1 John 2
Woods1 John 2:1-2
JESUS OUR
1 My little children, these things write I unto you that ye may not sin.–The words of this section are to be construed and considered along with the matters set forth in chapter 1. It should be remembered that when John wrote, the chapter and verse divisions now characteristic of the text were not there. This section was designated to show, (1) the means by which one is enabled to walk in the light; (2) the conditions upon which for-giveness is available, viz., (a) a confession of sins and (b) the forsaking of them.
The chapter begins with a term of endearment: “My little children . . .” The apostle John, when he wrote these words, was an old man, and the mode of address is such as might be expected from an aged one to those near and dear and much younger. There are two Greek words translated by the phrase “little chil-dren” in the Epistle. The first of these, teknia, plural diminutive of teknon. occurs here and at 1 John 2:12; 1 John 2:28; 1 John 3:18; 1 John 4:4; 1 John 5:21, and only elsewhere, in the New Testament, in John 13:33, where the Lord used it, and which use likely occasioned John’s adoption of it here. It is a word which, when figuratively used, designates the spiritual relation of children to a father in the faith. (See 1 Corinthians 4:15, where the idea, but not the word, occurs.) The second word translated by the phrase “little children” is paidia, occurring in `1 Joh 2:13; John 2:18. This word denotes the age and characteristics of childhood, and, as here used, conveys the kind and tender address of age to youth, of authority to subordinates, of wisdom to ignorance.
“These things” embrace the matters which were written in the closing portion of chapter 1, the purpose of which was to lead the saints to forsake all sin. “That ye may not sin” is a negative pur-pose clause in the aorist tense, and the apostle thus warned against even isolated acts of sin. Fellowship with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ, and with all saints depends on walking in the light, and only those walk in the light who, as far as they are able, abstain from sinful conduct. Thus, those to whom John wrote stood in relation to him as his “little children” in the Lord. He has written to them for the purpose of warning against any participation in sinful acts. But what if some, in spite of such counsel, inadvertently fell into sin? Their case was not hopeless.
And if any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:–Though the followers of the Lord are ever to strive to avoid any participation in sinful activity, when such occurs, they are not to despair; they have an “Advocate,” Jesus Christ the righteous. The verb “have” here is, significantly, in the present tense (echomen), thus literally, “We keep on having” an ever-present remedy for the isolated acts of sin which, through weakness, ignorance, and inadvertence, we commit. An “Advocate” is a lawyer or an attorney, whose function it is to represent one in court. Jesus thus represents us in the court of heaven, pleading our cause and advocating our case before the bar of God’s divine justice. As our Advocate, he is “with” (pros) the Father, thus at his side, and ever present to afford us adequate and constant representation. There is no article be-fore the word “righteousness” in the Greek text.
The meaning is, Jesus, a righteous one, pleads the cause of unrighteous ones. Only the pleading of such an Advocate could possibly avail. An advocate himself in need of intercession could not hope to influence the great Judge in behalf of others.
2 And he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the whole world.–To “propitiate” is to appease and render favorable, to conciliate. The word “propitia-tion,” in the text, occurs only here and in 1 John 40:10, in the New Testament, though other forms of it are in Luke 18:13 ; Romans 3:25; and Hebrews 2:17. Here is announced but one of the many aspects of the death of Christ in our behalf. (1) He propitiates (Hilasmos) the Father, thus rendering him favorable toward us. (2) He reconciles (katallasso) us to God, enabling us to be at peace with him. (Romans 5:11; 2 Corinthians 5:18-19.) (3) As a ransom (apolutrosis) for us, he paid the debt, permitting us to go free from the thralldom and bondage of sin. The blessings of this propitiation extend to the whole world and have been made available to all mankind. Here is positive and undeniable evidence of the falsity of any system of theology which would limit the benefits of the atonement, or deny its blessings to any portion of the human family. Martin Luther well said, “It is a patent fact that thou too art a part of the whole world; so that thine heart cannot deceive itself and think, the Lord died for Peter and Paul, but not for me.” No man is outside the mercy of God, except as he deliberately places himself there through the repudiation of the plan which was evolved to save him.
This entire section, 1:5-2:2, is a closely-knit and well-ordered argument, designed to reveal the blessings available to us through Christ. (1) There is no darkness in God, for he is light. (1 John 1:5.) (2) If we affirm that we have fellowship with him, yet walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth. (1 John 1:6.) (3) If we walk in the light, (a) we enjoy such fellowship, and (b) the blood of Jesus Christ constantly cleanses us from any sin which, through weak-ness of the flesh, or the infirmities of our nature we commit. (1 John 1:7.) (4) The truth is in us if we acknowledge our sins. (1 John 1:8-9.) (5) Shall we then disregard all warnings against sin on the ground that the blood of Christ operates to cleanse us? God forbid. (1 John 2:1-2.) The purpose of the entire section is to warn against this very thing. Avoid sin when possible. But if into it you fall, do not despair. Rely on your Advocate who effectively pleads your case in heaven!
It is significant that John did not say, “Ye have an Advocate. .” nor “Ye have me for an Advocate,” but “We have an Advocate. .,” thus including himself among those in need of the interces-sion before the throne of grace which Jesus alone can supply. Walking in the light requires: (1) fellowship with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ; (2) acceptance of the propitiation pro-vided through the shed blood of the Lord; (3) obedience to the Lord’s commandments. This third condition, of walking in the light, John develops in the section to follow.
1 John 2:3-6
TESTS OF THE
3 And hereby we know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.–“Hereby” (en toutoi), literally, “in this,” a phrase often used by the apostle, and occurring at 1 John 2:5; 3:16, 19 4:2, 13; 5:2. It refers to the clause, “If we keep his command-ments.” “Keep,” here, is present subjunctive, thus, “If we keep on keeping his commandments.” We are informed here that it is possible for us to “know that we know him.” How, or in what way? If we keep his commandments! To know him is to have far more than an acquaintance with his nature it is to enter into the most intimate relationship with him as his child. It is possible to claim a knowledge of God and of Christ and to be deceived. Paul writes of those who “profess that they know God; but by their works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.” (Titus 1:16.) One does not know God who does not conform to his will.
We may believe intel-lectually that there is a God; we may affirm the truth of his exist-ence, the facts of his attributes, the reality of his works in nature. But only those who have wholly committed their wills to his know him in his saving power. “And this is life eternal, but they should know thee the only true God, and him whom thou didst send, even Jesus Christ.” (John 17:3.) If it be asked which commandments constitute the test here submitted, the answer is, All of them! Any commandment we are disposed to break because of our unwilling-ness to bend our wills to his provides the occasion which demon-strates lack of full knowledge of him. This is the “one thing” which we “lack” and which, like the young ruler’s riches, will close the door of heaven in our face.
4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his com-mandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him; –A conclusion drawn from the foregoing premises, and a further affirmation of the truth above expressed. The Gnostics boasted of their superior knowledge and spiritual insight and maintained their ac-quaintance with the Lord despite the fact that they kept not his commandments. With reference to all such the apostle solemnly declares, “He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.” The verbs in the Greek text are in the present tense. He who keeps on say-ing, I know him, and yet keeps not on keeping his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. Far from actually and really knowing God, those who refuse to do his will are, in addition to being disobedient characters, liars and without truth. The words “He is a liar” are more emphatic than “we lie,” of John 1:6, and “we deceive ourselves,” of 1:8.
His status is not simply that of one who is guilty of a single falsehood, or one who is innocently de-ceived; his acts of falsehood have become embedded in his character and he is, essentially, a liar. . Such a one is demonstrating the nature and character of his father, the devil, who is a liar from the beginning. (John 8:44.) It was evidently no uncommon thing for men, at the time John wrote, who had adopted the per-nicious doctrine of the Gnostics to affirm that they, though will-fully guilty of sinful acts, were not thereby corrupted. Some of these men maintained that they were no more polluted by sin than gold is by the mire into which it might fall.
As shocking as the foregoing theology is, it has its modern counterparts: Those false teachers, while denying any contamina-tion from sin, did admit the fact of sin in their lives. There are those today who deny both the sin and the contamination. A prominent denominational preacher, in a tract entitled, “Do a Christian’s Sins Damn His Soul?” wrote: “We take the position that a Christian’s sins do not damn his soul. The way a Christian lives, what he says, his character, his conduct, or his attitude toward other people have nothing whatever to do with the salva-tion of his soul. . . . All the prayers a man may pray, all the Bibles he may read, all the churches he may belong to, all the services he may attend, all the sermons he may practice, all the debts he may pay, all the ordinances he may observe, all the laws he may keep, all the benevolent acts he may perform will not make his soul one whit safer; and all the sins he may commit from idolatry to murder will not make his soul in any more danger. . . . The way a man lives has nothing whatsoever to do with this salvation. Such theology, whether ancient or modern, is precisely in principle what John condemned when he affirmed that those who say they know him, yet do not keep his command-ments, are liars.
- But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily hath the love of God been perfected.–“Keepeth his word,” of verse 5, is synonymous with “keeping his commandments” of verse 4. Here, as in 1 John 1:7; 1 John 1:9, the opposite of that immediately preceding is stated, and the thought advanced one step further. The “love of God” here contemplated is not God’s love for us, but our love for God, and the affirmation of the apostle is that he who keeps God’s word has his love for God perfected. “Perfected” is perfect passive indicative of teleioo, to stand complete. Thus, he who keeps the commandments of God matures his love, for such is the way in which love for God manifests itself. “For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.” (1 John 5:3.) It is idle for one to claim love for God while neglecting or refusing to do his commandments. Such is the acid test of one’s love.
Hereby we know that we are in him:–i.e., by keeping his word. The words “in him” indicate a relationship of the most intimate nature. The phrase is a summary of all the blessings available from God. To know God we must keep his word; those who keep his word love him; but those who love him are in him. Fruit bearing produced as the result of love for God is evidence of our union with him. “Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; so neither can ye except ye abide in me. I am the vine, ye are the branches: he that abideth in me, and I in him, the same beareth much fruit; for apart from me ye can do nothing.” (John 15:4-5.)
6 He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also to walk even as he walked.–There is here, as in verse 4, a boast-ful attitude hinted at. He who represents himself as abiding in the Lord has the definite obligation to “walk even as he walked,” i.e., in the light, in fellowship with God, in keeping his commandments. In this manner alone does one demonstrate the soundness of his claim and the validity of his profession. “Ought,” from opheilo, to be in debt, denotes the moral obligation here to exhibit the basis of one’s profession. To walk as Christ walked is to follow him as the perfect model and guide that he is. Nothing less than this will meet the demands of the case. The walk of the Lord which we are to imitate is, obviously, to be found in the reli-gious, moral, and spiritual activities of his life on earth.
There is no reference here to the miraculous powers which Jesus exhibited on earth. As Martin Luther fittingly remarks, it “is not Christ’s walking on the sea that we are to imitate, but his ordinary walk.” The verb “walk” is figuratively used to denote the activity which must characterize us as children of God. Jesus used it in this sense (John 8:12; John 12:35), as did Paul (Ephesians 2:10; Colossians 3:7; Romans 6:4). But how did Christ walk? The answer is to be found in the whole of the things recorded concerning him in the sacred volume. These words sum up the life of Christ on earth.
1 John 2:7-11
NEW AND OLD
7 Beloved, no new commandment write I unto you, but an old commandment which ye had from the beginning: the old commandment is the word which ye heard.–The apostle had just commanded his readers to walk as Christ walked. (Verse 6.) This walk was grounded in, and originated in, love. Hence, the commandment to love God was not a new one, i.e., a novel, unusual thing. These to whom John wrote had been aware of this obligation, yea, had in some measure followed it from the beginning of their Christian life. Far from being a new thing, this commandment was essential to their salvation from sin; they were already in possession of it; they had possessed it from the beginning. This commandment was the “word” which they had “heard.” The “word” sums up the message they had received; “heard” indicates the manner of reception. They had “heard” it; it therefore came to them through preaching. They heard it, and it was at the beginning of their Christian experience .
8 Again, a new commandment write I unto you, which thing is true in him and in you; because the darkness is passing away, and the true light already shineth.—Through the commandment to love is as old as the race (1 John 3:1 ff, particularly verses 11, 12), from another aspect it is always new. To walk as the Lord walked and hence to comply with the requirements of the “old commandment” is as old as religion, but each new compliance therewith constitutes a new and fresh approach thereto. Love, as old as man, becomes new with each experience. It was the Lord himself who designated the command to love one another as a new one: “A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another; even as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.” (John 13:34.) The newness was not merely or solely in the command to love; the law and the prophets required this. (Deuteronomy 10:19; Micah 6:8, etc.) It was the measure or extent of the love that made it new: “even as I have loved you.” Never before the Christian age had such a love been required of man. It was henceforth to be a condition precedent to discipleship; indeed, the badge and token thereof: “A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another; even as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.” (John 13:34-35.)
The darkness of ignorance, superstition, bitterness, and hate was passing; the “true light,” which radiated from the Lord, was shining, thus dispelling the gloom and darkness of unbelief. The text does not affirm that the darkness had already passed. Then, as now, there was much error in the world. But, as the truth was preached, the light was extended, and the darkness receded as man came into the refulgence thereof. Jesus said, “And this is the judgment, that the light is come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light; for their works were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, and cometh not to the light, lest his works should be reproved. But he that doeth the truth, cometh to the light, that his works may be made manifest, that they have been wrought of God.” (John 3:19-21.) “Again, therefore Jesus spake unto them saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.” (John 8:12; cf. 1 John 1:4:10.)
9 He that saith he is in the light and hateth his brother, is in the darkness even until now.–Another hypothetical case, of which there are many in the Epistle (1:6, 8, 10; 2:9; 4:20), is stated, and the inconsistency between the profession and the fact pointed out. He who affects to be in the light, i.e., the light of truth about which the apostle had been writing, yet hates his brother is, notwithstanding his pretension, in darkness. The brother of this passage is a fellow believer. He who hates one of a common origin and with the same loving Father is, despite his claim to being in the light in darkness, “even until now,” i.e., up to the present. Jesus commanded us to love one another (John 15:17); he made love the badge of discipleship (John 13:35); and without it, one remains in darkness–the element which characterizes all away from God. It is significant that the apostle leaves no middle ground either here or elsewhere in the contrasts which he draws between light and darkness, right and wrong, truth and error.
With him, on the one side is God, and on the other, the world; here is life, there is death; here love, there hate; there is no common ground. Such is in harmony with the Lord’s affirmation: “He that is not against you is for you” (Luke 9:50, and the converse, “He that is not with me is against me” (Luke 11:23).
One is either for God, in which case the principle of .his life is love, the sphere in which he moves light, and the desire of his heart obedience; or, he is against him, in which event, though he may hide his hatred, and craftily conceal his worldliness and evil, the fountain from which his moral life emerges is not God, but the world–he is yet in death, he loves nothing but himself, and his proper element is darkness. The word hate (miseo) here does not indicate the degree, but merely the fact of such a disposition. When it exists in any degree, he who manifests it is yet in the darkness. Let him who holds malice in his heart against a brother in Christ recognize his position and see the folly of pretension which his conduct belies. He deceives no one by his allegation.
10 He that loveth his brother abideth in the light, and there is no occasion of stumbling in him.–The verb “abideth” means more than merely being in the light; to abide is to remain (Menei), and the tense (present indicative active) reveals a continuous action rather than a temporary state. He who loves his brother is evermore remaining in the light; the fact of the love guarantees continuation in the sphere. Moreover, the force of the tense indicates that he has not only entered upon this sphere he has settled down into it as if it were his home. It is, of course, unnecessary to add that love, with John, indeed with all of the New Testament writers, is much more than affection. Here, it is made to stand for all the graces which adorn the character of the Christian, all the duties owed to those who are our brethren in Christ. This comprehensive aspect of the term is observable throughout the apostle’s writings. “My little children, let us not love in word, neither with the tongue, but in deed and in truth.” (1 John 3:18.) “Hereby we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and do his commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.” (1 John 5:2-3.) The principle is the same as that alluded to by our Lord when he declared that to love God supremely and one’s neighbor as one’s self embraces (in principle) all that is in the law and in the prophets. (Matthew 22:34-40.) He did not by this mean that love for God or man is accepted in lieu of obedience; there is, indeed, no such thing as love apart from obedience. (1 John 5:3.) What is meant is that he who truly loves God and his neighbor will be prompted thereby to discharge his full duty to both.
Not only does one who loves his brother abide in the light, in addition there is no occasion of stumbling in him. An occasion for whose stumbling? His own, or another’s? The verb “stumble” (skandalon) is derived from a word which designates a snare or trap. In Matthew 18:7, it obviously refers to an occasion of stumbling in the way of others. Here, however, the context, and particularly the verse which follows, appears to indicate that John had in mind an occasion of stumbling in one’s own self.
The apostle thus emphasizes here that those who walk in the light and abide in the truth are protected from the snares and pitfalls into which they would otherwise fall: Certainly, one who loves his brother as himself will never find occasion to give expression to the evil passions of envy, malice, hate, and revenge: Those who walk in darkness stumble, because they are unable to see their way; those who walk in the light can recognize, and therefore avoid, the snares which beset their way. One who truly loves his brother will conduct himself in such fashion as to avoid any semblance of friction or difficulty, and will thus neither stumble nor fall in his relationship with him. “Owe no man anything, save to love one another:for he that loveth his neighbor hath fulfilled the law. For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, That shalt not covet, and if there be any other commandment, it is summed up in this word, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself: Love worketh no ill to his neighbor; love therefore is the fulfillment of the law:” (Rom:13:8-10).
11 But he that hateth his brother is in the darkness, and walketh in the darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth, because the darkness hath blinded his eyes.–Three conditions are here affirmed of him who hates his brother: (1) he is “in the darkness”; (2) he “walketh in the darkness”; and (3) he “knoweth not whither he goes,” the reason being that “the darkness hath blinded his eyes.” Such is the fearful status of those who hate their brethren. The inner condition is one of darkness; the outward life is a walk in darkness. The element which is his natural sphere has possessed him; he has partaken of the realm in which he habitually moves: Moreover, he has lost his sense of direction; “He knoweth not whither he goeth:” His way is dark; he neither knows its direction or its end: He is like the insects of Mammoth Cave in Kentucky, which have no eyes, the faculty of sight being so long disused it is gone: The poet Tennyson, in vivid verse, though with reference to sorrow rather than sin, sets forth the fatal result
“But the night has crept into my heart and begun to darken my eyes.”
The state which the apostle describes is all the more fatal because unrecognized by those in it. “They know not, neither do they understand; they walk to and fro in darkness.” (Psalms 82:5.) “Blinded” here is from the same verb and form occurring in 2 Corinthians 4:4 : “In whom the God of this world bath blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not dawn upon them.” Thus the blindness which characterizes the alien is that which possesses him who hates his brother. The grace of love is so basic that he who lacks it is deficient in all the virtues of Christianity. Where it does not exist, no other can.
1 John 2:12-14
LITTLE , YOUNG MEN,
AND FATHERS
The verses which immediately follow, 12, 13, 14, involve matters admittedly difficult, and which have long taxed the ingenuity of Bible students, expositors, and commentators. An analysis reveals that there are six clauses, divided into two sets of three each by the different tenses of the verb grapho, I write. They may be arranged thus
I am writing unto you (grapho):
(a)
children (teknia)
You are forgiven
(b)
fathers
because
You know the Lord
(c)
young men
You have overcome
I have written unto you (egrapsa):
children (paidia)
You know the Father
You are strong, and have overcome
Numerous questions arise, the answers to which are essential to the understanding of this section. (1) Why did John use the present tense, “I write” (grapho), in the first three clauses, and “I have written” (egrapsa), epistolary aorist, in the second three? (2) To what writing does he refer in the first instance? In the second? (3) What is the meaning of the word “children” in the first clause of each of the divisions? (4) Why did he use the word teknia in the first reference to children, and paidia in the second? (5) In what sense is the reference to “fathers” and “young men” to be taken, literal or figurative?
Here, as often elsewhere in the Epistle, the opinions which have been advanced are many, and merely to list them would ex-tend the limits of this commentary far beyond that which the plan justifies. In seeking the answers to these questions, it is not our purpose to burden the reader with views which have accumulated across the years, only to refute them; those interested may exam-ine them at their sources. We shall, instead, set forth the grounds which, after much careful consideration and study, we have adopted as, on the whole, the most reasonable exegesis of the passage.
Why did John use the present, “I write” (grapho), in the first three clauses, and “I wrote” (egrapsa), epistolary aorist, or as it may be rendered in English, “I have written,” in the second? “I write” is from the viewpoint of the writer–as the matter occurred to John as he actually wrote. The “I wrote,” or, as it may be translated, “I have written,” is the viewpoint of the reader. The first reflects the author’s position; the second, his readers. “I write” these matters to you; when you read them, your position will be with reference to that which is written.
To what writing does he refer in the first instance? In the second? In both instances the reference is the same: to the Epistle which he was then writing. Efforts to make one refer to the Epistle, the other to the Gospel which he wrote; or, the first to the whole Epistle, and the second to that which preceded what he was then writing, we reject as unsound. A simpler and more satisfactory conclusion is that both words embrace the same com-position, the entire first Epistle.
What is the meaning of the word “children” in the first clause of each of the divisions? All of John’s readers, so most expositors think. And, that such is the significance of the word in 1 John 2:1 (“My little children, these things I write unto you . . .”) seems certain. But that the word has this significance here, we are disposed to doubt. (a) The designations “children,” “fathers,” and “young men” appear to be a detailed analysis of all his read-ers. There was, it seems, evident definite design on the part of the writer to particularize those addressed. (2) On the assump-tion that “children” embrace the whom of those addressed, who are the “fathers” and the “young men?” (c) Why, if the term is used thus comprehensively, did the writer use two different Greek terms–teknia, paidia–to designate the children? Does not this fact lead to the conclusion that it was the author’s purpose to assign a specific, and therefore, a limited meaning, to the terms used?
On the whole, it seems more in keeping with all the facts to assign to the word “children” a limited significance, and to conclude that those thus addressed were the ones among John’s readers who had but lately obeyed the gospel, and whose sins had accordingly but recently been forgiven. This view is supported by the fact that the reason given why John addressed them par-ticularly is “because your sins are forgiven you for his name’s sake.”
Why were two different Greek words, teknia, paidia, used to designate this particular group? The reason is not immediately apparent. It is obvious, from the context, that both terms describe the same individuals; and this consideration leads to the conclu-sion that the variation was resorted to, not for the purpose of dis-tinguishing between two groups, but to emphasize the different characteristics of the same group. The answer to our question must, therefore, be sought in the difference of meaning in the terms themselves. Teknia, plural of teknion, designates the fact of childhood; paidia, the infancy of those thus designated. The words, in their literal sense, denote those of tender age; and, as here figuratively used, denote those who are babes in Christ.
The first reveals that those thus designated were children the second, that they were infant children. Not literal babies, of course, but those lately born into the family of God. (John 3:3-5; 1 Pet. 2 1, 2.)
In what sense are the words “fathers” and “young men” to be taken, as a literal designation, or a figurative one? If literal, then no elderly men, not fathers, were addressed in this connection by John. In such an instance, no women whatsoever were included. It must, therefore, be obvious that the words “children,” “fathers,” and “young men” were used to describe three different classes of people among John’s readers. The children were the recent con-verts; the young men, those who had reached maturity and were possessed of great spiritual strength in the Lord; and the fathers were those who had been in Christ the longest, and had therefore attained to the greatest spiritual growth.
12 I write unto you, my little children, because your sins are forgiven you for his name’s sake.–Those thus addressed were familiarly styled “little children”; the occasion for the address was that their sins had been forgiven them; and the reason as-signed for their forgiveness was “for his name’s sake.” “For his name’s sake” means on the basis of his name, i.e., God, the Father, forgives on account of Christ’s name and because of his advocacy of our cause. (1 John 2:1.) It is through the name of Christ that we are privileged to approach the Father. “Jesus said unto him, I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one cometh unto the Father, but by me.” (John 14:6.) “And in none other is there salvation: for neither is there any other name under heaven, that is given among men, wherein we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12.) The words “are forgiven” are translated from a Greek per-fect (apheontai), a tense pointing to past action with existing results. “You have been, and consequently stand forgiven of your past, or alien, sins.”
13 I write unto you, fathers, because ye know him who is from the beginning.–As there was a special reason for ad-dressing those who had but lately obeyed the gospel, so John also felt it needful to include instruction for those of more maturity in the Christian life, and who had long been faithful disciples of the Lord. The fathers were, therefore, addressed because “ye know him . . .” The word “know,” as here used, means far more than casual acquaintance. The verb is in the perfect tense (egnokate), “You came to know, and now know,” and describes the rich and full experience which these fathers had with the Lord. He who is “from the beginning” was the word, the second person of the Godhead: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (John 1:1.)
I write unto you, young men, because you have overcome the evil one.–Here, and often elsewhere in the Epistle, as also through the New Testament, the personality of Satan is clearly indicated. Far from being merely or solely an influence, he is revealed as a definite and distinct agent who must be resisted, repelled, and overcome by the saints. (See comments on 1 John 3:8; 1 John 3:10.) Those thus addressed by the apostle had “overcome the evil one.” This they had done by remaining stedfast in the faith and not succumbing to the seductions of the devil. “And this is the victory that hath overcome the world, even our faith.” (1 John 5:4.
I have written unto you, little children, because ye know the Father.–For a full discussion of the various terms used, an analysis of the passage, and reasons assigned for the change in tense here, see above at the beginning of this section. The word “know” here is of the same tense, and has the same significance as in verses 3 and 4, literally, “you have come to know, and now retain this knowledge of the Father.” Such knew him as their Father, because they were his children; they had been adopted into his family, and were by him regarded as such. In verse 12, these alluded to as children are declared to have been forgiven, to know the father. The ideas are correlative and dependent; only those who are forgiven know the Father; only those who know the Father have been forgiven.
14 I have written unto you, fathers, because ye know him who is from the beginning.–He who is from the beginning is the Word (John 1:1-2 1 John 1:1-3); the reference is thus to the pre-existent Christ who occupies eternity. The nature, attri-butes, and characteristics of the Eternal One constitute a profound study; but these mature saints, from long and careful consideration of the facts available to them, had come to possess a knowledge of him who thus bridges the brief span of time before and after which is the eternity without end. It is a subject especially intriguing to those advanced in years and mature of mind.
I have written unto you, young men, because ye are strong, and the word of God abideth in you, and ye have overcome the evil one.–Three characteristics of these young men are men-tioned: (1) They were strong; (2) the word of God abode in them; and (3) they had overcome the evil one. The occasion of their strength was in the fact that the word of God was in them. and the consequence of this indwelling was their triumph over the evil one. In no other fashion may one achieve victory over Satan. Only as the word dwells in us richly (Colossians 3:16), do we become strong in the Lord and in the power of his might (Ephesians 6:10), and are we protected from sinning against God (Psalms 119:11).
1 John 2:15-17
LOVE OF THE WORLD
15 Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world.–Those addressed in the verses immediately preceding –the children, fathers, and young men–though each is com-mended for having triumphed in his respective sphere, were nev-ertheless yet in the world, yet subject to its allurements and temp-tations, yet within the reach of the Evil One. There was, there-fore, need that such an exhortation be given.
What is the “world” here contemplated? How do the “things of the world” differ from the world itself? What is the signifi-cance of the word “love” in this passage? In view of the fact that “God so loved the world” (John 3:16), does the world which he loved differ from that which we are not to love, or is the difference in the “love” which is to be exercised, or both? Obviously, the answers to these questions are essential to any proper exposition of this passage.
The “world” which John’s readers were forbidden to love was not the material universe, God’s original creation (Romans 1:20), the people who inhabit it (John 3:16); the earth (John 1:9), or the visible and tangible elements of our surroundings which are in themselves neither good nor bad. By the world John did not mean the sunshine and the rain, the mountains and the seas, the sunset and the stars, the loveliness of the night, the sparkling freshness of the morning, the sweet song of the birds, or the fra-grance of the flowers. He did not mean the dust from which our bodies are composed, the earth which supplies us with our food, and in whose gentle embrace we must at last eventually rest. Nor does the word “love” denote the tenderness of affection and the warmth of heart which characterize God and man toward those whose attributes encourage and stimulate such feeling. The “world” of this passage is a sphere or cosmos (kosmos) of evil, an order which is opposed to God, and to whose pursuit those who abandon the Lord have dedicated themselves. The “love” which men entertain for this world is evil desire.
The love contemplated in John 3:16 is that of divine compassion and redeeming mercy; here, it is the emotion of selfish desire, of avarice and worldly pride. The love of the Father is an affection grounded in utter selflessness; that which man cherishes for the world is a greedy reaching for its affairs. The “world” which God loves is man-kind that which man is forbidden to love is an evil order or sphere.
But not only did the apostle’s exhortation embrace the “world,” it is extended to include the “things of the world.” The prohibi-tion is exceedingly emphatic: “Love not the world, neither (mede) no not either the things of the world.” The meaning is, Do not love the world, no, nor anything that may be in it. There is, therefore, a distinction drawn between the world and the things in it: a, distinction between the general and the specific, the whole and the particular. We are forbidden to love even a specific or par-ticular part of the world–an exhortation needful then and now. There are those who have repudiated the world, but for one par-ticular, as for example the rich young ruler, who but for his love of riches would have surrendered his life wholly to the Lord. The “one thing” which we “lack”–be it the love of pleasure, of riches, of ease; the attraction of a home, a farm, or a business ; the desire for fame, prominence, and worldly honor, is the particular or specific thing, though we may have repudiated the world as such, which will eventually close the door of heaven in our faces.
If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.–Love for the world and love for the Father are wholly incompatible; they cannot exist in any heart at the same time. “No man can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.” (Matthew 6:24.) The antithesis drawn is the same as that in Romans 8:5 : “For they that are after the flesh mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.” The warning is similar to one from James: “Ye adulteresses, know ye not that friendship of the world is enmity with God? Whosoever therefore would be a friend of the world maketh himself an enemy of God.” (James 4:4.) On the principle here enunciated is the exhortation of Paul: “Wherefore come ye out from among them, and be ye sepa-rate, saith the Lord, and touch no unclean thing; and I will receive you, and will be to you a Father, and ye shall be to me sons and daughters.” (2 Corinthians 6:17-18.)
16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the vainglory of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.–The things of the world have their ori-gin, not in the Father, but in the world of which they are a part and they are designated as (1) the lust of the flesh; (2) the lust of the eyes; and (3) the vainglory of life. The “lust of the flesh” is evil desire which finds its origin in the flesh and through the flesh finds expression. It is a lust after the flesh; but it is more ; the genitive is subjective, the flesh is thus designated as the seat in which the evil desire dwells. The word “flesh” as here used does not denote skin and muscle and tissue; it is used in that darker sense so often seen in Paul’s writings of the animal nature, the source of evil appetites. (See Galatians 5:16-24; Ephesians 2:3; 2 Peter 2:18; Colossians 2:18.) The lusts of the flesh exhibit themselves in the works of the flesh, a catalog of which is listed in Galatians 5:19 ff.
It is significant that John sums up, in this section, the three avenues of approach which Satan, in his efforts to seduce, follows. The appeal which he ever makes is based on (1) carnal desires; desires awakened through the appeal of objects of sight; and (2) vanity, pride, worldly honor. Such was, precisely, the course followed in the seduction of Eve and in the unsuccessful attempt on the Saviour. “And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food (the lust of the flesh), and that it was a delight to the eye (the lust of the eyes), and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise (the vainglory of life), she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat; and she gave also unto her husband with her, and he did eat.” (Gen:3:6.) In similar fashion, and by follow-ing the same procedure, Satan suggested that Jesus, after forty days of fasting, should command the stones to become bread, thus appealing to the lust of the flesh; he showed the Lord all the kingdoms of the world and promised them to him on condition that he do him homage, an appeal to the lust of the eyes; and in bidding the Lord to exercise his powers of divine protection by flinging himself down from the pinnacle of the temple there was an evident appeal to a sense of pride and vainglory which such an achievement, in the breasts of some, would have been certain to create.
17 And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.–The world will pass, and with it every lustful pleasure; but he who does the will of God abides through the ages. The transitoriness of the one–the world–is contrasted with the permanence of the other, the one doing the will of God. God himself is eternal; and those who abide in his will share in his eternal nature. In view of the temporal nature of the world, it is supreme folly for one to cling tenaciously to it, when it will inevitably be dissolved and cease to be. The tense of the word “passeth” is present middle indicative, “is passing away,” the process is even now in operation, and will continue until the present evil age is no more. But, notwithstand-ing its passing, he who does (literally, keeps on doing) the will of the Father, abides unto the ages.
1 John 2:18-29
18 Little children, it is the last hour:–Again we meet with the designation, “little children” (paidia), as in 2:1, 12, 13 ; and the meaning here, as in 2:1, is obviously, the entire body of disciples addressed by the apostles. For the reasons why a more limited significance is to be assigned to the expression in 2:12, 13, see the notes there.
The words “It is the last hour” are to be closely construed with the verses which immediately precede them. The apostle had described the transient nature of the worldly sphere and had pointed out that only those who do the will of the Father shall abide unto the ages. Here, he continues his exhortation by sol-emnly directing attention to the fact that his readers were even then in the period of “the last hour,” and that events known to foretoken it were already appearing.
What is the last hour here referred to? The termination of the Jewish state, so many think; the last hour of the world before the consummation of all things, so others. Both views are erro-neus. The Jewish state had already ended when the Epistle was written, and thus could not have been the “hour” to which the apostle alluded. And, to understand John as affirming that the last hour of the world was imminent in his day is to ascribe to him a position which the passing of the centuries has proved to be un-true. The first view is thus historically incorrect; the second impeaches the inspiration of the writer; and we hence reject both.
Three Greek words are variously used in the New Testament to indicate time, as such. Chronos is time with reference to dura-tion or succession; kairos is time contemplated with reference to events; and hora is time with reference to a fixed date or period. It is the last of these words–hors–which occurs in the text, and the meaning is, therefore, a fixed date or period. The word is of obvious figurative significance, and thus describes a determinate period fixed in the divine mind and the last of the events thus predetermined by the Father. The word designates time, time conceived of as a definite period, this period being the last in the succession of periods similarly determined by deity. It therefore designates the Christian dispensation, the last of the great periods or ages arranged by the Father. (Isaiah 2:2-4; Acts 2:17; Heb. :2.)
And as ye heard that antichrist cometh,–The apostle’s readers were already in possession of information regarding “anti-christ”; they had heard it through the preaching of the writer and others. Those who had been their teachers, among them John himself, had earlier warned of the appearance of this antichrist.
Who, or What, is “antichrist?” The word itself suggests two possible meanings, accordingly as the preposition “anti” used in composition here, is understood to signify (a) over against, or (b) opposed to. If the former, the word denotes one who puts him-self in the place of Christ; if the latter, one who stands in opposi-tion to Christ. The word appears only in the writings of John; here, and in 2:22; 4:3; and 2 John 1:7. His characteristics, as indicated in those verses, are, (1) he is a liar; (2) a deceiver; (3) a denier that Jesus is the Christ; and (4) he refuses to acknowl-edge that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh.
References to a similar individual, in the language of the Lord, and the writings of Paul, enable us to fix his identity more defi-nitely, and indicate that the word combines the two meanings suggested above, viz., one who not only opposes Christ, but who usurps the place of Christ. “For many shall come in my name, saying, I am the Christ; and shall lead many astray.” “For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders; so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect.” (Matthew 24:5; Matthew 24:24.) “Let no man beguile you in any wise; for it will not be, except the falling away come first and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition, he that opposeth and exalteth himself against all that is called God or that is worshipped; so that he sitteth in the temple of God setting himself forth as God.” (2 Thessalonians 2:3-4.) The individual here described is designated as “the man of sin,” and the “son of perdition.” (a) He opposes his will to that of God; (b) he exalts himself against God; (c) he sits in the temple of God; and (d) he sets himself forth as God. He is, moreover, (1) the personification of sin; (2) the son of perdition; (3) a participant in signs and lying wonders, the pur-pose of which is (4) to deceive. Like the antichrist described by John, and the false Christs predicted by the Lord, he seeks to identify himself with deity; he, like them, seeks to deceive, and has arrayed himself against the Lord and his Christ, and opposes them. To the candid mind the conclusion is irresistible that the “man of sin,” whom Paul describes, is identical with the “anti-christ,” to which John refers. And, in the centuries which have passed since these words were penned, no character in history so nearly conforms in minute detail to the representation here given as the pope of Rome!
To deny that these prophecies find fulfillment in him is to close one’s eyes to the facts in the case, utterly to ignore the evidence which obtains, and to reduce Biblical exegesis to mere caprice.
Even now have there arisen many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last hour.–If it be asked why John added that already there had arisen many antichrists (long before the development of the apostasy and the appearance of the first pope), the answer is obvious: while the great antichrist predicted by John and described by Paul had not come, many were evidencing and exhibiting the same spirit as would be haracteristic of him, and were, therefore, properly styled antichrists. We, today, refer to men as papists who evince the spirit of and support the papacy ; and with equal propriety those of John’s day who preceded the popes but possessed his spirit were similarly designated. False and heretical teachers were then active, some of whom denied the deity of Jesus, and others his humanity, men who were clothed in the attributes of and possessed the spirit of the antichrist to come. If it be insisted that the pope does not today deny the Christ or oppose him but, on the contrary, supports his cause and defends his name, we deny it. As the so-called vicar of Christ, he affects to be the Lord’s personal representative on earth; he blasphemously claims the prerogative of Christ in forgiving sins; and he alleges that he sits in the seat of Christ on earth. He is, therefore, a parody of the Christ, a counterfeit Christ; and though he imitates some of the characteristics of Christ, this is precisely what is ex-pected of one who seeks to deceive.
The appearance of these antichrists was evidence that the “last hour” had been ushered in, such being tokens predicted by Christ to appear before the consummation of the age. (Matthew 24:5; Matthew 24:24-27.)
19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they are not of us.–The antecedent of “they” is the word “antichrists,” of the preceding verse. The preposition ek, rendered “out from,” indicates origin from the center; and these were, therefore, for-merly among the disciples, and members of the church. They became apostates from the fold by going out. They were not “of” the disciples, i.e., they did not possess the same spirit of obedience characteristic of the disciples, for if they had “they would have continued with” the disciples. In going out, i.e., in apostatizing from the faith, they were “made manifest” (shown to be), not of the disciples, and for the reason assigned above.
This passage, often cited by advocates of the doctrine of the impossibility of apostasy for the purpose of showing that those who abandon the cause are mere professors or pretenders, and were never sincere, falls far short of the effort; for (a) they were once with the disciples; (b) they went out from them; (c) one does not go out from a place where he has never been; (d) had they possessed the same love for the Lord and equal desire to serve him as those from whom they went out, they would have continued with them; (e) they did, in fact, continue for a time, and then ceased to be faithful. (f) It follows, therefore, that they simply apostatized from the right way. We learn from this that (1) there was no necessity from without which made it impossible for these people to forsake the right way; (2) they were under no compulsion such as would have been true if the doctrine of decrees and predestination, as taught by Calvinists, is true. (3) Some obey the gospel and, like him of whom the Saviour spoke in the parable of the soils, “heareth the word, and straightway with joy receiveth it; yet hath he not root in himself, but endureth for a while; when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, straightway he stumbleth.” (Matthew 13:20-21.) Others, like those of this text, adopt false and heretical doctrines, forsake the church, and make shipwreck concerning the faith. (1 Timothy 1:19.)
20 And ye have an anointing from the Holy One, and ye know all things.–This passage asserts that these to whom John wrote: (1) had an anointing; (2) this anointing they re-ceived from “the Holy One,” Christ; (3) as a result of this anoint-ing they knew all things.
The word “anointing” is translated from the Greek chrisma, a term originally signifying an oil or ointment rubbed on the skin, and later, the anointing itself. There is a play on words in the Greek Testament here, not observable in the translation. If the false teachers were anti-christoi, these to whom John wrote were christoi, anointed ones. The reference here is to a custom charac-teristic of the law of Moses of anointing with perfumed oils those elevated to positions of trust or power. In compliance with the will of Jehovah, kings (1 Samuel 10:10), priests (Exodus 29:7), and prophets (Isaiah 61:1) were anointed; and ointment is both figura-tively, and in the act itself, a symbol of the Holy Spirit. Jesus was the anointed one (Acts 4:27), and that with which he was anointed was the Holy Spirit (Acts 10:38).
Some hold to the view that the anointing alluded to by John was the “ordinary measure” of the Spirit, believed by them to be vouchsafed to all believers. References cited in support of this view are Galatians 4:6; Ephesians 3:16; Philippians 1:19; and 2 Corinthians 3:17 ff. This conclusion is based on an unwarrantable assumption. It should be noted that the test makes no mention whatsoever of the time when, nor the manner in which the anointing was received It merely affirms the fact of its occurrence, and not the manner or mode thereof. To affirm that this is the “ordinary measure of the Spirit which all Christians receive in conversion” is to inject a meaning into the passage, rather than to draw out the meaning that is there.
This was not an “ordinary measure” of the Spirit, and for the following reasons: (1) The context is against this view. Antichrists, formerly among the disciples, and now apostates, were advocating false and heretical doctrines designed to lead the disciples astray. These teachers were readily recognizable because the faithful had received an anointing from the Lord. In this anointing these saints had been supplied with an endowment en-abling them to discern false spirits, and their teaching–to detect those who falsely asserted their inspiration: “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but prove the spirits, whether they are of God; be-cause many false prophets are gone out into the world.” (1 John 4:1.) This test they were able to make by comparing the teach-ing of the Spirit within them with the pretensions of those teachers who affected to be similarly led. (2) This anointing which they had received enabled them to know “all things.” This phrase, “all things,” is, of course, to be interpreted in the light of the context, and with reference to matters there considered. It was not the apostle’s purpose to imply that such anointing made those who received it omniscient; otherwise, why was he, an inspired apostle, writing to them at all? If, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they had come into possession of all knowledge, why this Epistle to them?
The “all things” must, therefore, be limited to include the things pertaining to the antichrists. (3) The anoint-ing supplied them with such information as they needed to recog-nize and refute the false teachers who had gone out from among them. So, the apostle later affirmed: “These things have I written unto you concerning them that would lead you astray. As for you, the anointing which ye received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any one teach you; but as his anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is no lie, and even as it taught you, ye abide in him.” (1 John 4:26, 27.)
We conclude, therefore, that the “anointing” which these to whom John particularly wrote had received a miraculous measure of the Spirit; that this measure enabled them to recognize and refute the false teachers which plagued the church at that time; and that the anointing is not to be confused with any so-called “ordinary measure” of the Spirit available to Christians today In the absence of a written revelation, it was needful that an in-fallible test be supplied the early saints by means of which they were able to discern and to expose the pretensions of those who sought to lead them astray. Such was the purpose of the “anoint-ing” here contemplated. See further on this in the comments on 1 John 2:27.
21 I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and because no lie is of the truth.–Here, again, the reference is to the immediate context, and to the matters which had claimed the apostle’s attention above. Certainly he is not to be understood as affirming that the reason he wrote the truth to them was because they already possessed all the truth which he wrote. If they already had it, why did he write? The “truth” which they possessed was with reference to the false teachers about them; the manner in which they received this truth was through inspiration, styled in the verse preceding, “an anointing,” a miraculous gift enabling them to discern false and lying spirits. The “lie” which is opposed to the truth was that which the antichrists taught. (Verse 18.)
22 Who is the liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ–The “lie” had claimed the apostle’s attention in verse 21; here, the one who originated it. Passing from the abstract to the concrete, John identified the liar as “he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ.” Many false theories regarding the nature and the attributes of the Saviour were afloat when John wrote this Epis-tle. The Gnostics alleged that Jesus and Christ were two different persons; that Christ merely appeared to have flesh, but in reality did not; and that the one designated as Jesus was without divine origin. The effect of this heresy was, in the case of Christ, to deny his humanity; and in the case of Jesus, to deny his deity. (See under “Design of the Epistle,” in the Introduction.)
This is the antichrist, even he that denieth the Father and the Son.–Here, the word “antichrist” is used in the same sense as in its second occurrence in verse 18, to identify those who possessed the character and attributes of the great antichrist to come. He who taught the things attributed to him here was of the same purpose and spirit as antichrist, and thus might properly bear his designation. To deny the humanity and deity of Jesus was to repudiate his Messiahship; and to reject the Messiahship was, in effect, to reject the Father himself. “He that honoreth not the Son honoreth not the Father that sent him.” (John 5 23.) The Son reveals the Father (John 1:18; John 14:9), and our only approach to the Father is through the Son (John 14:6). Thus to reject the Son is to repudiate the only method by which it is possible to reach the Father. This is the reason why an acknowledgement of the Son before men is a prerequisite to ac-knowledgement by the Father: “And I say unto you, Every one who shall confess me before men, him shall the Son of man also confess before the angels of God: but he that denieth me in the presence of men shall be denied in the presence of the angels of God.” (Luke 12:8. Cf. Matthew 10:32.)
23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same bath not the Father: he that confesseth the Son hath the Father also.–A conclusion drawn from preceding premises. He who disowns the Son, in the same act rejects the one who is his Father. Inasmuch as it is not possible to know the Father but by the Son, such rejection must inevitably extend to the Father also. This truth is stated both negatively and positively in this verse. It emphasizes what is often taught in the sacred writings that no man can have a clear knowledge of God the Father who does not learn of and familiarize himself with the attributes and characteristics of the Son. “No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him,” i.e., revealed him, made him known. (John 1:18.) Since the appearance of the Son no one can truthfully object to the accept-ance of deity on the ground that such is unknowable. The Father has revealed himself to man through his Son.
While these words were primarily written to refute the ancient Gnostics who plagued the church with these heresies at the time John wrote, they are not without a very definite and pertinent relevancy in our time. The seeds of the ancient Cerenthian heresy is to be seen in the modern rationalism which affects to believe in God but which rejects Christ as his Son and the Scriptures as a revelation from him. God, without Christ, is simply not! Such a being is utterly without existence. The attempt to visualize God, without Christ, is to reduce him to a metaphysical abstraction, eventuating in pantheism, or atheism. Voltaire, the famous French infidel, entranced by the unspeakable beauty in the Swiss Alps, shouted, “God the Father! I adore thee,” and then, as if ashamed of his outburst, immediately added that he did not worship the Son, an illustration of the conclusion which the apostle draws that it is impossible to acknowledge the Father without confessing the Son also.
It will of course be unnecessary to add, to the thoughtful reader, that to confess the Son is much more than merely saying that one believes that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. The Lord himself said, “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven but he that doeth the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy by thy name, and by thy name cast out demons, and by thy name do many mighty works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” (Matthew 7:21-23.) Here, as in 1 John 4:2, to confess the Son is to acknowledge him for what he is, and to render to him the obedience such an acknowledgement implies. The apostle had earlier shown that the Gnostics, in denying that Jesus is the Christ, had, in so doing, repudiated the Father. Conversely, those who confess the Son, by implication, also acknowl-edge the Father.
24 As for you, let that abide in you which ye heard from the beginning.–That which they had heard from the begin-ning was the truth; the beginning was their earliest acquaintance with the gospel; and the manner in which it was brought to them was by means of preaching. This which they had thus heard they were to allow to abide in them, literally, to let it settle down and find, as it were, its permanent home in them. The exhortation is, therefore, one to steadfastness, an admonition to hold fast to that which had been taught them.
If that which ye heard from the beginning abide in you, ye also shall abide in the Son, and in the Father.–Here, as in the clause immediately preceding, the word “abide” (meno) means to settle down and dwell, as in one’s permanent home; if the truth is thus permitted to settle down in us, we shall, in turn, be privi-leged to settle down, and have our home in the Son and in the Father. The conditional particle “if” governs the sentence and determines the conclusion. If, i.e., on condition “that which ye heard from the beginning abide in you, ye also shall abide in the Son and in the Father.” Here is another of the many passages in the scripture clearly establishing the conditionality of salvation and emphasizing the necessity of continued faithfulness. See this same truth taught John 6:56; John 15:1 ff; John 17:23; Ephesians 3:17; 1 Corinthians 3:16; 1 Corinthians 6:17.
25 And this is the promise which he promised us, even the life eternal.–From this verse ye learn, (1) eternal life is a promise; (2) this promise is conditioned on our holding fast to that which he heard from the beginning. It follows, therefore, that eternal life is not a present possession, but a promise, a promise conditional and dependent on our remaining faithful. Passages, such as John 5:24, apparently asserting that the believer is in possession of eternal life already must be understood as declaring that it is had in prospect only.. “In hope of eternal life, which God, who cannot lie, promised before times eternal.” (Titus 1:2.) One does not hope for that which he already has. (Romans 8:24-25.) “Jesus said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that bath left house, or brethren, or sister, or mother, or father, or children, or lands, for my sake, and for the gospel’s sake, but he shall receive a hundredfold now in this time, houses, and breth-ren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with per-secutions; and in the world to come eternal life.” (Mark 10:29-30.) The Lord often promised eternal life to those who abide faithful: “Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that the Son may glorify thee: even as thou gayest him authority over all flesh, that to all whom thou hast given him, he should give eternal life. And this is life eternal that they should know thee the only true God, and him whom thou didst send, even Jesus Christ.” (John 17:1-3.)
26 These things have I written unto you concerning them that would lead you astray.–Those seeking to lead John’s readers astray were the “antichrists” (verse 18), false and heret-ical teachers of that period who were exceedingly active in their efforts to lead the faithful away from the true faith. In view of this constant and persistent threat to the security and well-being of the saints, it was especially needful that John should pen these words of warning. False teachers early appeared in the apostolic church, and many warnings regarding them were given. To the elders of the church in Ephesus, Paul said: “I know that after my departing grievous wolves shall enter in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. (Acts 20:29.) And to Timothy, the same apostle wrote, “But the Spirit saith expressly, that in later times some shall fall away from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of demons, through the hypocrisy of men that speak lies, branded in their own conscience as with a hot iron; forbidding to marry, and com-manding to abstain from meats, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by them that believe and know the truth.” (1 Timothy 4:1-3.) And John, himself, to put his readers constantly on guard against false teachers affecting to be led by the Spirit, wrote, “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but prove the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets are gone out into the world.” (1 John 4:1.)
27 And as for you, the anointing which ye received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any one teach you; but as his anointing teacheth you concerning all things, and is true, and is no lie, and even as it taught you, ye abide in him.–The meaning of this verse is identical with that of verse 24, except that what is set forth there as a command is stated here as a fact. Two things essential to the proper understanding of this must be noted (1) When the apostle said, “Ye need not that any one teach you.” He is to be understood as having reference to the matters of the context, and including the things but recently under consideration, viz., the ability to discern between false and true teaching. (2) The ones who had no need of teaching were those who had been anointed, i.e., had received a miraculous measure of the Spirit, thus enabling them to exercise discernment essential in such instances. This gift, the discernment of spirits, as in the case of all the spiritual endowments of the apostolic age, was not a universal gift; and those who exercised it did so because they were specially endowed by the Holy Spirit for such a purpose. The ones exercising this gift were those referred to in verse 24, and not the entire body of believers. (Cf. 1 Corinthians 12:10.)
It is an unwarranted extension of the apostle’s remarks here, to apply them to all believers; to urge that one does not need to be taught the truth of the gospel today because he is already in possession of it; or to conclude that the “anointing” here contem-plated is the “ordinary measure” of the Holy Spirit, which all children of God, by virtue of their sonship, receive. (Galatians 4:6-7.) See the comments on verse 24, above.
The meaning is that those thus endowed were able to weigh the claims of the teachers about them; they were in possession of the means with which to apply an infallible test thereto; and they could, therefore, know whether such men spoke for God or not. There is no support here whatsoever for the theory that all Chris-tians have the anointing of the Holy Spirit or that the inspiration of the Holy Spirit extends to all believers today; or that men are justified in setting aside the revealed and written word of God to follow the leading of the so-called revelations with which they affect to be endowed. Such a theory is a hurtful and dangerous one, and is responsible for the extreme and ridiculous fanaticism prevalent among those who profess to be thus anointed.
This gift of discernment respecting the false doctrines then being propagated remained with those selected to exercise such at the time John wrote; the ability to judge of the claims of the teachers of such doctrines was not a passing thing, being necessary until the complete deposit of truth had been permanently embedded in a written record; and the anointing thus received rendered further apostolic teaching, with reference to this particular mat-ter, unnecessary. Here, again, is evidence of the correctness of our exposition that this information thus vouchsafed was lim-ited to the matters embraced “in all things” pertaining to the false teachers under consideration. If all the disciples were em-braced in these remarks; if all received the anointing of the Holy Spirit; if all possessed a knowledge of “all things”; and if none of them needed that any one should teach them, why the Epistle itself? On the assumption that the gift of the Spirit here contem-plated extended to include all believers, the Epistle itself is ren-dered superfluous, John’s effort unnecessary, and indeed, the Bible itself a useless book! The conclusion is, therefore, irresistible, that the “anointing” was a miraculous gift; it was of limited duration; and it was, along with all the gifts of a miraculous nature, removed when the church reached maturity. “Love never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall be done away ; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall be done away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part; but when that which is perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done away.
When I was a child, I spake as a child, I felt as a child, I thought as a child; now that I am become a man, I have put away childish things.” (1 Corinthians 13:8-11; cf. Ephesians 4:11-13.)
The leading of the Spirit, received in the miraculous gift referred to as the “anointing,” was true, it was no lie and it might, therefore, be safely depended on to guide in the right way. So long as those endowed therewith followed the direction of the gift which they possessed, they were able to “abide” in him –Christ. The mere possession of spiritual gifts did not guarantee to the possessor thereof the impossibility of apostasy.
It is well to remember that the direction of the Spirit in mirac-ulous fashion was never designed to supplant the written word; it was, on the contrary, merely a temporary device, to supply the early church with the means of discerning false teaching until such time as the record was completed. The New Testament is the complete and final deposit of truth in this age, and an allegation of additional information from the Lord must be, regardless of its source, repudiated. (See comments of verse 20, above.)
28 And now, my little children, abide in him that, if he shall be manifested, we may have boldness, and not be ashamed before him at his coming.–Here is the tender ad-dress of 2:1, and the admonition and exhortation of 2:24, 27, repeated. It is an address of age to youth, an admonition essential to their continued well-being. The manifestation of Christ, and his coming is, of course, the same event. The conditional phrase, “if he shall be manifested,” indicates John’s uncertainty as to the time of the event, thus confirming the teaching of Christ with reference to the matter. (Mark 13:32.) The exhortation which this verse contains is grounded in the desire of the apostle that when such an event does occur both he and his readers might (a) have boldness, and (b) not be ashamed before the Lord.
The word “boldness” (parresia), as here used, signifies “free-dom of speech; " the right to speak out as one thinks, and was used by the ancient Greeks of their privilege as free citizens. It was the apostle’s hope that all those to whom he wrote as well as himself might live in such fashion as to be able to stand unafraid in the presence of the Lord, and to be free to express their confi-dence in their position. “Ashamed,” from aischunomai, “to grow pale, to change color from shame,” is used to indicate the effect which the coming of Christ will produce on those who are unpre-pared to meet him. Those who are ashamed will, in that day, shrink from the Lord in guilty fashion, fully aware of the fact that they are unprepared to meet him. Cf. 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9.
29 If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one also that doeth righteousness is begotten of him.–At first glance it would appear that the antecedent of the pronoun “he” of the first clause refers to Christ; but, in view of the fact that “of him,” in the last clause must be referred to the Father, the refer-ence must be to the Father here. It is, therefore, God who is “righteous”; it is “of God” that every one that “doeth righteous-ness” is begotten. One is never, in the scriptures, said to be born or begotten of Christ, but always of God. (1 John 3:9; 1 John 3:18; 1 John 4:7.)
The word “know” of the first clause is from the Greek oida, to know theoretically; the second is from ginosko, to know experi-mentally. The meaning is, if you know (i.e., recognize theoreti-cally) that God is righteous, you have practical knowledge that he who does righteousness is begotten of God. If one intuitively recognizes God as possessed of such principles, reason suggests that whoever habitually does righteousness (ho poion, present lin-ear action) as a mode of life is begotten of God. This inference the members of the apostle’s proposition makes clear: (1) God is righteous. (2) As such, he is the source of righteousness. (3) When, therefore, one exhibits righteousness as a manner or mode of life, it follows that God is the source thereof. (4) Those who exhibit God’s nature must receive it through regeneration. Hence, (5) “Every one also that doeth righteousness is begotten of him.” Righteousness is right-doing, moral rectitude in all of the relationships of man, and obedience to the commandments of God. (Psalms 119:172.)
Though the doctrine is clearly and positively taught elsewhere (e.g., Matthew 7:21; Mark 16:15-16; Revelation 22:13-14), this pas-sage cannot be properly cited in support of the view that doing righteousness, i.e., keeping the commandments, is a condition pre-cedent to salvation from past, or alien, sins. (1) The righteous-ness here contemplated is that which one does as a child of God, and not in order to become one. (2) The logical order of the premises leading to the conclusion of the apostle shows that it was his design to exhibit the fact that “doing righteousness” is evi-dence that one is a child of God, and is not offered as a condition on which one becomes a child. Nor is there any significance in the fact that gennao is rendered “begotten.” rather than “born.” Here the word is descriptive of the new birth, but is properly rendered “begotten,” (a) because it is incongruous and awkward to predicate birth of a masculine personality; and (b) the scriptures, properly translated, never refer to a birth of God!