," &c. "It is not Christ's walking on the sea, but His ordinary walk, that we are called on to imitate" [Luther].
6. abideth--implying a condition lasting, without intermission, and without end.
He that saith ... ought--so that his deeds may be consistent with his words.
even as he--Believers readily supply the name, their hearts being full of Him (compare Joh 20:15). "Even as He walked" when on earth, especially in respect to love. John delights in referring to Christ as the model man, with the words, "Even as He," &c. "It is not Christ's walking on the sea, but His ordinary walk, that we are called on to imitate" [Luther].
The Pulpit Commentary
Profession involves an obligation to act up to the profession. "He who says that he abides in God is by his words morally bound to walk even as his Son, the incarnate Revelation of his will, walked."
The change from ἐν αὐτῷ to ἐκεῖνος confirms the view that αὐτόν and αὐτοῦ mean the Father; but St. John's use of ἐκεῖνος to recall with emphasis a previous subject (Joh_1:8, Joh_1:18, Joh_1:33; Joh_5:11; Joh_9:37; Joh_10:1; Joh_12:48) makes this argument inconclusive. To be or abide in God or in Christ implies an habitual condition, not isolated apprehensions of his presence. Obedience, not feeling, is the test of union; and the Christian who is really such has least to tell of "experiences" of special visitations. He who is ever in the light has few sensible illuminations to record. Note the strong καθώς, even as (not merely ὡς, as); nothing less than "the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ" (Eph_4:13) is to be aimed at. "Ye therefore shall be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect" (Mat_5:48).
Profession involves an obligation to act up to the profession. "He who says that he abides in God is by his words morally bound to walk even as his Son, the incarnate Revelation of his will, walked."
The change from ἐν αὐτῷ to ἐκεῖνος confirms the view that αὐτόν and αὐτοῦ mean the Father; but St. John's use of ἐκεῖνος to recall with emphasis a previous subject (Joh_1:8, Joh_1:18, Joh_1:33; Joh_5:11; Joh_9:37; Joh_10:1; Joh_12:48) makes this argument inconclusive. To be or abide in God or in Christ implies an habitual condition, not isolated apprehensions of his presence. Obedience, not feeling, is the test of union; and the Christian who is really such has least to tell of "experiences" of special visitations. He who is ever in the light has few sensible illuminations to record. Note the strong καθώς, even as (not merely ὡς, as); nothing less than "the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ" (Eph_4:13) is to be aimed at. "Ye therefore shall be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect" (Mat_5:48).
The New Commandment
7Brethren, I write no new commandment unto you, but an old commandment which ye had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word which ye have heard from the beginning.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown
7. Brethren--The oldest manuscripts and versions read instead, "Beloved," appropriate to the subject here, love.
no new commandment--namely, love, the main principle of walking as Christ walked (1Jo 2:6), and that commandment, of which one exemplification is presently given, 1Jo 2:9, 10, the love of brethren.
ye had from the beginning--from the time that ye first heard the Gospel word preached.
7. Brethren--The oldest manuscripts and versions read instead, "Beloved," appropriate to the subject here, love.
no new commandment--namely, love, the main principle of walking as Christ walked (1Jo 2:6), and that commandment, of which one exemplification is presently given, 1Jo 2:9, 10, the love of brethren.
ye had from the beginning--from the time that ye first heard the Gospel word preached.
The Pulpit Commentary
(2) Negative side. What walking in the light excludes; the things and persons to be avoided—hatred of a brother, love of the world, antichrists. To this section 1Jn_2:7, 1Jn_2:8 form an introduction, as 1Jn_1:5, 1Jn_1:7 to the positive side.
Beloved; ἀγαπητοί, not ὀδελφοί, is the true reading. Addresses of this kind commonly introduce a fresh division of the subject, main or subordinate. Thus ἀγαπητοί (1Jn_4:1, 1Jn_4:7); τεκνία (1Jn_2:1); παιδία (1Jn_2:18); ἀδελφοί (1Jn_3:13). Sometimes, however, they introduce an earnest conclusion (1Jn_2:28; 1Jn_3:21; 1Jn_5:21). In 1Jn_4:11 ἀγαπητοί introduces a conclusion which serves as a fresh starting-point. Not a fresh commandment do I write to you, but an old commandment. Where it can be conveniently done, it is worth while distinguishing καινός, "fresh," as opposed to "worn out," "obsolete," from νέος, "new," as opposed to "old, aged." "New wine must be put into fresh skins" (Mar_2:22). Are two commandments meant—one to cultivate brotherly love, the other to walk as Christ walked? Or is there only one, which from different points of view may be regarded as either new or old? Commentators are divided; but the latter seems better. Then what is the commandment which is at once new and old? The whole gospel, or the command to love one another? Joh_13:34 and Joh_15:2 will incline us to the latter view. The command was old, for" Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself" (Le Joh_19:18) was part of the Mosaic Law. But the standard was new: "Even as I loved you;" "Even as he also walked;" and the motive was new: because "God so loved us" (1Jn_4:11). Brotherly love, enforced by such an example, and based on such a fact, was a new command as compared with the cold injunction of the Law. From the beginning may have either of two senses:
(1) from of old, i.e., long before the Gospel;
(2) from the beginning of your career as Christians. This new and yet old command sums up the practical side of the gospel which had been preached to them from the first. The second ἀπ ἀρχῆς it spurious.
(2) Negative side. What walking in the light excludes; the things and persons to be avoided—hatred of a brother, love of the world, antichrists. To this section 1Jn_2:7, 1Jn_2:8 form an introduction, as 1Jn_1:5, 1Jn_1:7 to the positive side.
Beloved; ἀγαπητοί, not ὀδελφοί, is the true reading. Addresses of this kind commonly introduce a fresh division of the subject, main or subordinate. Thus ἀγαπητοί (1Jn_4:1, 1Jn_4:7); τεκνία (1Jn_2:1); παιδία (1Jn_2:18); ἀδελφοί (1Jn_3:13). Sometimes, however, they introduce an earnest conclusion (1Jn_2:28; 1Jn_3:21; 1Jn_5:21). In 1Jn_4:11 ἀγαπητοί introduces a conclusion which serves as a fresh starting-point. Not a fresh commandment do I write to you, but an old commandment. Where it can be conveniently done, it is worth while distinguishing καινός, "fresh," as opposed to "worn out," "obsolete," from νέος, "new," as opposed to "old, aged." "New wine must be put into fresh skins" (Mar_2:22). Are two commandments meant—one to cultivate brotherly love, the other to walk as Christ walked? Or is there only one, which from different points of view may be regarded as either new or old? Commentators are divided; but the latter seems better. Then what is the commandment which is at once new and old? The whole gospel, or the command to love one another? Joh_13:34 and Joh_15:2 will incline us to the latter view. The command was old, for" Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself" (Le Joh_19:18) was part of the Mosaic Law. But the standard was new: "Even as I loved you;" "Even as he also walked;" and the motive was new: because "God so loved us" (1Jn_4:11). Brotherly love, enforced by such an example, and based on such a fact, was a new command as compared with the cold injunction of the Law. From the beginning may have either of two senses:
(1) from of old, i.e., long before the Gospel;
(2) from the beginning of your career as Christians. This new and yet old command sums up the practical side of the gospel which had been preached to them from the first. The second ἀπ ἀρχῆς it spurious.
8Again, a new commandment I write unto you, which thing is true in him and in you: because the darkness is past, and the true light now shineth.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown
8. a new commandment--It was "old," in that Christians as such had heard it from the first; but "new" (Greek, "kaine," not "nea": new and different from the old legal precept) in that it was first clearly promulgated with Christianity; though the inner spirit of the law was love even to enemies, yet it was enveloped in some bitter precepts which caused it to be temporarily almost unrecognized, till the Gospel came. Christianity first put love to brethren on the new and highest MOTIVE, instinctive love to Him who first loved us, constraining us to love all, even enemies, thereby walking in the steps of Him who loved us when enemies. So Jesus calls it "new," Joh 13:34, 35, "Love one another as I have loved you" (the new motive); Joh 15:12.
which thing is true in him and in you--"In Christ all things are always true, and were so from the beginning; but in Christ and in us conjointly the commandment [the love of brethren] is then true when we acknowledge the truth which is in Him, and have the same flourishing in us" [Bengel]. Alford explains, "Which thing (the fact that the commandment is a new one) is true in Him and in you because the darkness is passing away, and the true light is now shining; that is, the commandment is a new one, and this is true both in the case of Christ and in the case of you; because in you the darkness is passing away, and in Him the true light is shining; therefore, on both accounts, the command is a new one: new as regards you, because you are newly come from darkness into light; new as regards Him, because He uttered it when He came into the world to lighten every man, and began that shining which even now continues." I prefer, as Bengel, to explain, The new commandment finds its truth in its practical realization in the walk of Christians in union with Christ. Compare the use of "verily," 1Jo 2:5. Joh 4:42, "indeed"; Joh 6:55. The repetition of "in" before "you," "in Him and in you," not "in Him and you" implies that the love commandment finds its realization separately: first it did so "in Him," and then it does so "in us," in so far as we now "also walk even as He walked"; and yet it finds its realization also conjointly, by the two being united in one sentence, even as it is by virtue of the love commandment having been first fulfilled in Him, that it is also now fulfilled in us, through His Spirit in us: compare a similar case, Joh 20:17, "My Father and your Father"; by virtue of His being "My Father," He is also your Father.
darkness is past--rather, as in 1Jo 2:17, "is passing away." It shall not be wholly "past" until "the Sun of righteousness" shall arise visibly; "the light is now shining" already, though but partially until the day bursts forth.
8. a new commandment--It was "old," in that Christians as such had heard it from the first; but "new" (Greek, "kaine," not "nea": new and different from the old legal precept) in that it was first clearly promulgated with Christianity; though the inner spirit of the law was love even to enemies, yet it was enveloped in some bitter precepts which caused it to be temporarily almost unrecognized, till the Gospel came. Christianity first put love to brethren on the new and highest MOTIVE, instinctive love to Him who first loved us, constraining us to love all, even enemies, thereby walking in the steps of Him who loved us when enemies. So Jesus calls it "new," Joh 13:34, 35, "Love one another as I have loved you" (the new motive); Joh 15:12.
which thing is true in him and in you--"In Christ all things are always true, and were so from the beginning; but in Christ and in us conjointly the commandment [the love of brethren] is then true when we acknowledge the truth which is in Him, and have the same flourishing in us" [Bengel]. Alford explains, "Which thing (the fact that the commandment is a new one) is true in Him and in you because the darkness is passing away, and the true light is now shining; that is, the commandment is a new one, and this is true both in the case of Christ and in the case of you; because in you the darkness is passing away, and in Him the true light is shining; therefore, on both accounts, the command is a new one: new as regards you, because you are newly come from darkness into light; new as regards Him, because He uttered it when He came into the world to lighten every man, and began that shining which even now continues." I prefer, as Bengel, to explain, The new commandment finds its truth in its practical realization in the walk of Christians in union with Christ. Compare the use of "verily," 1Jo 2:5. Joh 4:42, "indeed"; Joh 6:55. The repetition of "in" before "you," "in Him and in you," not "in Him and you" implies that the love commandment finds its realization separately: first it did so "in Him," and then it does so "in us," in so far as we now "also walk even as He walked"; and yet it finds its realization also conjointly, by the two being united in one sentence, even as it is by virtue of the love commandment having been first fulfilled in Him, that it is also now fulfilled in us, through His Spirit in us: compare a similar case, Joh 20:17, "My Father and your Father"; by virtue of His being "My Father," He is also your Father.
darkness is past--rather, as in 1Jo 2:17, "is passing away." It shall not be wholly "past" until "the Sun of righteousness" shall arise visibly; "the light is now shining" already, though but partially until the day bursts forth.
The Pulpit Commentary
Again. The πάλιν indicates another point of view—what in one sense was not fresh, in another sense was so. It is impossible to be certain as to the meaning of ὅ ἐστιν ἀληθὲς κ.τ.λ.. It may mean
(1) "which thing (the newness of the command) is true;" or
(2) "as a fresh commandment I am writing to you a thing which is true."
But for the practical example of the life of Christ, and men's acceptance of it, the command to love one's neighbour might have remained old and become obsolete. Ὅτι is almost certainly "because," not "that;" it introduces the reason why he writes, not the substance of, the fresh commandment. How can "the darkness is passing away," etc., be a commandment? The light, the true light τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινόν; i.e., the real, the perfect, the very light, that which most fully realizes the ideal of light; in opposition to those "wandering stars, for whom the blackness of darkness hath been reserved for ever" (Jud_1:13; cf. Joh_1:4, Joh_1:9; Joh_6:32; Joh_15:1). Christ is the perfect Light, as he is the perfect Bread and the perfect Vine.
Again. The πάλιν indicates another point of view—what in one sense was not fresh, in another sense was so. It is impossible to be certain as to the meaning of ὅ ἐστιν ἀληθὲς κ.τ.λ.. It may mean
(1) "which thing (the newness of the command) is true;" or
(2) "as a fresh commandment I am writing to you a thing which is true."
But for the practical example of the life of Christ, and men's acceptance of it, the command to love one's neighbour might have remained old and become obsolete. Ὅτι is almost certainly "because," not "that;" it introduces the reason why he writes, not the substance of, the fresh commandment. How can "the darkness is passing away," etc., be a commandment? The light, the true light τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινόν; i.e., the real, the perfect, the very light, that which most fully realizes the ideal of light; in opposition to those "wandering stars, for whom the blackness of darkness hath been reserved for ever" (Jud_1:13; cf. Joh_1:4, Joh_1:9; Joh_6:32; Joh_15:1). Christ is the perfect Light, as he is the perfect Bread and the perfect Vine.
9He that saith he is in the light, and hateth his brother, is in darkness even until now.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown
9-11. There is no mean between light and darkness, love and hatred, life and death, God and the world: wherever spiritual life is, however weak, there darkness and death no longer reign, and love supplants hatred; and Lu 9:50 holds good: wherever life is not, there death, darkness, the flesh, the world, and hatred, however glossed over and hidden from man's observation, prevail; and Lu 11:23 holds good. "Where love is not, there hatred is; for the heart cannot remain a void" [Bengel].
in the light--as his proper element.
his brother--his neighbor, and especially those of the Christian brotherhood. The very title "brother" is a reason why love should be exercised.
even until now--notwithstanding that "the true light already has begun to shine" (1Jo 2:8).
9-11. There is no mean between light and darkness, love and hatred, life and death, God and the world: wherever spiritual life is, however weak, there darkness and death no longer reign, and love supplants hatred; and Lu 9:50 holds good: wherever life is not, there death, darkness, the flesh, the world, and hatred, however glossed over and hidden from man's observation, prevail; and Lu 11:23 holds good. "Where love is not, there hatred is; for the heart cannot remain a void" [Bengel].
in the light--as his proper element.
his brother--his neighbor, and especially those of the Christian brotherhood. The very title "brother" is a reason why love should be exercised.
even until now--notwithstanding that "the true light already has begun to shine" (1Jo 2:8).
The Pulpit Commentary
Walking in the light excludes all hatred towards brethren, for such hatred is a form of darkness. These verses set forth in a variety of forms the affinity between love and light, hatred and darkness, and the consequent incompatibility between hatred and light. "Hate" μισεῖν is not to be watered down into "neglect" or "fail to love." St. John knows nothing of such compromises. Love is love, and hate is hate, and between the two there is no neutral ground, any more than between life and death, or between Christ and antichrist. "He that is not with me is against me." "Love is the moral counterpart of intellectual light. It is a modern fashion to represent these two tempers as necessarily opposed. But St. John is at once earnestly dogmatic and earnestly philanthropic; for the Incarnation has taught him both the preciousness of man and the preciousness of truth" (Liddon).
He that saith. For the fifth time St. John points out a glaring inconsistency which is possible between profession and fact (ἐὰν εἴπμεν, 1Jn_1:6, 1Jn_1:8, 1Jn_1:10; ὁ λέγων, 1Jn_2:4.9); cf. 1Jn_4:20. In all these passages the case is put hypothetically; but in some of the Gnostic teaching of the age this inconsistency existed beyond a doubt. Is in darkness even until now. His supposing that hatred is compatible with light proves the darkness in which he is. Nay, more, it shows that, in spite of his having nominally entered the company of the children of light, he has really never left the darkness. "If ye loved only your brethren, ye would not yet be perfect; but if ye hate your brethren, what are ye? where are ye?".
Walking in the light excludes all hatred towards brethren, for such hatred is a form of darkness. These verses set forth in a variety of forms the affinity between love and light, hatred and darkness, and the consequent incompatibility between hatred and light. "Hate" μισεῖν is not to be watered down into "neglect" or "fail to love." St. John knows nothing of such compromises. Love is love, and hate is hate, and between the two there is no neutral ground, any more than between life and death, or between Christ and antichrist. "He that is not with me is against me." "Love is the moral counterpart of intellectual light. It is a modern fashion to represent these two tempers as necessarily opposed. But St. John is at once earnestly dogmatic and earnestly philanthropic; for the Incarnation has taught him both the preciousness of man and the preciousness of truth" (Liddon).
He that saith. For the fifth time St. John points out a glaring inconsistency which is possible between profession and fact (ἐὰν εἴπμεν, 1Jn_1:6, 1Jn_1:8, 1Jn_1:10; ὁ λέγων, 1Jn_2:4.9); cf. 1Jn_4:20. In all these passages the case is put hypothetically; but in some of the Gnostic teaching of the age this inconsistency existed beyond a doubt. Is in darkness even until now. His supposing that hatred is compatible with light proves the darkness in which he is. Nay, more, it shows that, in spite of his having nominally entered the company of the children of light, he has really never left the darkness. "If ye loved only your brethren, ye would not yet be perfect; but if ye hate your brethren, what are ye? where are ye?".
10He that loveth his brother abideth in the light, and there is none occasion of stumbling in him.
The Pulpit Commentary
Whereas he who loves his brother has not only entered the region or' light, but has made it his home: he abideth in the light. It is difficult to determine whether the "occasion of stumbling" σκάνδαλον is in reference to himself or to others. The context here and Joh_11:9, Joh_11:10 are in favour of the former. It is a man's own salvation that is under consideration here, not his influence over others: and προσκόπτει ὅτι τὸ φῶς οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν αὐτῷ seems exactly parallel. To have no light in one is to be in danger of stumbling; to have light in one is to have no occasion of stumbling (comp. Eze_14:3, which is very parallel). But elsewhere in the New Testament σκάνδαλον means a stumbling-block or snare in another's way, not in one's own way; and this makes sense here. There is yet a third explanation. Ἐν αὐτῳ may mean "in it," i.e., "in the light there is no occasion of stumbling." This makes a good antithesis to the close of Joh_11:11, "knoweth not whither he goeth."
Whereas he who loves his brother has not only entered the region or' light, but has made it his home: he abideth in the light. It is difficult to determine whether the "occasion of stumbling" σκάνδαλον is in reference to himself or to others. The context here and Joh_11:9, Joh_11:10 are in favour of the former. It is a man's own salvation that is under consideration here, not his influence over others: and προσκόπτει ὅτι τὸ φῶς οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν αὐτῷ seems exactly parallel. To have no light in one is to be in danger of stumbling; to have light in one is to have no occasion of stumbling (comp. Eze_14:3, which is very parallel). But elsewhere in the New Testament σκάνδαλον means a stumbling-block or snare in another's way, not in one's own way; and this makes sense here. There is yet a third explanation. Ἐν αὐτῳ may mean "in it," i.e., "in the light there is no occasion of stumbling." This makes a good antithesis to the close of Joh_11:11, "knoweth not whither he goeth."
11But he that hateth his brother is in darkness, and walketh in darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth, because that darkness hath blinded his eyes.
The Pulpit Commentary
Note the alternation: 1Jn_2:10 is the antithesis of 1Jn_2:9, and 1Jn_2:11 of 1Jn_2:10, repeating and enlarging 1Jn_2:9. Note also the climax effected by the gradual increase of predicates: in 1Jn_2:9 one, in 1Jn_2:10 two, in 1Jn_2:11 three. The brother-hater has darkness as his habitual condition and as the atmosphere in which he lives and works; and long ago (aorist) the continual darkness deprived him of the very power of sight, so that he is in ignorance as to the course he is taking. Cf. "They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness" (Psa_82:5); "The fool walketh in darkness" (Ecc_2:14). "St. John scouts all the pretences of men to illumination which do not involve the practical acknowledgment of brotherhood. A man may say he is in the light as much as he pleases; but to be in the light implies that he is able to see his brethren, and not to stumble against them" (Maurice).
Note the alternation: 1Jn_2:10 is the antithesis of 1Jn_2:9, and 1Jn_2:11 of 1Jn_2:10, repeating and enlarging 1Jn_2:9. Note also the climax effected by the gradual increase of predicates: in 1Jn_2:9 one, in 1Jn_2:10 two, in 1Jn_2:11 three. The brother-hater has darkness as his habitual condition and as the atmosphere in which he lives and works; and long ago (aorist) the continual darkness deprived him of the very power of sight, so that he is in ignorance as to the course he is taking. Cf. "They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness" (Psa_82:5); "The fool walketh in darkness" (Ecc_2:14). "St. John scouts all the pretences of men to illumination which do not involve the practical acknowledgment of brotherhood. A man may say he is in the light as much as he pleases; but to be in the light implies that he is able to see his brethren, and not to stumble against them" (Maurice).
Encouragement to Children, Fathers, and Young Men
12I write unto you, little children, because your sins are forgiven you for his name’s sake.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown
12. little children--Greek, "little sons," or "dear sons and daughters"; not the same Greek as in 1Jo 2:13, "little children," "infants" (in age and standing). He calls ALL to whom he writes, "little sons" (1Jo 2:1, Greek; 1Jo 2:28; 3:18; 4:4; 5:21); but only in 1Jo 2:13, 18 he uses the term "little children," or "infants." Our Lord, whose Spirit John so deeply drank into, used to His disciples (Joh 13:33) the term "little sons," or dear sons and daughters; but in Joh 21:5, "little children." It is an undesigned coincidence with the Epistle here, that in John's Gospel somewhat similarly the classification, "lambs, sheep, sheep," occurs.
are forgiven--"have been, and are forgiven you": ALL God's sons and daughters alike enjoy this privilege.
12. little children--Greek, "little sons," or "dear sons and daughters"; not the same Greek as in 1Jo 2:13, "little children," "infants" (in age and standing). He calls ALL to whom he writes, "little sons" (1Jo 2:1, Greek; 1Jo 2:28; 3:18; 4:4; 5:21); but only in 1Jo 2:13, 18 he uses the term "little children," or "infants." Our Lord, whose Spirit John so deeply drank into, used to His disciples (Joh 13:33) the term "little sons," or dear sons and daughters; but in Joh 21:5, "little children." It is an undesigned coincidence with the Epistle here, that in John's Gospel somewhat similarly the classification, "lambs, sheep, sheep," occurs.
are forgiven--"have been, and are forgiven you": ALL God's sons and daughters alike enjoy this privilege.
The Pulpit Commentary
Before passing on to the second thing which walking in the light excludes, viz. love of the world (1Jn_2:15-17), the apostle twice makes a threefold address, first stating why he writes γράφω, and secondly why he wrote ἔγραψα, to the three classes named. This suggests several questions.
(1) What is the difference between "I write" (or, "am writing") and "I wrote"? Five answers are given.
(a) The change is made for emphasis: "I write; I wrote; there is nothing more to be said." But in this case the past tense should come first: "I wrote; I write it again." Moreover, we should expect the perfect rather than the aorist, as in ὁ͂ γέγραφα γέγραφα.
(b) "I write" refers to what follows; "I wrote," to what precedes. And some have even tried to find out the three different portions in each part of the Epistle; e.g., "I write to you, little children" (1Jn_2:15-17); "to you, fathers" (1Jn_2:18-27); "to you, young men" (1Jn 2:28-3:22): "I wrote to you, children" (1Jn_1:5-7); "to you, fathers" (chapter 1:8-2:2); "to you, young men" (1Jn_2:3-11). But this is fanciful and very arbitrary; and in this case also the past tense should come first: "I have written thus far to you; again I proceed to write to you."
(c) "I write" refers to the whole Epistle; "I wrote," to what precedes. This answer has the sanction of the 'Speaker's Commentary;' but it seems to be quite frivolous. What could induce St. John first of all to tell each class that he writes the whole Epistle to them, and then to tell them that he wrote the first part of it to them? There would be little enough sense in first saying that he wrote the beginning to them, and then that he writes the whole to them; but there is no sense in the former statement if it comes after the latter.
(d) "I am writing" is from St. John's point of view, as he pens the growing letter. "I wrote" is from the readers' point of view, as they peruse the completed letter. But what is gained by this change of standpoint? Is it probable that St. John would make three distinct addresses in the position of the writer of the Epistle, and then solemnly repeat them in the position of the recipients of it?
(e) The Epistle is written as a companion to the Gospel: therefore "I write" refers to the Epistle, which he is in the act of composing; "I wrote," to the Gospel, which lies completed before him, and on which the Epistle serves as a commentary. This seems to be the most satisfactory explanation (see on Joh_1:4).
(2) Who are indicated by the three classes? In the first triplet, τεκνία, as elsewhere in the Epistle (verses 1, 28; 1Jn_3:18; 1Jn_4:4, 1Jn_4:5, 1Jn_4:21), refers to his readers as a whole, of whom πάτρες and νεανίσκοι are two component divisions. This is probably the case in the second triplet also, although the change from τεκνία to παιδία renders this a little doubtful (see on verse 13).
(3) Does the difference between "fathers" and "young men" refer to age as men or age as Christians? Probably the former. In both Gospel and Epistle St. John writes to mature and well-instructed Christians. The following table will illustrate the view taken:—
I write this Epistle: ― Reasons for writing it:
1. To all of you. ― You have been forgiven.
2. To the old among you ― You have knowledge of the Word.
3. To the young among you. ― You have conquered the evil one.
I wrote my Gospel: ― Reasons for writing it:
1. To all of you (?). ― You have knowledge of the Father.
2. To the old among you ― You have knowledge of the Word.
3. To the young among you. ― You have strength, have God's revelation in your hearts, and have conquered the evil one.
I am writing to you, little children (see on 1Jn_2:1), because, etc. Beyond reasonable doubt, ὅτι, is "because," not "that," in 1Jn_2:12-14; it gives the reason for his writing, not the substance of what he has to say (cf. 1Jn_2:21). For his Name's sake must refer to Christ, not only because of the context, but also of the instrumental διά (cf. 1Jn_3:23; 1Jn_5:13; Joh_1:12); and Christ's Name means his character, especially as Saviour. Because they have already partaken of the ἱλασμός (1Jn_2:2), and have had their sins washed away in the blood of Christ (1Jn_1:7), therefore he writes to them this Epistle. Note the perfects throughout, indicating the permanent result of past action: ἀφέωνται ἐγνώκατε νενικήκατε.
Before passing on to the second thing which walking in the light excludes, viz. love of the world (1Jn_2:15-17), the apostle twice makes a threefold address, first stating why he writes γράφω, and secondly why he wrote ἔγραψα, to the three classes named. This suggests several questions.
(1) What is the difference between "I write" (or, "am writing") and "I wrote"? Five answers are given.
(a) The change is made for emphasis: "I write; I wrote; there is nothing more to be said." But in this case the past tense should come first: "I wrote; I write it again." Moreover, we should expect the perfect rather than the aorist, as in ὁ͂ γέγραφα γέγραφα.
(b) "I write" refers to what follows; "I wrote," to what precedes. And some have even tried to find out the three different portions in each part of the Epistle; e.g., "I write to you, little children" (1Jn_2:15-17); "to you, fathers" (1Jn_2:18-27); "to you, young men" (1Jn 2:28-3:22): "I wrote to you, children" (1Jn_1:5-7); "to you, fathers" (chapter 1:8-2:2); "to you, young men" (1Jn_2:3-11). But this is fanciful and very arbitrary; and in this case also the past tense should come first: "I have written thus far to you; again I proceed to write to you."
(c) "I write" refers to the whole Epistle; "I wrote," to what precedes. This answer has the sanction of the 'Speaker's Commentary;' but it seems to be quite frivolous. What could induce St. John first of all to tell each class that he writes the whole Epistle to them, and then to tell them that he wrote the first part of it to them? There would be little enough sense in first saying that he wrote the beginning to them, and then that he writes the whole to them; but there is no sense in the former statement if it comes after the latter.
(d) "I am writing" is from St. John's point of view, as he pens the growing letter. "I wrote" is from the readers' point of view, as they peruse the completed letter. But what is gained by this change of standpoint? Is it probable that St. John would make three distinct addresses in the position of the writer of the Epistle, and then solemnly repeat them in the position of the recipients of it?
(e) The Epistle is written as a companion to the Gospel: therefore "I write" refers to the Epistle, which he is in the act of composing; "I wrote," to the Gospel, which lies completed before him, and on which the Epistle serves as a commentary. This seems to be the most satisfactory explanation (see on Joh_1:4).
(2) Who are indicated by the three classes? In the first triplet, τεκνία, as elsewhere in the Epistle (verses 1, 28; 1Jn_3:18; 1Jn_4:4, 1Jn_4:5, 1Jn_4:21), refers to his readers as a whole, of whom πάτρες and νεανίσκοι are two component divisions. This is probably the case in the second triplet also, although the change from τεκνία to παιδία renders this a little doubtful (see on verse 13).
(3) Does the difference between "fathers" and "young men" refer to age as men or age as Christians? Probably the former. In both Gospel and Epistle St. John writes to mature and well-instructed Christians. The following table will illustrate the view taken:—
I write this Epistle: ― Reasons for writing it:
1. To all of you. ― You have been forgiven.
2. To the old among you ― You have knowledge of the Word.
3. To the young among you. ― You have conquered the evil one.
I wrote my Gospel: ― Reasons for writing it:
1. To all of you (?). ― You have knowledge of the Father.
2. To the old among you ― You have knowledge of the Word.
3. To the young among you. ― You have strength, have God's revelation in your hearts, and have conquered the evil one.
I am writing to you, little children (see on 1Jn_2:1), because, etc. Beyond reasonable doubt, ὅτι, is "because," not "that," in 1Jn_2:12-14; it gives the reason for his writing, not the substance of what he has to say (cf. 1Jn_2:21). For his Name's sake must refer to Christ, not only because of the context, but also of the instrumental διά (cf. 1Jn_3:23; 1Jn_5:13; Joh_1:12); and Christ's Name means his character, especially as Saviour. Because they have already partaken of the ἱλασμός (1Jn_2:2), and have had their sins washed away in the blood of Christ (1Jn_1:7), therefore he writes to them this Epistle. Note the perfects throughout, indicating the permanent result of past action: ἀφέωνται ἐγνώκατε νενικήκατε.
13I write unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning. I write unto you, young men, because ye have overcome the wicked one. I write unto you, little children, because ye have known the Father.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown
13-14. All three classes are first addressed in the present. "I write"; then in the past (aorist) tense, "I wrote" (not "I have written"; moreover, in the oldest manuscripts and versions, in the end of 1Jo 2:13, it is past, "I wrote," not as English Version, "I write"). Two classes, "fathers" and "young men," are addressed with the same words each time (except that the address to the young men has an addition expressing the source and means of their victory); but the "little sons" and "little children" are differently addressed.
have known--and do know: so the Greek perfect means. The "I wrote" refers not to a former Epistle, but to this Epistle. It was an idiom to put the past tense, regarding the time from the reader's point of view; when he should receive the Epistle the writing would be past. When he uses "I write," he speaks from his own point of view.
him that is from the beginning--Christ: "that which was from the beginning."
overcome--The fathers, appropriately to their age, are characterized by knowledge. The young men, appropriately to theirs, by activity in conflict. The fathers, too, have conquered; but now their active service is past, and they and the children alike are characterized by knowing (the fathers know Christ, "Him that was from the beginning"; the children know the Father). The first thing that the little children realize is that God is their Father; answering in the parallel clause to "little sons ... your sins are forgiven you for His name's sake," the universal first privilege of all those really-dear sons of God. Thus this latter clause includes all, whereas the former clause refers to those more especially who are in the first stage of spiritual life, "little children." Of course, these can only know the Father as theirs through the Son (Mt 11:27). It is beautiful to see how the fathers are characterized as reverting back to the first great truths of spiritual childhood, and the sum and ripest fruit of advanced experience, the knowledge of Him that was from the beginning (twice repeated, 1Jo 2:13, 14). Many of them had probably known Jesus in person, as well as by faith.
13-14. All three classes are first addressed in the present. "I write"; then in the past (aorist) tense, "I wrote" (not "I have written"; moreover, in the oldest manuscripts and versions, in the end of 1Jo 2:13, it is past, "I wrote," not as English Version, "I write"). Two classes, "fathers" and "young men," are addressed with the same words each time (except that the address to the young men has an addition expressing the source and means of their victory); but the "little sons" and "little children" are differently addressed.
have known--and do know: so the Greek perfect means. The "I wrote" refers not to a former Epistle, but to this Epistle. It was an idiom to put the past tense, regarding the time from the reader's point of view; when he should receive the Epistle the writing would be past. When he uses "I write," he speaks from his own point of view.
him that is from the beginning--Christ: "that which was from the beginning."
overcome--The fathers, appropriately to their age, are characterized by knowledge. The young men, appropriately to theirs, by activity in conflict. The fathers, too, have conquered; but now their active service is past, and they and the children alike are characterized by knowing (the fathers know Christ, "Him that was from the beginning"; the children know the Father). The first thing that the little children realize is that God is their Father; answering in the parallel clause to "little sons ... your sins are forgiven you for His name's sake," the universal first privilege of all those really-dear sons of God. Thus this latter clause includes all, whereas the former clause refers to those more especially who are in the first stage of spiritual life, "little children." Of course, these can only know the Father as theirs through the Son (Mt 11:27). It is beautiful to see how the fathers are characterized as reverting back to the first great truths of spiritual childhood, and the sum and ripest fruit of advanced experience, the knowledge of Him that was from the beginning (twice repeated, 1Jo 2:13, 14). Many of them had probably known Jesus in person, as well as by faith.
The Pulpit Commentary
Because ye know (literally, have come to know, as in 1Jn_2:3, 1Jn_2:4) him that is from the beginning τὸν ἀπ ἀρχῆς. The context respecting Christ's Name and ὁ͂ ἦν ἀπ ἀρχῆς (1Jn_1:1) show that the Word and not the Father is meant. A more perfect knowledge of Jesus as the Eternal Word, and no mere aeon or emanation from the Deity, is the special prerogative of the aged Christian; and such are fit recipients of the ἀγγελία of the apostle. No less fit, but for a different reason, are the younger among his readers. To fight is the lot of the young soldier; and a victorious warfare against Satan is the distinction of youthful Christians. They have got the better of that evil one in whose power the whole world lies (1Jn_3:12; 1Jn_5:18, 1Jn_5:19; Joh_12:31; Joh_14:30; Joh_16:11). Not that the warfare is over, but that it is henceforth warfare with a defeated enemy. Hence they also have a right to share in the apostolic message. I wrote (or, have written) to you, children, because ye know (or, have come to know) the Father. The reading ἔγραψα must be preferred to γράφω, on overwhelming evidence, both external and internal. The second triplet begins here, and this sentence should have been given to 1Jn_2:14. It is difficult to determine what is meant by the change from τεκνία to παισία. Τεκνία occurs once with μου (1Jn_2:1), and six times without μου in the Epistle, and once in the Gospel (Joh_13:33), the probable source of this form of address. Παιδία occurs in 1Jn_2:18 (see note) and Joh_21:5, and nowhere else in the New Testament as a form of address. Probably both words are applied to the whole of St. John's readers. Some would limit παιδία to actual children; but in that case we should expect a different order—children, young men, fathers; or fathers, young men, children. These "children" know the Father to whom they have been reconciled by forgiveness of sins; they have become his adopted sons through the Name of his own Son (verse 12).
Because ye know (literally, have come to know, as in 1Jn_2:3, 1Jn_2:4) him that is from the beginning τὸν ἀπ ἀρχῆς. The context respecting Christ's Name and ὁ͂ ἦν ἀπ ἀρχῆς (1Jn_1:1) show that the Word and not the Father is meant. A more perfect knowledge of Jesus as the Eternal Word, and no mere aeon or emanation from the Deity, is the special prerogative of the aged Christian; and such are fit recipients of the ἀγγελία of the apostle. No less fit, but for a different reason, are the younger among his readers. To fight is the lot of the young soldier; and a victorious warfare against Satan is the distinction of youthful Christians. They have got the better of that evil one in whose power the whole world lies (1Jn_3:12; 1Jn_5:18, 1Jn_5:19; Joh_12:31; Joh_14:30; Joh_16:11). Not that the warfare is over, but that it is henceforth warfare with a defeated enemy. Hence they also have a right to share in the apostolic message. I wrote (or, have written) to you, children, because ye know (or, have come to know) the Father. The reading ἔγραψα must be preferred to γράφω, on overwhelming evidence, both external and internal. The second triplet begins here, and this sentence should have been given to 1Jn_2:14. It is difficult to determine what is meant by the change from τεκνία to παισία. Τεκνία occurs once with μου (1Jn_2:1), and six times without μου in the Epistle, and once in the Gospel (Joh_13:33), the probable source of this form of address. Παιδία occurs in 1Jn_2:18 (see note) and Joh_21:5, and nowhere else in the New Testament as a form of address. Probably both words are applied to the whole of St. John's readers. Some would limit παιδία to actual children; but in that case we should expect a different order—children, young men, fathers; or fathers, young men, children. These "children" know the Father to whom they have been reconciled by forgiveness of sins; they have become his adopted sons through the Name of his own Son (verse 12).
14I have written unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning. I have written unto you, young men, because ye are strong, and the word of God abideth in you, and ye have overcome the wicked one.
The Pulpit Commentary
The address to the fathers remains unchanged; their claim to Gospel and to Epistle is the same. The address to the young men is enlarged; their claim to the Gospel is that they are strong to fight, have God's revelation of himself as a permanent possession in their hearts, and have won victories over Satan. The context and Joh_5:38 and Joh_10:35 utterly forbid us from understanding ὁ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ of the "living Personal Lord" (cf. Joh_17:6, Joh_17:14, Joh_17:17; Rev_1:9; Rev_6:9; Rev_20:4).
The address to the fathers remains unchanged; their claim to Gospel and to Epistle is the same. The address to the young men is enlarged; their claim to the Gospel is that they are strong to fight, have God's revelation of himself as a permanent possession in their hearts, and have won victories over Satan. The context and Joh_5:38 and Joh_10:35 utterly forbid us from understanding ὁ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ of the "living Personal Lord" (cf. Joh_17:6, Joh_17:14, Joh_17:17; Rev_1:9; Rev_6:9; Rev_20:4).
Love Not the World
15Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown
15. Love not the world--that lieth in the wicked one (1Jo 5:19), whom ye young men have overcome. Having once for all, through faith, overcome the world (1Jo 4:4; 5:4), carry forward the conquest by not loving it. "The world" here means "man, and man's world" [Alford], in his and its state as fallen from God. "God loved [with the love of compassion] the world," and we should feel the same kind of love for the fallen world; but we are not to love the world with congeniality and sympathy in its alienation from God; we cannot have this latter kind of love for the God-estranged world, and yet have also "the love of the Father in" us.
neither--Greek, "nor yet." A man might deny in general that he loved the world, while keenly following some one of THE THINGS IN IT: its riches, honors, or pleasures; this clause prevents him escaping from conviction.
any man--therefore the warning, though primarily addressed to the young, applies to all.
love of--that is, towards "the Father." The two, God and the (sinful) world, are so opposed, that both cannot be congenially loved at once.
15. Love not the world--that lieth in the wicked one (1Jo 5:19), whom ye young men have overcome. Having once for all, through faith, overcome the world (1Jo 4:4; 5:4), carry forward the conquest by not loving it. "The world" here means "man, and man's world" [Alford], in his and its state as fallen from God. "God loved [with the love of compassion] the world," and we should feel the same kind of love for the fallen world; but we are not to love the world with congeniality and sympathy in its alienation from God; we cannot have this latter kind of love for the God-estranged world, and yet have also "the love of the Father in" us.
neither--Greek, "nor yet." A man might deny in general that he loved the world, while keenly following some one of THE THINGS IN IT: its riches, honors, or pleasures; this clause prevents him escaping from conviction.
any man--therefore the warning, though primarily addressed to the young, applies to all.
love of--that is, towards "the Father." The two, God and the (sinful) world, are so opposed, that both cannot be congenially loved at once.
The Pulpit Commentary
Secondly, walking in the light excludes all love of the world. This is another form of darkness.
Love not the world. Obviously, both "love" and "the world" are used in a different sense in Joh_3:16, where it is said that "God loved the world." The one love is selfish, the other unselfish. In the one case "the world" means the sinful elements of human life, in the other the human race. It is most important to distinguish the different meanings of κόσμος in the New Testament. Connected with κόμειν and comere, it means
(1) ornament (1Pe_3:3);
(2) the ordered universe, mundus (Rom_1:20);
(3) the earth (Joh_1:9);
(4) the inhabitants of the earth (Joh_3:16);
(5) all that is alienated from God, as here and frequently in St. John's writings.
The things of the world are not those things in the world which may become objects of sinful affection, such as wealth or honour, still less such as scenery or physical objects. St. John is not condemning a love of those material advantages which are God's gifts, nor of nature, which is God's work. He is forbidding those things the love of which rivals and excludes the love of God—all those immoral tendencies and pursuits which give the world its evil character. The world κόσμος is order; the things in the world are the elements of disorder—those things which arise from each man making himself the center of the world, or of some little world of his own creation.
These rival centers clash with one another, and also with the one true Center. All this St. John forbids. With τὰ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ, cf. τί ἦν ἐν τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ (Joh_2:25). Note the μηδέ (not μήτε), nor yet: "Love not the world; no, nor any of its ways." As so often, St. John goes on to enforce his words by a negative statement of similar but not identical import. Love of the world absolutely excludes the love of the Father. "Ye cannot serve God and mammon." Some important authorities have τοῦ Θεοῦ for τοῦ Πατρός; the balance is decidedly for the latter.
Secondly, walking in the light excludes all love of the world. This is another form of darkness.
Love not the world. Obviously, both "love" and "the world" are used in a different sense in Joh_3:16, where it is said that "God loved the world." The one love is selfish, the other unselfish. In the one case "the world" means the sinful elements of human life, in the other the human race. It is most important to distinguish the different meanings of κόσμος in the New Testament. Connected with κόμειν and comere, it means
(1) ornament (1Pe_3:3);
(2) the ordered universe, mundus (Rom_1:20);
(3) the earth (Joh_1:9);
(4) the inhabitants of the earth (Joh_3:16);
(5) all that is alienated from God, as here and frequently in St. John's writings.
The things of the world are not those things in the world which may become objects of sinful affection, such as wealth or honour, still less such as scenery or physical objects. St. John is not condemning a love of those material advantages which are God's gifts, nor of nature, which is God's work. He is forbidding those things the love of which rivals and excludes the love of God—all those immoral tendencies and pursuits which give the world its evil character. The world κόσμος is order; the things in the world are the elements of disorder—those things which arise from each man making himself the center of the world, or of some little world of his own creation.
These rival centers clash with one another, and also with the one true Center. All this St. John forbids. With τὰ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ, cf. τί ἦν ἐν τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ (Joh_2:25). Note the μηδέ (not μήτε), nor yet: "Love not the world; no, nor any of its ways." As so often, St. John goes on to enforce his words by a negative statement of similar but not identical import. Love of the world absolutely excludes the love of the Father. "Ye cannot serve God and mammon." Some important authorities have τοῦ Θεοῦ for τοῦ Πατρός; the balance is decidedly for the latter.
16For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown
16. all that is in the world--can be classed under one or other of the three; the world contains these and no more.
lust of the flesh--that is, the lust which has its seat and source in our lower animal nature. Satan tried this temptation the first on Christ: Lu 4:3, "Command this stone that it be made bread." Youth is especially liable to fleshly lusts.
lust of the eyes--the avenue through which outward things of the world, riches, pomp, and beauty, inflame us. Satan tried this temptation on Christ when he showed Him the kingdoms of the world in a moment. By the lust of the eyes David (2Sa 11:2) and Achan fell (Jos 7:21). Compare David's prayer, Psa 119:37; Job's resolve, Psa 31:1; Mt 5:28. The only good of worldly riches to the possessor is the beholding them with the eyes. Compare Lu 14:18, "I must go and SEE it."
pride of life--literally, "arrogant assumption": vainglorious display. Pride was Satan's sin whereby he fell and forms the link between the two foes of man, the world (answering to "the lust of the eyes") and the devil (as "the lust of the flesh" is the third foe). Satan tried this temptation on Christ in setting Him on the temple pinnacle that, in spiritual pride and presumption, on the ground of His Father's care, He should cast Himself down. The same three foes appear in the three classes of soil on which the divine seed falls: the wayside hearers, the devil; the thorns, the world; the rocky undersoil, the flesh (Mt 13:18-23; Mr 4:3-8). The world's awful antitrinity, the "lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life," similarly is presented in Satan's temptation of Eve: "When she saw that the tree was good for food, pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise," Ge 3:6 (one manifestation of "the pride of life," the desire to know above what God has revealed, Col 2:8, the pride of unsanctified knowledge).
of--does not spring from "the Father" (used in relation to the preceding "little children," 1Jo 2:12, or "little sons"). He who is born of God alone turns to God; he who is of the world turns to the world; the sources of love to God and love to the world, are irreconcilably distinct.
16. all that is in the world--can be classed under one or other of the three; the world contains these and no more.
lust of the flesh--that is, the lust which has its seat and source in our lower animal nature. Satan tried this temptation the first on Christ: Lu 4:3, "Command this stone that it be made bread." Youth is especially liable to fleshly lusts.
lust of the eyes--the avenue through which outward things of the world, riches, pomp, and beauty, inflame us. Satan tried this temptation on Christ when he showed Him the kingdoms of the world in a moment. By the lust of the eyes David (2Sa 11:2) and Achan fell (Jos 7:21). Compare David's prayer, Psa 119:37; Job's resolve, Psa 31:1; Mt 5:28. The only good of worldly riches to the possessor is the beholding them with the eyes. Compare Lu 14:18, "I must go and SEE it."
pride of life--literally, "arrogant assumption": vainglorious display. Pride was Satan's sin whereby he fell and forms the link between the two foes of man, the world (answering to "the lust of the eyes") and the devil (as "the lust of the flesh" is the third foe). Satan tried this temptation on Christ in setting Him on the temple pinnacle that, in spiritual pride and presumption, on the ground of His Father's care, He should cast Himself down. The same three foes appear in the three classes of soil on which the divine seed falls: the wayside hearers, the devil; the thorns, the world; the rocky undersoil, the flesh (Mt 13:18-23; Mr 4:3-8). The world's awful antitrinity, the "lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life," similarly is presented in Satan's temptation of Eve: "When she saw that the tree was good for food, pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise," Ge 3:6 (one manifestation of "the pride of life," the desire to know above what God has revealed, Col 2:8, the pride of unsanctified knowledge).
of--does not spring from "the Father" (used in relation to the preceding "little children," 1Jo 2:12, or "little sons"). He who is born of God alone turns to God; he who is of the world turns to the world; the sources of love to God and love to the world, are irreconcilably distinct.
The Pulpit Commentary
He still further emphasizes the command by explaining the negative statement just made. Everything that is in the world has as its source, not the Father, but the world. This shows clearly that τὰ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ cannot mean material objects capable of being desired; these have their origin in God who created them (Joh_1:3). To assert otherwise is rank Gnosticism or Manicheism. But God did not create the evil dispositions and aims of men; these have their source in the sinful wills of his creatures, and ultimately in "the ruler of this world" (Joh_8:44). The three genitives which follow are subjective, not objective. The lust of the flesh is not merely the lust after the flesh, but all lust that has its seat in the flesh (Gal_5:16; Eph_2:3). The lust of the eyes is that lust that has its origin in sight (Augenlust)—curiosity, covetousness, etc. (cf. "the lusts of their hearts," "the lusts of your body," Rom_1:24; Rom_6:12). In the world of St. John's day the impure and brutal spectacles of the theatre and the arena would supply abundant illustrations of these ἐπιθυμίαι. The vain-glory of life, or arrogancy of living, is ostentation exhibited in the manner of living; the empty pride and pretentiousness of fashion and display. It includes the desire to gain credit which does not belong to us, and outshine our neighbours. In Greek philosophy βίος is higher than ζωή: βίος is the life peculiar to man; ζώη is the vital principle which he shares with brutes and vegetables, In the New Testament ζωή is higher than βίος is the life peculiar to man; ζωή is the vital principle which he shares with God. Contrast βίος here; 1Jn_3:17; Luk_8:14, Luk_8:43; Luk_15:12, Luk_15:30, etc., with ζωή in 1Jn_1:1, 1Jn_1:2; 1Jn_3:14; 1Jn_5:11,1Jn_5:12, 1Jn_5:16; Joh_1:4; Joh_3:36; Joh_5:24, Joh_5:26, etc. Βίος occurs only ten times in the New Testament (in 1Pe_4:3 it is a false reading), ζωή more than a hundred and twenty times. Each of the three forms of evil here cited by St. John as typos of τὰ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ are dangerous at different periods of a man's life; each also has been a special danger at different periods of the world's history.
He still further emphasizes the command by explaining the negative statement just made. Everything that is in the world has as its source, not the Father, but the world. This shows clearly that τὰ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ cannot mean material objects capable of being desired; these have their origin in God who created them (Joh_1:3). To assert otherwise is rank Gnosticism or Manicheism. But God did not create the evil dispositions and aims of men; these have their source in the sinful wills of his creatures, and ultimately in "the ruler of this world" (Joh_8:44). The three genitives which follow are subjective, not objective. The lust of the flesh is not merely the lust after the flesh, but all lust that has its seat in the flesh (Gal_5:16; Eph_2:3). The lust of the eyes is that lust that has its origin in sight (Augenlust)—curiosity, covetousness, etc. (cf. "the lusts of their hearts," "the lusts of your body," Rom_1:24; Rom_6:12). In the world of St. John's day the impure and brutal spectacles of the theatre and the arena would supply abundant illustrations of these ἐπιθυμίαι. The vain-glory of life, or arrogancy of living, is ostentation exhibited in the manner of living; the empty pride and pretentiousness of fashion and display. It includes the desire to gain credit which does not belong to us, and outshine our neighbours. In Greek philosophy βίος is higher than ζωή: βίος is the life peculiar to man; ζώη is the vital principle which he shares with brutes and vegetables, In the New Testament ζωή is higher than βίος is the life peculiar to man; ζωή is the vital principle which he shares with God. Contrast βίος here; 1Jn_3:17; Luk_8:14, Luk_8:43; Luk_15:12, Luk_15:30, etc., with ζωή in 1Jn_1:1, 1Jn_1:2; 1Jn_3:14; 1Jn_5:11,1Jn_5:12, 1Jn_5:16; Joh_1:4; Joh_3:36; Joh_5:24, Joh_5:26, etc. Βίος occurs only ten times in the New Testament (in 1Pe_4:3 it is a false reading), ζωή more than a hundred and twenty times. Each of the three forms of evil here cited by St. John as typos of τὰ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ are dangerous at different periods of a man's life; each also has been a special danger at different periods of the world's history.
17And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown
17. the world--with all who are of the world worldly.
passeth away--Greek, "is passing away" even now.
the lust thereof--in its threefold manifestation (1Jo 2:16).
he that doeth the will of God--not his own fleshly will, or the will of the world, but that of God (1Jo 2:3, 6), especially in respect to love.
abideth for ever--"even as God also abideth for ever" (with whom the godly is one; compare Psa 55:19, "God, even He that abideth of old): a true comment, which Cyprian and Lucifer have added to the text without support of Greek manuscripts. In contrast to the three passing lusts of the world, the doer of God's will has three abiding goods, "riches, honor, and life" (Pr 22:4).
17. the world--with all who are of the world worldly.
passeth away--Greek, "is passing away" even now.
the lust thereof--in its threefold manifestation (1Jo 2:16).
he that doeth the will of God--not his own fleshly will, or the will of the world, but that of God (1Jo 2:3, 6), especially in respect to love.
abideth for ever--"even as God also abideth for ever" (with whom the godly is one; compare Psa 55:19, "God, even He that abideth of old): a true comment, which Cyprian and Lucifer have added to the text without support of Greek manuscripts. In contrast to the three passing lusts of the world, the doer of God's will has three abiding goods, "riches, honor, and life" (Pr 22:4).
The Pulpit Commentary
Seeing, then, that the love of the world and the love of the Father are absolutely incompatible, which must we choose? Not the former, for its object is already passing away; while not only does the Father abide for ever, but he who loves him and does his will abides for ever also. The antithesis, as usual, is a progress; it carries us beyond the limits of the original statement. The world is passing away like a dissolving view. It has its sentence of death in itself; its decay has begun. And even if it were not passing away, our capacity for enjoying it would none the less certainly come to an end. "The sensualist does not know what the delights of sense are; he is out of temper when he is denied them; he is out of temper when he possesses them" (Maurice). To love the world is to lose everything, including the thing loved. To love God is to gain him and his kingdom. Some men would have it that the external world is the one thing that is certain and permanent, while religion is based on a mere hypothesis, and is ever changing its form. St. John assures us that the very reverse is the case. The world is waning: it is God alone and his faithful servants who abide. As St. Augustine says, "What can the world promise? Let it promise what you will, it makes the promise, perhaps, to one who tomorrow will die." The will of God is the exact antithesis of "all that is in the world." The one is the good power "that makes for righteousness;" the other is the sum of the evil powers which make for sin. Abideth for ever is literally, abideth unto the age (μένει εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα). The notion of endlessness is, perhaps, not distinctly included; for that we should rather have had εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν, αἰώνων (Rev_1:18; Rev_11:15; Rev_22:5). The contrast is not between "passing away" and "lasting forever," but between "passing away" and abiding till "the age" comes. But as "the age" is the age of eternity as distinguished from this age of time, the rendering "abideth for ever" is justified. The Jews used" this age" and" the age to come" to distinguish the periods before and after the coming of the Messiah. Christians adopted the same phrases to indicate the periods before and after Christ's second coming; e.g., ὁ αἰὼν οὗτος (Luk_16:8; Rom_12:2; 1Co_1:20), ὁ νῦν αἰών (1Ti_6:17; 2Ti_4:10; Ti 2Ti_2:12), as opposed to ὁ αἰὼν ἐκεῖνος, (Luk_20:35), ὁ αἰὼν ὁ ἐρχόμενος (Luk_18:30), ὁ μέλλων (Eph_1:21), and very frequently, as here and throughout St. John's Gospel and Epistles, simply ὁ αἰών. In Revelation the invariable expression is εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων, the τῶν being omitted in Rev_14:11. The exact meaning here, therefore, is "abideth unto the age," i.e., the coming of Christ's eternal kingdom.
Seeing, then, that the love of the world and the love of the Father are absolutely incompatible, which must we choose? Not the former, for its object is already passing away; while not only does the Father abide for ever, but he who loves him and does his will abides for ever also. The antithesis, as usual, is a progress; it carries us beyond the limits of the original statement. The world is passing away like a dissolving view. It has its sentence of death in itself; its decay has begun. And even if it were not passing away, our capacity for enjoying it would none the less certainly come to an end. "The sensualist does not know what the delights of sense are; he is out of temper when he is denied them; he is out of temper when he possesses them" (Maurice). To love the world is to lose everything, including the thing loved. To love God is to gain him and his kingdom. Some men would have it that the external world is the one thing that is certain and permanent, while religion is based on a mere hypothesis, and is ever changing its form. St. John assures us that the very reverse is the case. The world is waning: it is God alone and his faithful servants who abide. As St. Augustine says, "What can the world promise? Let it promise what you will, it makes the promise, perhaps, to one who tomorrow will die." The will of God is the exact antithesis of "all that is in the world." The one is the good power "that makes for righteousness;" the other is the sum of the evil powers which make for sin. Abideth for ever is literally, abideth unto the age (μένει εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα). The notion of endlessness is, perhaps, not distinctly included; for that we should rather have had εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν, αἰώνων (Rev_1:18; Rev_11:15; Rev_22:5). The contrast is not between "passing away" and "lasting forever," but between "passing away" and abiding till "the age" comes. But as "the age" is the age of eternity as distinguished from this age of time, the rendering "abideth for ever" is justified. The Jews used" this age" and" the age to come" to distinguish the periods before and after the coming of the Messiah. Christians adopted the same phrases to indicate the periods before and after Christ's second coming; e.g., ὁ αἰὼν οὗτος (Luk_16:8; Rom_12:2; 1Co_1:20), ὁ νῦν αἰών (1Ti_6:17; 2Ti_4:10; Ti 2Ti_2:12), as opposed to ὁ αἰὼν ἐκεῖνος, (Luk_20:35), ὁ αἰὼν ὁ ἐρχόμενος (Luk_18:30), ὁ μέλλων (Eph_1:21), and very frequently, as here and throughout St. John's Gospel and Epistles, simply ὁ αἰών. In Revelation the invariable expression is εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων, the τῶν being omitted in Rev_14:11. The exact meaning here, therefore, is "abideth unto the age," i.e., the coming of Christ's eternal kingdom.
Antichrists in the Last Time
18Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown
18. Little children--same Greek as 1Jo 2:13; children in age. After the fathers and young men were gone, "the last time" with its "many Antichrists" was about to come suddenly on the children. "In this last hour we all even still live" [Bengel]. Each successive age has had in it some of the signs of "the last time" which precedes Christ's coming, in order to keep the Church in continual waiting for the Lord. The connection with 1Jo 2:15-17 is: There are coming those seducers who are of the world (1Jo 4:5), and would tempt you to go out from us (1Jo 2:19) and deny Christ (1Jo 2:22).
as ye have heard--from the apostles, preachers of the Gospel (for example, 2Th 2:3-10; and in the region of Ephesus, Ac 20:29, 30).
shall come--Greek, "cometh," namely, out of his own place. Antichrist is interpreted in two ways: a false Christ (Mt 24:5, 24), literally, "instead of Christ"; or an adversary of Christ, literally, "against Christ." As John never uses pseudo-Christ, or "false Christ," for Antichrist, it is plain he means an adversary of Christ, claiming to himself what belongs to Christ, and wishing to substitute himself for Christ as the supreme object of worship. He denies the Son, not merely, like the pope, acts in the name of the Son, 2Th 2:4, "Who opposeth himself (Greek, " ANTI-keimenos") [to] all that is called God," decides this. For God's great truth, "God is man," he would substitute his own lie, "man is God" [Trench].
are there--Greek, "there have begun to be"; there have arisen. These "many Antichrists" answer to "the spirit of lawlessness (Greek) doth already work." The Antichristian principle appeared then, as now, in evil men and evil teachings and writings; but still "THE Antichrist" means a hostile person, even as "THE Christ" is a personal Saviour. As "cometh" is used of Christ, so here of Antichrist, the embodiment in his own person of all the Antichristian features and spirit of those "many Antichrists" which have been, and are, his forerunners. John uses the singular of him. No other New Testament writer uses the term. He probably answers to "the little horn having the eyes of a man, and speaking great things" (Da 7:8, 20); "the man of sin, son of perdition" (2Th 2:3); "the beast ascending out of the bottomless pit" (Re 11:7; 17:8), or rather, "the false prophet," the same as "the second beast coming up out of the earth" (Re 13:11-18; 16:13).
18. Little children--same Greek as 1Jo 2:13; children in age. After the fathers and young men were gone, "the last time" with its "many Antichrists" was about to come suddenly on the children. "In this last hour we all even still live" [Bengel]. Each successive age has had in it some of the signs of "the last time" which precedes Christ's coming, in order to keep the Church in continual waiting for the Lord. The connection with 1Jo 2:15-17 is: There are coming those seducers who are of the world (1Jo 4:5), and would tempt you to go out from us (1Jo 2:19) and deny Christ (1Jo 2:22).
as ye have heard--from the apostles, preachers of the Gospel (for example, 2Th 2:3-10; and in the region of Ephesus, Ac 20:29, 30).
shall come--Greek, "cometh," namely, out of his own place. Antichrist is interpreted in two ways: a false Christ (Mt 24:5, 24), literally, "instead of Christ"; or an adversary of Christ, literally, "against Christ." As John never uses pseudo-Christ, or "false Christ," for Antichrist, it is plain he means an adversary of Christ, claiming to himself what belongs to Christ, and wishing to substitute himself for Christ as the supreme object of worship. He denies the Son, not merely, like the pope, acts in the name of the Son, 2Th 2:4, "Who opposeth himself (Greek, " ANTI-keimenos") [to] all that is called God," decides this. For God's great truth, "God is man," he would substitute his own lie, "man is God" [Trench].
are there--Greek, "there have begun to be"; there have arisen. These "many Antichrists" answer to "the spirit of lawlessness (Greek) doth already work." The Antichristian principle appeared then, as now, in evil men and evil teachings and writings; but still "THE Antichrist" means a hostile person, even as "THE Christ" is a personal Saviour. As "cometh" is used of Christ, so here of Antichrist, the embodiment in his own person of all the Antichristian features and spirit of those "many Antichrists" which have been, and are, his forerunners. John uses the singular of him. No other New Testament writer uses the term. He probably answers to "the little horn having the eyes of a man, and speaking great things" (Da 7:8, 20); "the man of sin, son of perdition" (2Th 2:3); "the beast ascending out of the bottomless pit" (Re 11:7; 17:8), or rather, "the false prophet," the same as "the second beast coming up out of the earth" (Re 13:11-18; 16:13).
The Pulpit Commentary
Children παιδία here must apply to all those addressed in the Epistle; and this helps to fix the meaning in 1Jn_2:13. It is the last hour. What does this mean? There is scarcely room for doubt. The perishableness of the world has suggested the thought of its end, and St. John goes on to warn his readers that this thought is full of meaning to them; for they may recognize the time in which they are living as the last hour by the many antichrists that have arisen. "The last hour" can only mean the last hour before the second coming of Christ. Nothing but the unwillingness of Christians to admit that an apostle, and especially the Apostle St. John, could seem to be much in error about the nearness of the day of judgment, could have raised a question about language so plain. All explanations about its signifying the Christian dispensation, or the nearness of St. John's death, or the nearness of the destruction of Jerusalem, must be firmly set aside. How could the rising of antichrists show that the Christian dispensation had begun? It was Christ, not antichrist, that showed that? What had antichrists to do with St. John's death? or with the fall of Jerusalem, which, moreover, had fallen many years before this Epistle was written? Just as the apostles, even after the Resurrection (Act_1:6), remained grossly ignorant of the nature of Christ's kingdom on earth, so to the last they remained ignorant of its duration. The primitive Church had not yet found its true perspective, and, in common with all Christians of the first age, the apostles believed that Christ would return soon, possibly within the lifetime of some then living. "Yea, I come quickly" (Rev_22:20) was by them understood in the most literal sense of ταχύ. But it will not surprise those who remember Christ's very strong declaration (Mar_13:32), to find even an apostle in ignorance as to the time of the second advent of Christ. But it may very reasonably and reverently be asked, What becomes of the inspiration of Scripture if an inspired writer tells the Church that the end of the world is near, when it is not near? The question of inspiration must follow that of interpretation, not lead it. Let us patiently examine the facts, and then try to frame a theory of inspiration that will cover them; not first frame our theory, and then force the facts to agree with it. But the question in its proper place requires an answer. The Old Testament prophets were often guided to utter language the Divine meaning of which they did not themselves understand. They uttered the words in one sense, and the words were true in a far higher sense, of which they scarcely dreamed. The same thing is true of the New Testament prophets, though in a less degree, because the gift of Pentecost had given them powers of insight which their predecessors had not possessed. The present text seems to be an illustration of this truth. We can hardly doubt that, in saying, "it is the last hour," St. John means to imply that within a few years, or possibly even less time, Christ will return to judgment. In this sense the statement is not true. But it may also mean that the last period in the world's history has begun; and in this sense we have good reason for believing that the statement is true. "That one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day" is not rhetoric, but sober fact. By the Divine standard times are measured, not according to their duration, but their importance; it is their meaning, not their extent, which gives them value. What are all the measureless prehistoric aeons of the material universe compared with the time since the creation of rational life? What are the thousands of years covered by the Old Testament compared with the portion of a century covered by the New? The great crisis in the history of the world, constituted by the life and death of Christ, will never be equaled until he comes again. When he ascended to heaven the last hour sounded. There may follow a silence (as it seemed to St. John) about the space of half an hour, but of half a thousand centuries. Yet the duration of the period, as measured by man, will not alter its essential characteristics; it was, is, and will still remain, "the last hour." Even as ye heard (when ye were instructed in the faith) that antichrist cometh (is destined to come). Antichrist in this also is assimilated to the Christ; he is ὁ ἐρχόμενος. This was the teaching of the gospel. What does St. John mean by ἀντίχριστος? The four passages (1Jn_2:18, 1Jn_2:22; 1Jn_4:3; 2Jn_1:7) in which he uses the term do not enable us to answer the question with certainty. The predominant idea is that of opposition to Christ, and rivalry of Christ, rather than merely of counterfeiting Christ. If ἀντίχριστος were formed on the analogy of ἀντιβασιλεύς and ἀνθύπατος, it would mean "vice-Christ, vicar of Christ." It is, however, analogous to ἀντίθεος ἀντιφιλόσοφος and the Greek for a counterfeit Christ is ψευδόχριστος (Mat_24:24). But we are left in doubt whether this rival of Christ is a principle or a person. None of the four passages is decisive. Here we are not sure whether the arising of many antichrists proves that the spirit of antichrist is already in the world, or that by them the way is fully prepared for the one personal antichrist. Either the existence of the antichristian character, or the approach of the antichrist, is given as evidence that the day of the Lord is at hand. The latter is the more probable. A great personal opponent to the personal Christ seems to be indicated both by St. John and St. Paul (2Th_2:1-8). The Jews expected a personal opponent of the Messiah to precede the Messiah—Armillus, Gog, Antiochus Epiphanes, and the like (Eze_38:1-23 :39; Dan_7:25; Dan_8:25; Dan_11:36); and Christians from the earliest times have expected a similar prelude to the return of the Messiah. The term ἀντίχριστος is absolutely peculiar to St. John in the New Testament. By the ἀντίχριστοι πολλοί he probably means those early heretical teachers, who in various ways denied the Incarnation, and were thus forerunners of the antichrist—the Nicolaitanes, Simon Magus, Cerinthus, Diotrephes, Hymenaeus, and Philetus. Besides these there are practical antichrists. "Let us mark, not the tongue but the deeds. For if all be asked, all with one mouth confess that Jesus is the Christ. Let the tongue keep silent awhile: ask the life. If the Scripture itself shall tell us that denial is a thing done not only with the tongue, but also with deeds, then assuredly we find many antichrists if deeds are to be questioned, not only do we find many antichrists gone out, but many not yet manifest, who have not gone out at all".
Children παιδία here must apply to all those addressed in the Epistle; and this helps to fix the meaning in 1Jn_2:13. It is the last hour. What does this mean? There is scarcely room for doubt. The perishableness of the world has suggested the thought of its end, and St. John goes on to warn his readers that this thought is full of meaning to them; for they may recognize the time in which they are living as the last hour by the many antichrists that have arisen. "The last hour" can only mean the last hour before the second coming of Christ. Nothing but the unwillingness of Christians to admit that an apostle, and especially the Apostle St. John, could seem to be much in error about the nearness of the day of judgment, could have raised a question about language so plain. All explanations about its signifying the Christian dispensation, or the nearness of St. John's death, or the nearness of the destruction of Jerusalem, must be firmly set aside. How could the rising of antichrists show that the Christian dispensation had begun? It was Christ, not antichrist, that showed that? What had antichrists to do with St. John's death? or with the fall of Jerusalem, which, moreover, had fallen many years before this Epistle was written? Just as the apostles, even after the Resurrection (Act_1:6), remained grossly ignorant of the nature of Christ's kingdom on earth, so to the last they remained ignorant of its duration. The primitive Church had not yet found its true perspective, and, in common with all Christians of the first age, the apostles believed that Christ would return soon, possibly within the lifetime of some then living. "Yea, I come quickly" (Rev_22:20) was by them understood in the most literal sense of ταχύ. But it will not surprise those who remember Christ's very strong declaration (Mar_13:32), to find even an apostle in ignorance as to the time of the second advent of Christ. But it may very reasonably and reverently be asked, What becomes of the inspiration of Scripture if an inspired writer tells the Church that the end of the world is near, when it is not near? The question of inspiration must follow that of interpretation, not lead it. Let us patiently examine the facts, and then try to frame a theory of inspiration that will cover them; not first frame our theory, and then force the facts to agree with it. But the question in its proper place requires an answer. The Old Testament prophets were often guided to utter language the Divine meaning of which they did not themselves understand. They uttered the words in one sense, and the words were true in a far higher sense, of which they scarcely dreamed. The same thing is true of the New Testament prophets, though in a less degree, because the gift of Pentecost had given them powers of insight which their predecessors had not possessed. The present text seems to be an illustration of this truth. We can hardly doubt that, in saying, "it is the last hour," St. John means to imply that within a few years, or possibly even less time, Christ will return to judgment. In this sense the statement is not true. But it may also mean that the last period in the world's history has begun; and in this sense we have good reason for believing that the statement is true. "That one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day" is not rhetoric, but sober fact. By the Divine standard times are measured, not according to their duration, but their importance; it is their meaning, not their extent, which gives them value. What are all the measureless prehistoric aeons of the material universe compared with the time since the creation of rational life? What are the thousands of years covered by the Old Testament compared with the portion of a century covered by the New? The great crisis in the history of the world, constituted by the life and death of Christ, will never be equaled until he comes again. When he ascended to heaven the last hour sounded. There may follow a silence (as it seemed to St. John) about the space of half an hour, but of half a thousand centuries. Yet the duration of the period, as measured by man, will not alter its essential characteristics; it was, is, and will still remain, "the last hour." Even as ye heard (when ye were instructed in the faith) that antichrist cometh (is destined to come). Antichrist in this also is assimilated to the Christ; he is ὁ ἐρχόμενος. This was the teaching of the gospel. What does St. John mean by ἀντίχριστος? The four passages (1Jn_2:18, 1Jn_2:22; 1Jn_4:3; 2Jn_1:7) in which he uses the term do not enable us to answer the question with certainty. The predominant idea is that of opposition to Christ, and rivalry of Christ, rather than merely of counterfeiting Christ. If ἀντίχριστος were formed on the analogy of ἀντιβασιλεύς and ἀνθύπατος, it would mean "vice-Christ, vicar of Christ." It is, however, analogous to ἀντίθεος ἀντιφιλόσοφος and the Greek for a counterfeit Christ is ψευδόχριστος (Mat_24:24). But we are left in doubt whether this rival of Christ is a principle or a person. None of the four passages is decisive. Here we are not sure whether the arising of many antichrists proves that the spirit of antichrist is already in the world, or that by them the way is fully prepared for the one personal antichrist. Either the existence of the antichristian character, or the approach of the antichrist, is given as evidence that the day of the Lord is at hand. The latter is the more probable. A great personal opponent to the personal Christ seems to be indicated both by St. John and St. Paul (2Th_2:1-8). The Jews expected a personal opponent of the Messiah to precede the Messiah—Armillus, Gog, Antiochus Epiphanes, and the like (Eze_38:1-23 :39; Dan_7:25; Dan_8:25; Dan_11:36); and Christians from the earliest times have expected a similar prelude to the return of the Messiah. The term ἀντίχριστος is absolutely peculiar to St. John in the New Testament. By the ἀντίχριστοι πολλοί he probably means those early heretical teachers, who in various ways denied the Incarnation, and were thus forerunners of the antichrist—the Nicolaitanes, Simon Magus, Cerinthus, Diotrephes, Hymenaeus, and Philetus. Besides these there are practical antichrists. "Let us mark, not the tongue but the deeds. For if all be asked, all with one mouth confess that Jesus is the Christ. Let the tongue keep silent awhile: ask the life. If the Scripture itself shall tell us that denial is a thing done not only with the tongue, but also with deeds, then assuredly we find many antichrists if deeds are to be questioned, not only do we find many antichrists gone out, but many not yet manifest, who have not gone out at all".
19They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown
19. out from us--from our Christian communion. Not necessarily a formal secession or going out: thus Rome has spiritually gone out, though formally still of the Christian Church.
not of us--by spiritual fellowship (1Jo 1:3). "They are like bad humors in the body of Christ, the Church: when they are vomited out, then the body is relieved; the body of Christ is now still under treatment, and has not yet attained the perfect soundness which it shall have only at the resurrection" [Augustine, Ten Homilies on the First Epistle of John, Homily 3.4].
they would ... have continued--implying the indefectibility of grace in the elect. "Where God's call is effectual, there will be sure perseverance" [Calvin]. Still, it is no fatal necessity, but a "voluntary necessity" [Didymus], which causes men to remain, or else go from the body of Christ. "We are either among the members, or else among the bad humors. It is of his own will that each is either an Antichrist, or in Christ" [Augustine]. Still God's actings in eternal election harmonize in a way inexplicable to us, with man's free agency and responsibility. It is men's own evil will that chooses the way to hell; it is God's free and sovereign grace that draws any to Himself and to heaven. To God the latter shall ascribe wholly their salvation from first to last: the former shall reproach themselves alone, and not God's decree, with their condemnation (1Jo 3:9; 5:18).
that they were not all of us--This translation would imply that some of the Antichrists are of us! Translate, therefore, "that all (who are for a time among us) are not of us." Compare 1Co 11:19, "There must be heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you." For "were" some of the oldest manuscripts read "are." Such occasions test who are, and who are not, the Lord's people.
19. out from us--from our Christian communion. Not necessarily a formal secession or going out: thus Rome has spiritually gone out, though formally still of the Christian Church.
not of us--by spiritual fellowship (1Jo 1:3). "They are like bad humors in the body of Christ, the Church: when they are vomited out, then the body is relieved; the body of Christ is now still under treatment, and has not yet attained the perfect soundness which it shall have only at the resurrection" [Augustine, Ten Homilies on the First Epistle of John, Homily 3.4].
they would ... have continued--implying the indefectibility of grace in the elect. "Where God's call is effectual, there will be sure perseverance" [Calvin]. Still, it is no fatal necessity, but a "voluntary necessity" [Didymus], which causes men to remain, or else go from the body of Christ. "We are either among the members, or else among the bad humors. It is of his own will that each is either an Antichrist, or in Christ" [Augustine]. Still God's actings in eternal election harmonize in a way inexplicable to us, with man's free agency and responsibility. It is men's own evil will that chooses the way to hell; it is God's free and sovereign grace that draws any to Himself and to heaven. To God the latter shall ascribe wholly their salvation from first to last: the former shall reproach themselves alone, and not God's decree, with their condemnation (1Jo 3:9; 5:18).
that they were not all of us--This translation would imply that some of the Antichrists are of us! Translate, therefore, "that all (who are for a time among us) are not of us." Compare 1Co 11:19, "There must be heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you." For "were" some of the oldest manuscripts read "are." Such occasions test who are, and who are not, the Lord's people.
The Pulpit Commentary
They went out from us ἐχ ἡμῶν ἐχῆλθαν; just as the evil spirit went out of the demoniac. But they were not of us οὐκ ἦσαν ἐχ ἡμῶν; they had not their origin with us, just as the unbelieving Jews were "not of God" ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ οὐκ ἐστὲ, but of the devil (Joh_8:23, Joh_8:44, Joh_8:47). The emphatic repetition of ἠμῶν, five times in one verse, is quite in St. John's style. The "no doubt" of the Authorized Version, rightly omitted in the Revised Version, probably represents the utique of the Vulgate, which is a mistaken attempt to give a separate word to translate ἄν (compare forsitan in Joh_4:10; Joh_5:46. For the elliptical ἀλλ ̓ ἵνα, comp. Joh_1:8). What follows is not clear, and is taken in three ways:
(1) "That all are not of us," which seems to imply that some of them are of us. This can hardly be right.
(2) "That all of them are not of us;" i.e., are aliens. But in that case we should expect πάντες οὐκ εἰσίν, not οὐκ εἰσὶν πάντες.
(3) Two thoughts are mixed together:
(a) "That they may be made manifest that they are not of us;"
(b) "That it may be made manifest that not all who are with us μεθ ) are of us ἐχ ἡμῶν." This seems preferable. The renegade and apostate was all along only nominally a Christian. Of the true Christian the declaration remains true, "No one snatcheth them out of his hand."
They went out from us ἐχ ἡμῶν ἐχῆλθαν; just as the evil spirit went out of the demoniac. But they were not of us οὐκ ἦσαν ἐχ ἡμῶν; they had not their origin with us, just as the unbelieving Jews were "not of God" ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ οὐκ ἐστὲ, but of the devil (Joh_8:23, Joh_8:44, Joh_8:47). The emphatic repetition of ἠμῶν, five times in one verse, is quite in St. John's style. The "no doubt" of the Authorized Version, rightly omitted in the Revised Version, probably represents the utique of the Vulgate, which is a mistaken attempt to give a separate word to translate ἄν (compare forsitan in Joh_4:10; Joh_5:46. For the elliptical ἀλλ ̓ ἵνα, comp. Joh_1:8). What follows is not clear, and is taken in three ways:
(1) "That all are not of us," which seems to imply that some of them are of us. This can hardly be right.
(2) "That all of them are not of us;" i.e., are aliens. But in that case we should expect πάντες οὐκ εἰσίν, not οὐκ εἰσὶν πάντες.
(3) Two thoughts are mixed together:
(a) "That they may be made manifest that they are not of us;"
(b) "That it may be made manifest that not all who are with us μεθ ) are of us ἐχ ἡμῶν." This seems preferable. The renegade and apostate was all along only nominally a Christian. Of the true Christian the declaration remains true, "No one snatcheth them out of his hand."
20But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown
20. But--Greek, "And." He here states the means which they as believers have wherewith to withstand. Antichrists (1Jo 2:18), namely, the chrism (so the Greek: a play upon similar sounds), or "anointing unguent," namely, the Holy Spirit (more plainly mentioned further on, as in John's style, 1Jo 3:24; 4:13; 5:6), which they ("ye" is emphatical in contrast to those apostates, 1Jo 2:19) have "from the Holy One, Christ" (Joh 1:33; 3:34; 15:26; 16:14): "the righteous" (1Jo 2:1), "pure" (1Jo 3:3), "the Holy One" (Ac 3:14) "of God"; Mr 1:24. Those anointed of God in Christ alone can resist those anointed with the spirit of Satan, Antichrists, who would sever them from the Father and from the Son. Believers have the anointing Spirit from the Father also, as well as from the Son; even as the Son is anointed therewith by the Father. Hence the Spirit is the token that we are in the Father and in the Son; without it a man is none of Christ. The material unguent of costliest ingredients, poured on the head of priests and kings, typified this spiritual unguent, derived from Christ, the Head, to us, His members. We can have no share in Him as Jesus, except we become truly Christians, and so be in Him as Christ, anointed with that unction from the Holy One. The Spirit poured on Christ, the Head, is by Him diffused through all the members. "It appears that we all are the body of Christ, because we all are anointed: and we all in Him are both Christ's and Christ, because in some measure the whole Christ is Head and body."
and--therefore.
ye know all things--needful for acting aright against Antichrist's seductions, and for Christian life and godliness. In the same measure as one hath the Spirit, in that measure (no more and no less) he knows all these things.
20. But--Greek, "And." He here states the means which they as believers have wherewith to withstand. Antichrists (1Jo 2:18), namely, the chrism (so the Greek: a play upon similar sounds), or "anointing unguent," namely, the Holy Spirit (more plainly mentioned further on, as in John's style, 1Jo 3:24; 4:13; 5:6), which they ("ye" is emphatical in contrast to those apostates, 1Jo 2:19) have "from the Holy One, Christ" (Joh 1:33; 3:34; 15:26; 16:14): "the righteous" (1Jo 2:1), "pure" (1Jo 3:3), "the Holy One" (Ac 3:14) "of God"; Mr 1:24. Those anointed of God in Christ alone can resist those anointed with the spirit of Satan, Antichrists, who would sever them from the Father and from the Son. Believers have the anointing Spirit from the Father also, as well as from the Son; even as the Son is anointed therewith by the Father. Hence the Spirit is the token that we are in the Father and in the Son; without it a man is none of Christ. The material unguent of costliest ingredients, poured on the head of priests and kings, typified this spiritual unguent, derived from Christ, the Head, to us, His members. We can have no share in Him as Jesus, except we become truly Christians, and so be in Him as Christ, anointed with that unction from the Holy One. The Spirit poured on Christ, the Head, is by Him diffused through all the members. "It appears that we all are the body of Christ, because we all are anointed: and we all in Him are both Christ's and Christ, because in some measure the whole Christ is Head and body."
and--therefore.
ye know all things--needful for acting aright against Antichrist's seductions, and for Christian life and godliness. In the same measure as one hath the Spirit, in that measure (no more and no less) he knows all these things.
The Pulpit Commentary
The thought of many antichrists suggests that of many Christs; i.e., many who have been anointed χριστοί by the Christ himself. "The false teachers have the spirit of antichrist; ye have a chrism from the Christ." The Johannine καί places the two antithetical groups side by side, while the emphatic ὑμεῖς accentuates the contrast. And ye have an anointing from the Holy One. The unction or chrism is the Holy Spirit (Joh_1:33; 1Jn_3:24; 1Jn_2:27). As Christ was anointed with the Spirit in all fullness, so each Christian is anointed with him in his measure (2Co_1:21, 2Co_1:22). The twenty-first 'Catechetical Lecture' of St. Cyril, "On the Holy Chrism," should be read in illustration of this verse. "In apostolic language, each Christian is in due measure himself a Christ, empowered by the gift of the Holy Spirit to announce the truth which he has learnt, to apply the atonement which he has received, to establish the kingdom which he believes to be universal" (Westcott). The ἀπό depends on ἔχετε, not on χρίσμα. The Holy One is Jesus Christ (Joh_6:69; Act_3:14; Rev_3:7; comp. Joh_14:26; Joh_16:7, Joh_16:13). It is hard to decide between three readings:
(1) καὶ οἴδατε πάντα, "and ye know all things" necessary to salvation, i.e., "the truth" (1Jn_2:21; Joh_16:13);
(2) καὶ οἴδατε πάντες, "and ye all know" that ye have this anointing;
(3) οἴδατε πάντες," ye all know—I did not write to you because ye know not the truth." There is evidence of a fourth variation, πάντας "ye know all" the antichrists. If (1) be right, it does not mean that the Christian is omniscient, but that he has the basis of all knowledge; he can see things in their right proportions. The apostle's own disciple, St. Polycarp, writes to the Philippians
The thought of many antichrists suggests that of many Christs; i.e., many who have been anointed χριστοί by the Christ himself. "The false teachers have the spirit of antichrist; ye have a chrism from the Christ." The Johannine καί places the two antithetical groups side by side, while the emphatic ὑμεῖς accentuates the contrast. And ye have an anointing from the Holy One. The unction or chrism is the Holy Spirit (Joh_1:33; 1Jn_3:24; 1Jn_2:27). As Christ was anointed with the Spirit in all fullness, so each Christian is anointed with him in his measure (2Co_1:21, 2Co_1:22). The twenty-first 'Catechetical Lecture' of St. Cyril, "On the Holy Chrism," should be read in illustration of this verse. "In apostolic language, each Christian is in due measure himself a Christ, empowered by the gift of the Holy Spirit to announce the truth which he has learnt, to apply the atonement which he has received, to establish the kingdom which he believes to be universal" (Westcott). The ἀπό depends on ἔχετε, not on χρίσμα. The Holy One is Jesus Christ (Joh_6:69; Act_3:14; Rev_3:7; comp. Joh_14:26; Joh_16:7, Joh_16:13). It is hard to decide between three readings:
(1) καὶ οἴδατε πάντα, "and ye know all things" necessary to salvation, i.e., "the truth" (1Jn_2:21; Joh_16:13);
(2) καὶ οἴδατε πάντες, "and ye all know" that ye have this anointing;
(3) οἴδατε πάντες," ye all know—I did not write to you because ye know not the truth." There is evidence of a fourth variation, πάντας "ye know all" the antichrists. If (1) be right, it does not mean that the Christian is omniscient, but that he has the basis of all knowledge; he can see things in their right proportions. The apostle's own disciple, St. Polycarp, writes to the Philippians
21I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown
21. but because ye know it, and that, &c.--Ye not only know what is the truth (concerning the Son and the Father, 1Jo 2:13), but also are able to detect a lie as a thing opposed to the truth. For right (a straight line) is the index of itself and of what is crooked [Estius]. The Greek is susceptible of Alford's translation, "Because ye know it, and because no lie is of the truth" (literally, "every lie is excluded from being of the truth"). I therefore wrote (in this Epistle) to point out what the lie is, and who the liars are.
21. but because ye know it, and that, &c.--Ye not only know what is the truth (concerning the Son and the Father, 1Jo 2:13), but also are able to detect a lie as a thing opposed to the truth. For right (a straight line) is the index of itself and of what is crooked [Estius]. The Greek is susceptible of Alford's translation, "Because ye know it, and because no lie is of the truth" (literally, "every lie is excluded from being of the truth"). I therefore wrote (in this Epistle) to point out what the lie is, and who the liars are.
The Pulpit Commentary
The first οὐκ belongs to ὅτι, not to ἔγραψα: I wrote to you, not because ye know not, etc. It does not mean "I omitted to write to you because ye know not." Whatever meaning we give to the aorists in 1Jn_2:13, 1Jn_2:14 need not be retained here. There is here no abrupt change from present to aorist. Moreover, 1Jn_2:26 limits this ἔγραψα to the present section. What in 1Jn_2:20 is spoken of as "all things" (assuming πάντα to be right) is here spoken of as "the truth." St. John writes to well-instructed Christians, to adults in the faith. It is precisely because they "know the truth" that he addresses them, especially to warn them against antichrists. We are in doubt whether καὶ ὅτι, depends upon ἔγραψα ("and because")or upon οἴδατε ("and that"). The former is better; it introduces a second reason for his writing. Some take ὅτι, in all three places as "that" after ἔγραψα: "I did not write to you and say that ye know not the truth, but that ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth." Every lie is fundamentally and ab origine ἐκ separate from the truth; and hence his readers will easily recognize lies and liars, for they know the truth.
The first οὐκ belongs to ὅτι, not to ἔγραψα: I wrote to you, not because ye know not, etc. It does not mean "I omitted to write to you because ye know not." Whatever meaning we give to the aorists in 1Jn_2:13, 1Jn_2:14 need not be retained here. There is here no abrupt change from present to aorist. Moreover, 1Jn_2:26 limits this ἔγραψα to the present section. What in 1Jn_2:20 is spoken of as "all things" (assuming πάντα to be right) is here spoken of as "the truth." St. John writes to well-instructed Christians, to adults in the faith. It is precisely because they "know the truth" that he addresses them, especially to warn them against antichrists. We are in doubt whether καὶ ὅτι, depends upon ἔγραψα ("and because")or upon οἴδατε ("and that"). The former is better; it introduces a second reason for his writing. Some take ὅτι, in all three places as "that" after ἔγραψα: "I did not write to you and say that ye know not the truth, but that ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth." Every lie is fundamentally and ab origine ἐκ separate from the truth; and hence his readers will easily recognize lies and liars, for they know the truth.
22Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown
22. a liar--Greek, "Who is the liar?" namely, guilty of the lie just mentioned (1Jo 2:21).
that Jesus is the Christ--the grand central truth.
He is Antichrist--Greek, "the Antichrist"; not however here personal, but in the abstract; the ideal of Antichrist is "he that denieth the Father and the Son." To deny the latter is virtually to deny the former. Again, the truth as to the Son must be held in its integrity; to deny that Jesus is the Christ, or that He is the Son of God, or that He came in the flesh, invalidates the whole (Mt 11:27).
22. a liar--Greek, "Who is the liar?" namely, guilty of the lie just mentioned (1Jo 2:21).
that Jesus is the Christ--the grand central truth.
He is Antichrist--Greek, "the Antichrist"; not however here personal, but in the abstract; the ideal of Antichrist is "he that denieth the Father and the Son." To deny the latter is virtually to deny the former. Again, the truth as to the Son must be held in its integrity; to deny that Jesus is the Christ, or that He is the Son of God, or that He came in the flesh, invalidates the whole (Mt 11:27).
The Pulpit Commentary
Who is the liar, but he that denieth, etc.? From the lie St. John passes on to the utterer of it. "Ye readily distinguish any lie from the truth. Who, then, is the liar?" "The liar" does not mean the liar κατ ἐχοχήν, as if this denial constituted the very acme of falsehood. To deny the very existence of God is surely a worse lie. Still less can we say that "the context leaves no doubt that 'the liar' is the same with 'the antichrist.'" The article ὁ ψεύστης refers to the preceding ψεῦδος, just as in 1Jn_5:4, 1Jn_5:5 ὁ νικῶν refers to the preceding νίκη. The very form of sentence is the same: τίς ἐστιν ὁ νικῶν … εἰ μὴ ὁ κ.τ.λ. and there ὁ νικῶν cannot mean the victor, κατ ̓ ἐχοχήν, who is Christ, and not the believer. So that the Authorized Version is not so very inaccurate in rendering ὁ ψεύστης "a liar." "Who tells lies, if not he who denies (and says) that Jesus is not the Christ?" This was the great Gnostic lie to which St. John's Gospel and Epistle give the answer. The antichrist is this, he who denieth the Father and the Son. "The antichrist" here is not the great adversary, but one having similar characteristics. He denies the Messiahship of Jesus, and thus virtually denies both the Father and Son. This truth St. John proceeds to restate and develop.
Who is the liar, but he that denieth, etc.? From the lie St. John passes on to the utterer of it. "Ye readily distinguish any lie from the truth. Who, then, is the liar?" "The liar" does not mean the liar κατ ἐχοχήν, as if this denial constituted the very acme of falsehood. To deny the very existence of God is surely a worse lie. Still less can we say that "the context leaves no doubt that 'the liar' is the same with 'the antichrist.'" The article ὁ ψεύστης refers to the preceding ψεῦδος, just as in 1Jn_5:4, 1Jn_5:5 ὁ νικῶν refers to the preceding νίκη. The very form of sentence is the same: τίς ἐστιν ὁ νικῶν … εἰ μὴ ὁ κ.τ.λ. and there ὁ νικῶν cannot mean the victor, κατ ̓ ἐχοχήν, who is Christ, and not the believer. So that the Authorized Version is not so very inaccurate in rendering ὁ ψεύστης "a liar." "Who tells lies, if not he who denies (and says) that Jesus is not the Christ?" This was the great Gnostic lie to which St. John's Gospel and Epistle give the answer. The antichrist is this, he who denieth the Father and the Son. "The antichrist" here is not the great adversary, but one having similar characteristics. He denies the Messiahship of Jesus, and thus virtually denies both the Father and Son. This truth St. John proceeds to restate and develop.
23Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown
23. Greek, "Every one who denieth the Son, hath not the Father either" (1Jo 4:2, 3): "inasmuch as God hath given Himself to us wholly to be enjoyed in Christ" [Calvin].
he--that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also. These words ought not to be in italics, as though they were not in the original: for the oldest Greek manuscripts have them.
hath--namely, in his abiding possession as his "portion"; by living personal "fellowship."
acknowledgeth--by open confession of Christ.
23. Greek, "Every one who denieth the Son, hath not the Father either" (1Jo 4:2, 3): "inasmuch as God hath given Himself to us wholly to be enjoyed in Christ" [Calvin].
he--that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also. These words ought not to be in italics, as though they were not in the original: for the oldest Greek manuscripts have them.
hath--namely, in his abiding possession as his "portion"; by living personal "fellowship."
acknowledgeth--by open confession of Christ.
The Pulpit Commentary
Every one who denieth the Son not only does that, but οὐδέ doth not possess the Father. To deny that Jesus is the Christ is to deny the Son of God, for the Christ is the incarnate Son; and to deny the Son of God is to deny the Father also, for the incarnate Son is the Revelation of the Father; and not only so, but to deny the Son is to cut one's self off from the Father, for "no one knoweth the Father but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him." To emphasize this great truth St. John uses his favourite motive of stating it both negatively and positively. To deny the Son is not to have the Father; to confess the Son is to have the Father. Note the solemn asyndeta. There is not a single connecting particle in verses 22-24; the sentences fall on the ear like minute-guns. "Every one that denieth." There is no exception. Even an apostle, if he denies that Jesus is the Christ. thereby also loses all possession of the Father. The history of philosophy verifies the statement. Deism has ever a tendency to end in pantheism or atheism.
Every one who denieth the Son not only does that, but οὐδέ doth not possess the Father. To deny that Jesus is the Christ is to deny the Son of God, for the Christ is the incarnate Son; and to deny the Son of God is to deny the Father also, for the incarnate Son is the Revelation of the Father; and not only so, but to deny the Son is to cut one's self off from the Father, for "no one knoweth the Father but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him." To emphasize this great truth St. John uses his favourite motive of stating it both negatively and positively. To deny the Son is not to have the Father; to confess the Son is to have the Father. Note the solemn asyndeta. There is not a single connecting particle in verses 22-24; the sentences fall on the ear like minute-guns. "Every one that denieth." There is no exception. Even an apostle, if he denies that Jesus is the Christ. thereby also loses all possession of the Father. The history of philosophy verifies the statement. Deism has ever a tendency to end in pantheism or atheism.
Abide in Him
24Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown
24. Let that--truth respecting the Father and the Son, regarded as a seed not merely dropped in, but having taken root (1Jo 3:9).
ye--in the Greek standing emphatically at the beginning of the sentence. YE, therefore, acknowledge the Son, and so shall ye have the Father also (1Jo 2:23).
from the beginning--from the time of your first hearing the Gospel.
remain--Translate as before, "abide."
ye also--in your turn, as distinguished from "that which ye have heard," the seed abiding in you. Compare 1Jo 2:27, "the anointing abideth in you ... ye shall abide in Him." Having taken into us the living seed of the truth concerning the Father and the Son, we become transformed into the likeness of Him whose seed we have taken into us.
24. Let that--truth respecting the Father and the Son, regarded as a seed not merely dropped in, but having taken root (1Jo 3:9).
ye--in the Greek standing emphatically at the beginning of the sentence. YE, therefore, acknowledge the Son, and so shall ye have the Father also (1Jo 2:23).
from the beginning--from the time of your first hearing the Gospel.
remain--Translate as before, "abide."
ye also--in your turn, as distinguished from "that which ye have heard," the seed abiding in you. Compare 1Jo 2:27, "the anointing abideth in you ... ye shall abide in Him." Having taken into us the living seed of the truth concerning the Father and the Son, we become transformed into the likeness of Him whose seed we have taken into us.
The Pulpit Commentary
Exhortation to abide in the truth and in God.
The οὖν of the T.R. must certainly be rejected. The ὑμεῖς placed first marks the antithesis, "as for you," as distinct from the antichrists. With singular caprice the Authorized Version renders St. John's favourite verb, μένειν, in three different ways in this one verse—"abide," "remain," "continue;" thereby losing the emphasis of the repetition: "Let the good seed abide in your hearts; not be snatched away by the evil one. Then not only will it abide, but ye also καὶ ὑμεῖς will abide in the Son, and therefore with the Father." From the beginning; when they first heard the gospel, as distinct from what they have since heard from false teachers.
Exhortation to abide in the truth and in God.
The οὖν of the T.R. must certainly be rejected. The ὑμεῖς placed first marks the antithesis, "as for you," as distinct from the antichrists. With singular caprice the Authorized Version renders St. John's favourite verb, μένειν, in three different ways in this one verse—"abide," "remain," "continue;" thereby losing the emphasis of the repetition: "Let the good seed abide in your hearts; not be snatched away by the evil one. Then not only will it abide, but ye also καὶ ὑμεῖς will abide in the Son, and therefore with the Father." From the beginning; when they first heard the gospel, as distinct from what they have since heard from false teachers.
25And this is the promise that he hath promised us, even eternal life.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown
25. this is the promise--Eternal life shall be the permanent consummation of thus abiding in the Son and in the Father (1Jo 2:24).
he--Greek, "Himself," Christ, "the Son" (compare 1Jo 1:1).
promised--(Joh 3:15, 36; 6:40, 47, 57; 17:2, 3).
25. this is the promise--Eternal life shall be the permanent consummation of thus abiding in the Son and in the Father (1Jo 2:24).
he--Greek, "Himself," Christ, "the Son" (compare 1Jo 1:1).
promised--(Joh 3:15, 36; 6:40, 47, 57; 17:2, 3).
The Pulpit Commentary
And the promise which he promised us is this, even the eternal life. Αὐτός is Christ; αὕτη looks forward to "the eternal life," not backwards to the abiding in the Father (Joh_3:16; Joh_5:24; Joh_6:40, Joh_6:54). Τὴν ζωὴν τὴν αἰώνιον is in the accusative by attraction to ἥν. "What St. John would have us feel is this, that there can be no promise to compare with this—that we should share the eternal life, the life of God.… We often speak as if people were to be paid for being good; not as if the being good were itself God's highest gift and blessing" (Maurice). The reading ὑμῖν (B) for ἡμῖν is worthy of notice. In verses 16, 17 St. John gives two reasons for shunning the world: because
(1) the world is alien to the Father;
(2) it is passing away.
So here he gives two for holding fast the truth originally delivered to them: because the truth leads
(1) to fellowship with God;
(2) to eternal life.
And the promise which he promised us is this, even the eternal life. Αὐτός is Christ; αὕτη looks forward to "the eternal life," not backwards to the abiding in the Father (Joh_3:16; Joh_5:24; Joh_6:40, Joh_6:54). Τὴν ζωὴν τὴν αἰώνιον is in the accusative by attraction to ἥν. "What St. John would have us feel is this, that there can be no promise to compare with this—that we should share the eternal life, the life of God.… We often speak as if people were to be paid for being good; not as if the being good were itself God's highest gift and blessing" (Maurice). The reading ὑμῖν (B) for ἡμῖν is worthy of notice. In verses 16, 17 St. John gives two reasons for shunning the world: because
(1) the world is alien to the Father;
(2) it is passing away.
So here he gives two for holding fast the truth originally delivered to them: because the truth leads
(1) to fellowship with God;
(2) to eternal life.
26These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown
26. These things--(1Jo 2:18-25).
have I written--resumed from 1Jo 2:21 and 1Jo 2:14.
seduce you--that is, are trying to seduce or lead you into error.
26. These things--(1Jo 2:18-25).
have I written--resumed from 1Jo 2:21 and 1Jo 2:14.
seduce you--that is, are trying to seduce or lead you into error.
The Pulpit Commentary
resumes for a moment and concludes the section respecting antichrists. "These things" refers to what precedes, especially 1Jn_2:18-23, as distinct from what now follows. The present participle τῶν πλανώντων indicates the continual attempt of these false teachers to lead the "little children" astray. Ἔγραψα, as in 1Jn_2:21, is the "epistolary aorist" (see on 2Jn_1:4).
resumes for a moment and concludes the section respecting antichrists. "These things" refers to what precedes, especially 1Jn_2:18-23, as distinct from what now follows. The present participle τῶν πλανώντων indicates the continual attempt of these false teachers to lead the "little children" astray. Ἔγραψα, as in 1Jn_2:21, is the "epistolary aorist" (see on 2Jn_1:4).
27But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown
27. But--Greek, "And you (contrasting the believing readers with the seducers; the words 'and you' stand prominent, the construction of the sentence following being altered, and no verb agreeing with 'and you' until 'need not') ... the anointing," &c. (resumed from 1Jo 2:20).
received of him--(Joh 1:16). So we "are unto God a sweet savor of Christ."
abideth in you--He tacitly thus admonishes them to say, when tempted by seducers, "The anointing abideth in us; we do not need a teacher [for we have the Holy Spirit as our teacher, Jr 31:34; Joh 6:45; 16:13]; it teaches us the truth; in that teaching we will abide" [Bengel].
and--and therefore. God is sufficient for them who are taught of Him; they are independent of all others, though, of course, not declining the Christian counsel of faithful ministers. "Mutual communication is not set aside, but approved of, in the case of those who are partakers of the anointing in one body" [Bengel].
the same anointing--which ye once for all received, and which now still abides in you.
of--"concerning."
all things--essential to salvation; the point under discussion. Not that the believer is made infallible, for no believer here receives the Spirit in all its fulness, but only the measure needful for keeping him from soul-destroying error. So the Church, though having the Spirit in her, is not infallible (for many fallible members can never make an infallible whole), but is kept from ever wholly losing the saving truth.
no lie--as Antichristian teaching.
ye shall abide in him--(1Jo 2:24, end); even as "the anointing abideth in you." The oldest manuscripts read the imperative, "abide in Him."
27. But--Greek, "And you (contrasting the believing readers with the seducers; the words 'and you' stand prominent, the construction of the sentence following being altered, and no verb agreeing with 'and you' until 'need not') ... the anointing," &c. (resumed from 1Jo 2:20).
received of him--(Joh 1:16). So we "are unto God a sweet savor of Christ."
abideth in you--He tacitly thus admonishes them to say, when tempted by seducers, "The anointing abideth in us; we do not need a teacher [for we have the Holy Spirit as our teacher, Jr 31:34; Joh 6:45; 16:13]; it teaches us the truth; in that teaching we will abide" [Bengel].
and--and therefore. God is sufficient for them who are taught of Him; they are independent of all others, though, of course, not declining the Christian counsel of faithful ministers. "Mutual communication is not set aside, but approved of, in the case of those who are partakers of the anointing in one body" [Bengel].
the same anointing--which ye once for all received, and which now still abides in you.
of--"concerning."
all things--essential to salvation; the point under discussion. Not that the believer is made infallible, for no believer here receives the Spirit in all its fulness, but only the measure needful for keeping him from soul-destroying error. So the Church, though having the Spirit in her, is not infallible (for many fallible members can never make an infallible whole), but is kept from ever wholly losing the saving truth.
no lie--as Antichristian teaching.
ye shall abide in him--(1Jo 2:24, end); even as "the anointing abideth in you." The oldest manuscripts read the imperative, "abide in Him."
The Pulpit Commentary
Parallel to 1Jn_2:24, but stating as a fact what is there given as a command. The emphatic ὑμεῖς again marks the emphatic contrast between St. John's readers and the antichrists. Απ ̓ αὐτοῦ means "from Christ" (verse 20). The indicative μένει states what ought to be true of them, and is a delicate equivalent to μενέτω (verse 24). The anointing of Christ τὸ χρίσμα αὐτου abides with them as a permanent gift, and renders further apostolic teaching unnecessary. It is quite a mistake to suppose that the superfluous teaching refers to the antichrists. The ideal to which the Christian must aspire is the being led into all truth by the Spirit; he will need no human teachers then (see the remarkable parallel to this in Jer_31:33, and the quotation of it in Heb_8:10, Heb_8:11). The construction in the middle of the verse is amphibolous. We may take καὶ ἀληθές ἐστὶν either as the apodosis of ὠς ("as his anointing teacheth you… so it is true") or as a continuation of the protasis, which is resumed by καθώς ("as his anointing teacheth you… and is true… and even as"). Thereafter is better. The emphatic "and is no lie" is thoroughly Johannine (see on verse 23). The conclusion of the verse is doubtful also. The reading μένετε is certainly preferable to μενεῖτε; but μένετε may be indicative like μένει in the first clause, or imperative like μένετε in the next verse. The latter is more probable.
Parallel to 1Jn_2:24, but stating as a fact what is there given as a command. The emphatic ὑμεῖς again marks the emphatic contrast between St. John's readers and the antichrists. Απ ̓ αὐτοῦ means "from Christ" (verse 20). The indicative μένει states what ought to be true of them, and is a delicate equivalent to μενέτω (verse 24). The anointing of Christ τὸ χρίσμα αὐτου abides with them as a permanent gift, and renders further apostolic teaching unnecessary. It is quite a mistake to suppose that the superfluous teaching refers to the antichrists. The ideal to which the Christian must aspire is the being led into all truth by the Spirit; he will need no human teachers then (see the remarkable parallel to this in Jer_31:33, and the quotation of it in Heb_8:10, Heb_8:11). The construction in the middle of the verse is amphibolous. We may take καὶ ἀληθές ἐστὶν either as the apodosis of ὠς ("as his anointing teacheth you… so it is true") or as a continuation of the protasis, which is resumed by καθώς ("as his anointing teacheth you… and is true… and even as"). Thereafter is better. The emphatic "and is no lie" is thoroughly Johannine (see on verse 23). The conclusion of the verse is doubtful also. The reading μένετε is certainly preferable to μενεῖτε; but μένετε may be indicative like μένει in the first clause, or imperative like μένετε in the next verse. The latter is more probable.
28And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown
28. little children--Greek, "little sons," as in 1Jo 2:12; believers of every stage and age.
abide in him--Christ. John repeats his monition with a loving appellation, as a father addressing dear children.
when--literally, "if"; the uncertainty is not as to the fact, but the time.
appear--Greek, "be manifested."
we--both writer and readers.
ashamed before him--literally, "from Him"; shrink back from Him ashamed. Contrast "boldness in the day of judgment," 1Jo 4:17; compare 1Jo 3:21; 5:14. In the Apocalypse (written, therefore, Bengel thinks, subsequently), Christ's coming is represented as put off to a greater distance.
28. little children--Greek, "little sons," as in 1Jo 2:12; believers of every stage and age.
abide in him--Christ. John repeats his monition with a loving appellation, as a father addressing dear children.
when--literally, "if"; the uncertainty is not as to the fact, but the time.
appear--Greek, "be manifested."
we--both writer and readers.
ashamed before him--literally, "from Him"; shrink back from Him ashamed. Contrast "boldness in the day of judgment," 1Jo 4:17; compare 1Jo 3:21; 5:14. In the Apocalypse (written, therefore, Bengel thinks, subsequently), Christ's coming is represented as put off to a greater distance.
The Pulpit Commentary
And now, summing up the whole section (1Jn_2:18-28). "If he shall be manifested" expresses no uncertainty as to the fact of Christ's appearing; the uncertainty is in the time. In all these cases the point is the result of the act, not the time of it. The graphic αἰσχυνθῶμεν ἀπ αὐτοῦ expresses the shrinking away in shame from his presence. The παρουσία (see on 2Th_2:8) is introduced without explanation as a well-known belief.
And now, summing up the whole section (1Jn_2:18-28). "If he shall be manifested" expresses no uncertainty as to the fact of Christ's appearing; the uncertainty is in the time. In all these cases the point is the result of the act, not the time of it. The graphic αἰσχυνθῶμεν ἀπ αὐτοῦ expresses the shrinking away in shame from his presence. The παρουσία (see on 2Th_2:8) is introduced without explanation as a well-known belief.
29If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is born of him.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown
29. The heading of the second division of the Epistle: "God is righteous; therefore, every one that doeth righteousness is born of Him." Love is the grand feature and principle of "righteousness" selected for discussion, 1Jo 2:29-3:3.
If ye know ... ye know--distinct Greek verbs: "if ye are aware (are in possession of the knowledge) ... ye discern or apprehend also that," &c. Ye are already aware that God ("He" includes both "the Father," of whom the believer is born (end of this verse, and 1Jo 3:1), and "the Son," 1Jo 2:1, 23) is righteous, ye must necessarily, thereby, perceive also the consequence of that truth, namely, "that everyone that doeth righteousness (and he alone; literally, the righteousness such as the righteous God approves) is born of Him." The righteous produceth the righteous. We are never said to be born again of Christ, but of God, with whom Christ is one. Hollaz in Alford defines the righteousness of God, "It is the divine energy by whose power God wills and does all things which are conformable to His eternal law, prescribes suitable laws to His creatures, fulfils His promises to men, rewards the good, and punishes the ungodly."
doeth--"For the graces (virtues) are practical, and have their being in being produced (in being exercised); for when they have ceased to act, or are only about to act, they have not even being" [OECUMENIUS]. "God is righteous, and therefore the source of righteousness; when then a man doeth righteousness, we know that the source of his righteousness is God, that consequently he has acquired by new birth from God that righteousness which he had not by nature. We argue from his doing righteousness, to his being born of God. The error of Pelagians is to conclude that doing righteousness is a condition of becoming a child of God" [Alford most truly]. Compare Lu 7:47, 50: Her much love evinced that her sins were already forgiven; not, were the condition of her sins being forgiven.
29. The heading of the second division of the Epistle: "God is righteous; therefore, every one that doeth righteousness is born of Him." Love is the grand feature and principle of "righteousness" selected for discussion, 1Jo 2:29-3:3.
If ye know ... ye know--distinct Greek verbs: "if ye are aware (are in possession of the knowledge) ... ye discern or apprehend also that," &c. Ye are already aware that God ("He" includes both "the Father," of whom the believer is born (end of this verse, and 1Jo 3:1), and "the Son," 1Jo 2:1, 23) is righteous, ye must necessarily, thereby, perceive also the consequence of that truth, namely, "that everyone that doeth righteousness (and he alone; literally, the righteousness such as the righteous God approves) is born of Him." The righteous produceth the righteous. We are never said to be born again of Christ, but of God, with whom Christ is one. Hollaz in Alford defines the righteousness of God, "It is the divine energy by whose power God wills and does all things which are conformable to His eternal law, prescribes suitable laws to His creatures, fulfils His promises to men, rewards the good, and punishes the ungodly."
doeth--"For the graces (virtues) are practical, and have their being in being produced (in being exercised); for when they have ceased to act, or are only about to act, they have not even being" [OECUMENIUS]. "God is righteous, and therefore the source of righteousness; when then a man doeth righteousness, we know that the source of his righteousness is God, that consequently he has acquired by new birth from God that righteousness which he had not by nature. We argue from his doing righteousness, to his being born of God. The error of Pelagians is to conclude that doing righteousness is a condition of becoming a child of God" [Alford most truly]. Compare Lu 7:47, 50: Her much love evinced that her sins were already forgiven; not, were the condition of her sins being forgiven.
The Pulpit Commentary
This verse forms a bridge between the two main divisions of the Epistle. The coming of Christ suggests the righteousness of Christ; for it is as the righteous Judge that he is coming, and those who would not be ashamed to meet him at his coming must be righteous also. Once more (1Jn_2:27) we are in doubt between indicative and imperative: γινώσκετε, in spite of the preceding μένετε and following ἴδετε, is probably indicative. To know that God is righteous is to perceive that every doer of his τήν righteousness is a son of God (not of Christ; we are nowhere in Scripture said to be born of Christ). To partake of that righteousness which is God's nature is proof of birth from him. With ποιεῖν τὴν δικαιοσύνην, compare ποιεῖν τὴν ἀληθείαν (1Jn_1:6; Joh_3:21). Righteousness must be shown in conduct; mere desire to be righteous will not suffice. And the conduct must be habitual ὁ ποιῶν not ὁ ποιήσας; a single act of righteousness will not suffice. Note to come to know (by experience) that who the change from εἰδῆτε to γινώσκετε.To ever habitually acts righteously is God' know (intuitively) that God is righteous is offspring.
This verse forms a bridge between the two main divisions of the Epistle. The coming of Christ suggests the righteousness of Christ; for it is as the righteous Judge that he is coming, and those who would not be ashamed to meet him at his coming must be righteous also. Once more (1Jn_2:27) we are in doubt between indicative and imperative: γινώσκετε, in spite of the preceding μένετε and following ἴδετε, is probably indicative. To know that God is righteous is to perceive that every doer of his τήν righteousness is a son of God (not of Christ; we are nowhere in Scripture said to be born of Christ). To partake of that righteousness which is God's nature is proof of birth from him. With ποιεῖν τὴν δικαιοσύνην, compare ποιεῖν τὴν ἀληθείαν (1Jn_1:6; Joh_3:21). Righteousness must be shown in conduct; mere desire to be righteous will not suffice. And the conduct must be habitual ὁ ποιῶν not ὁ ποιήσας; a single act of righteousness will not suffice. Note to come to know (by experience) that who the change from εἰδῆτε to γινώσκετε.To ever habitually acts righteously is God' know (intuitively) that God is righteous is offspring.
THE HOLY BIBLE
1 John
Chapter 2
Translated out of the original tongues, and with the former translations diligently compared and revised.
KING JAMES VERSION
HOLY
BIBLE
BIBLE
KING JAMES VERSION
TAP THE BIBLE TO OPEN IT
“Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.” — PSALM 119:105