FIRST JOHN CHAPTER II.
ANALYSIS OF THE CHAPTER.
THE subjects which are introduced into this chapter are the
following:
I. A statement of the apostle that the great object which he had in
writing to them was that they should not sin; and yet if they sinned,
and were conscious that they were guilty before God, they should
not despair, for they had an Advocate with the Father who had
made propitiation for the sins of the world, 1 John 2:1,2. This is
properly a continuation of what he had said in the close of the previous
chapter, and should not have been separated from that.
II. The evidence that we know God, or that we are his true friends, is to
be found in the fact that we keep his commandments, 1 John 2:3-6.
III. The apostle says that what he had been saying was no new
commandment, but was what they had always heard concerning the
nature of the gospel; but though in this respect the law of love
which he meant particularly to enforce was no new commandment,
none which they had not heard before, yet in another respect it was
a new commandment, for it was one which in its peculiarity was
originated by the Saviour, and which he meant to make the charac-
teristic of his religion, 1 John 2:7-11. A large part of the epistle is
taken up in explaining and enforcing this commandment requiring
love to the brethren.
IV. The apostle specifies 1 John 2:12-14 various reasons why he had
written to them--reasons derived from the peculiar character of different
classes among them--little children, fathers, young men.
V. Each of these classes he solemnly commands not to love the world, or
the things that are in the world, for that which constitutes the
peculiarity of the "world" as such is not of the Father, and all "that
there is in the world is soon to pass away," 1 John 2:15-17.
VI. He calls their attention to the fact that the closing dispensation of
the world had come, 1 John 2:18-20. The evidence of this was, that
antichrist had appeared.
VII. He calls their attention to the characteristics of the antichrist.
The essential thing would be that antichrist would deny that Jesus was
the Christ, involving a practical denial of both the Father and the Son.
Persons of this character were abroad, and they were in great danger of
being seduced by their arts from the way of truth and duty,
1 John 2:21-26.
VIII. The apostle, in the close of the chapter, 1 John 2:27-29,
expresses the belief that they would not be seduced, but that they had
an anointing from above which would keep them from the arts of
those who would lead them astray, he earnestly exhorts them to
abide in God the Saviour, that when he should appear they might
have confidence and not be ashamed at his coming.
Verse 1. My little children. \~teknia mou\~. This is such language as an
aged apostle would be likely to use when addressing a church, and
its use in this epistle may be regarded as one evidence that John
had reached an advanced period of life when he wrote the epistle.
These things write I unto you. To wit, the things stated in chapter
one.
That ye sin not. To keep you from sin, or to induce you to lead
a holy life.
And if any man sin. As all are liable, with hearts as corrupt as
ours, and amidst the temptations of a world like this, to do. This, of
course, does not imply that it is proper or right to sin, or that
Christians should have no concern about it; but the meaning is, that all
are liable to sin, and when we are conscious of sin the mind should not
yield to despondency and despair. It might be supposed, perhaps, that if
one sinned after baptism, or after being converted, there could be no
forgiveness. The apostle designs to guard against any such supposition,
and to show that the atonement made by the Redeemer had respect to all
kinds of sin, and that under the deepest consciousness of guilt and of
personal unworthiness, we may feel that we have an advocate on high.
We have an advocate with the Father. God only can forgive sin; and
though we have no claim on him, yet there is one with him who can plead
our cause, and on whom we can rely to manage our interests there. The
word rendered advocate (\~paraklhtov\~ or--paraclete) is elsewhere
applied to the Holy Spirit, and is in every other place where it occurs
in the New Testament rendered comforter, John 14:16,26;
John 15:26; 16:7. On the meaning of the word,
See Barnes "John 14:16". As used with reference to the Holy Spirit
(John 14:16, et al.) it is employed in the more general sense of
helper, or aid; and the particular manner in which the Holy Spirit aids
us may be seen stated in See Barnes "John 14:16". As usual here with
reference to the Lord Jesus, it is employed in the more limited sense of
the word advocate, as the word is frequently used in the Greek writers to
denote an advocate in court; that is, one whom we call to our aid; or
to stand by us, to defend our suit. Where it is applied to the Lord
Jesus, the language is evidently figurative, since there can be no
literal pleading for us in heaven; but it is expressive of the great
truth that he has undertaken our cause with God, and that he performs for
us all that we expect of an advocate and counsellor. It is not to be
supposed, however, that he manages our cause in the same way, or on the
same principles on which an advocate in a human tribunal does. An
advocate in court is employed to defend his client. He does not begin
by admitting his guilt, or in any way basing his plea on the conceded
fact that he is guilty; his proper business is to show that he is not
guilty, or, if he be proved to be so, to see that no injustice shall be
done him. The proper business of an advocate in a human court, therefore,
embraces two things:
(1.) To show that his client is not guilty in the form and manner charged
on him. This he may do in one of two ways, either
(a.) by showing that he did not do the act charged on him, as when he is
charged with murder, and can prove an alibi, or show that he was not
present at the time the murder was committed; or
(b.) by proving that he had a right to do the deed--as, if he is
charged with murder, he may admit the fact of the killing, but may show
that it was in self-defence.
(2.) In case his client is convicted, his office is to see that no
injustice is done to him in the sentence; to stand by him still; to avail
himself of all that the law allows in his favour, or to state any
circumstance of age, or sex, or former service, or bodily health, which
would in any way mitigate the sentence. The advocacy of the Lord Jesus in
our behalf, however, is wholly different from this, though the same
general object is pursued and sought, the good of those for whom
he becomes an advocate. The nature of his advocacy may be stated
in the following particulars:
(1.) He admits the guilt of those for whom he becomes the advocate, to
the full extent charged on them by the law of God, and by their own
consciences. He does not attempt to hide or conceal it. He makes no
apology for it. He neither attempts to deny the fact, nor to show
that they had a right to do as they have done. He could not do this,
for it would not be true; and any plea before the throne of God which
should be based on a denial of our guilt would be fatal to our cause.
(2.) As our advocate, he undertakes to be security that no wrong shall be
done to the universe if we are not punished as we deserve; that is, if we
are pardoned, and treated as if we had not sinned. This he does
by pleading what he has done in behalf of men; that is, by the plea
that his sufferings and death in behalf of sinners have done as much
to honour the law, and to maintain the truth and justice of God, and
to prevent the extension of apostasy, as if the offenders themselves
had suffered the full penalty of the law. If sinners are punished in
hell, there will be some object to be accomplished by it; and the
simple account of the atonement by Christ is, that his death will
secure all the good results to the universe which would be secured
by the punishment of the offender himself. It has done as much to
maintain the honour of the law, and to impress the universe with
the truth that sin cannot be committed with impunity. If all the
good results can be secured by substituted sufferings which there
would be by the punishment of the offender himself, then it is clear
that the guilty may be acquitted and saved. Why should they not
be? The Saviour, as our advocate, undertakes to be security that
this shall be.
(3.) As our advocate, he becomes a surety for our good behaviour;
gives a pledge to justice that we will obey the laws of God, and that he
will keep us in the paths of obedience and truth; that, if pardoned, we
will not continue to rebel. This pledge or surety can be given in no
human court of justice. No man, advocate or friend, can give security
when one is pardoned who has been convicted of stealing a horse, that he
will not steal a horse again; when one who has been guilty of murder is
pardoned, that he will never be guilty of it again; when one who has been
guilty of forgery is pardoned, that he will not be guilty of it again. If
he could do this, the subject of pardon would be attended with much
fewer difficulties than it is now. But the Lord Jesus becomes such a
pledge or surety for us, (Hebrews 7:22,) and hence he becomes such an
advocate with the Father as we need.
Jesus Christ the righteous. One who is eminently righteous himself,
and who possesses the means of rendering others righteous. It is an
appropriate feeling when we come before God in his name, that we come
pleading the merits of one who is eminently righteous, and on account of
whose righteousness we may be justified and saved.
{*} "little children" "My children"
{a} "advocate" Romans 8:34; Hebrews 7:25
Verse 2. And he is the propitiation for our sins. The word rendered
propitiation (\~ilasmov\~) occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, except
in 1 John 4:10 of this epistle; though words of the same derivation,
and having the same essential meaning, frequently, occur. The
corresponding word \~ilasthrion\~ (hilasterion) occurs in Romans 3:25,
rendered propitiation--"whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation
through faith in his blood;" and in Hebrews 9:5, rendered
mercy-seat--"shadowing the mercy-seat." The verb \~ilaskomai\~
(hilaskomai) occurs also in Luke 18:3--"God be merciful to me
a sinner;" and Hebrews 2:17--"to make reconciliation for the sins of
the people." For the idea expressed by these words,
See Barnes "Romans 3:25". The proper meaning of the word is that of
reconciling, appeasing, turning away anger, rendering propitious or
favourable. The idea is, that there is anger or wrath, or that something
has been done to offend, and that it is needful to turn away that wrath,
or to appease. This may be done by a sacrifice, by songs, by services
rendered, or by bloody offerings. So the word is often used in
Homer.--Passow. We have similar words in common use, as when we say
of one that he has been offended, and that something must be done to
appease him, or to turn away his wrath. This is commonly done with us by
making restitution; or by an acknowledgment; or by yielding the
point in controversy; or by an expression of regret; or by different
conduct in time to come. But this idea must not be applied too
literally to God; nor should it be explained away. The essential thoughts
in regard to him, as implied in this word, are,
(1,) that his will has been disregarded, and his law violated, and that
he has reason to be offended with us;
(2,) that in that condition he cannot, consistently with his perfections,
and the good of the universe, treat us as if we had not done it;
(3,) that it is proper that, in some way, he should show his displeasure
at our conduct, either by punishing us, or by something that shall answer
the same purpose; and,
(4,) that the means of propitiation come in here, and accomplish this
end, and make it proper that he should treat us as if we had not
sinned; that is, he is reconciled, or appeased, and his anger is turned
away. This is done, it is supposed, by, the death of the Lord Jesus,
accomplishing, in most important respects, what would be accomplished by
the punishment of the offender himself. In regard to this, in order to a
proper understanding of what is accomplished, it is necessary to observe
two things--what is not done, and what is.
I. There are certain things which do not enter into the idea of
propitiation. They are such as these:
(a.) That it does not change the fact that the wrong was done. That is a
fact which cannot be denied, and he who undertakes to make a propitiation
for sin does not deny it.
(b.) It does not change God; it does not make him a different being from
what he was before; it does not buy him over to a willingness to show
mercy; it does not change an inexorable being to one who is compassionate
and kind.
(c.) The offering that is made to secure reconciliation does not
necessarily produce reconciliation in fact. It prepares the way for it on
the part of God, but whether they for whom it is made will be disposed to
accept it is another question. When two men are alienated from each
other, you may go to B and say to him that all obstacles to
reconciliation on the part of A are removed, and that he is disposed to
be at peace, but whether B will be willing to be at peace is quite
another matter. The mere fact that his adversary is disposed to be at
peace, determines nothing in regard to his disposition in the matter. So
in regard to the controversy between man and God. It may be true that all
obstacles to reconciliation on the part of God are taken away, and still
it may be quite a separate question whether man will be willing to lay
aside his opposition, and embrace the terms of mercy. In itself
considered, one does not necessarily determine the other, or throw any
light on it.
II. The amount, then, in regard to the propitiation made for sin is, that
it removes all obstacles to reconciliation on the part of God; it does
whatever is necessary to be done to maintain the honour of his law, his
justice, and his truth; it makes it consistent for him to offer
pardon--that is, it removes whatever there was that made it necessary to
inflict punishment, and thus, so far as the word can be applied to God,
it appeases him, or turns away his anger, or renders him propitious. This
it does, not in respect to producing any change in God, but in
respect to the fact that it removes whatever there was in the nature of
the case that prevented the free and full offer of pardon. The idea of
the apostle in the passage before us is, that when we sin we may be
assured that this has been done, and that pardon may now be freely
extended to us.
And not for our's only. Not only for the sins of us who are
Christians, for the apostle was writing to such. The idea which he
intends to convey seems to be, that when we come before God we
should take the most liberal and large views of the atonement; we
should feel that the most ample provision has been made for our
pardon, and that in no respect is there any limit as to the sufficiency
of that work to remove all sin. It is sufficient for us; sufficient for
all the world.
But also for the sins of the whole world. The phrase "the sins
of" is not in the original, but is not improperly supplied, for the
connexion demands it. This is one of the expressions occurring in the New
Testament which demonstrate that the atonement was made for all men, and
which cannot be reconciled with any other opinion, if he had died only
for a part of the race, this language could not have been used. The
phrase, "the whole world," is one which naturally embraces all men; is
such as would be used if it be supposed that the apostle meant to
teach that Christ died for all men; and is such as cannot be explained on
any other supposition. If he died only for the elect, it is not true that
he is the "propitiation for the sins of the whole world" in any proper
sense, nor would it be possible then to assign a sense in which it could
be true. This passage, interpreted in its plain and obvious meaning,
teaches the following things:
(1.) That the atonement in its own nature is adapted to all men, or that
it is as much fitted to one individual, or One class, as another;
(2,) that it is sufficient in merit for all; that is, that if any
more should be saved than actually will be, there would be no need of any
additional suffering in order to save them;
(3,) that it has no special adaptedness to one person or class more
than another; that is, that in its own nature it did not render the
salvation of one more easy than that of another. It so magnified the law,
so honoured God, so fully expressed the Divine sense of the evil of
sin in respect to all men, that the offer of salvation might be made
as freely to one as to another, and that any and all might take shelter
under it and be safe. Whether, however, God might not, for wise
reasons, resolve that its benefits should be applied to a part only, is
another question, and one which does not affect the inquiry about
the intrinsic nature of the atonement. On the evidence that the
atonement was made for all, See Barnes "2 Corinthians 5:14", and
See Barnes "Hebrews 2:9".
{a} "propitiation" Romans 3:25
Verse 3. And hereby we do know that we know him. To wit, by that
Which follows, we have evidence that we are truly acquainted with
him, and with the requirements of his religion; that is, that we are
truly his friends. The word him, in this verse, seems to refer to
the Saviour. On the meaning of the word know,
See Barnes "John 17:3". The apostle had stated in the previous part of
this epistle some of the leading points revealed by the Christian
religion, and he here enters on the consideration of the nature of the
evidence required to show that we are personally interested in it, or
that we are true Christians. A large part of the epistle is occupied with
this subject. The first, the grand evidence--that without which
all others would be vain--he says is, that we keep his commandments.
If we keep his commandments. See Barnes "John 14:15".
Comp. John 14:23,24; 15:10,14.
Verse 4. He that saith, I know him, He who professes to be acquainted
with the Saviour, or who professes to be a Christian.
And keepeth not his commandments. What he has appointed to be
observed by his people; that is, he who does not obey him.
Is a liar. Makes a false profession; professes to have that which he
really has not. Such a profession is a falsehood, because there can be no
true religion where one does not obey the law of God.
Verse 5. But whoso keepeth his word. That is, what he has spoken or
commanded, The term word here will include all that he has made
known to us as his will in regard to our conduct.
In him verily is the love of God perfected. He professes to have the
love of God in his heart, and that love receives its completion or
filling up by obedience to the will of God. That obedience is the
proper carrying out, or the exponent of the love which exists in the
heart. Love to the Saviour would be defective without that, for it is
never complete without obedience. If this be the true interpretation,
then the passage does not make any affirmation about sinless perfection,
but it only affirms that if true love exists in the heart, it will be
carried out in the life; or that love and obedience are parts of the
same thing; that one will be manifested by the other; and that
where obedience exists, it is the completion or perfecting of love.
Besides, the apostle does not say that either the love or the obedience
would be in themselves absolutely perfect; but he says that one
cannot fully develope itself without the other.
Hereby know we that we are in him. That is, by having in fact such
love as shall insure obedience. To be in him, is to be united to him;
to be his friends. See Barnes "John 6:56"; See Barnes "Romans 13:14".
Verse 6. He that saith, he abideth in him. Gr., remains in him;
that is, abides or remains in the belief of his doctrines, and in the
comfort and practice of religion. The expression is one of those which
refer to the intimate union between Christ and his people. A great
variety of phrase is employed to denote that. For the meaning of
this word in John, See Barnes "John 3:6".
Ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked. Ought to live and
act as he did. If he is one with him, or professes to be united to
him, he ought to imitate him in all things. Comp. John 13:15.
See Barnes "1 John 1:6".
{a} "abideth" John 15:4,5
{b} "walk" John 13:15
Verse 7. Brethren, I write no new commandment unto you. That is, what
I am now enjoining is not new. It is the same doctrine which you
have always heard. There has been much difference of opinion as
to what is referred to by the word commandment, whether it is the
injunction in the previous verse to live as Christ lived, or whether
it is what he refers to in the following verses, the duty of brotherly
love. Perhaps neither of these is exactly the idea of the apostle,
but he may mean in this verse to put in a general disclaimer against
the charge that what he enjoined was new. In respect to all that
he taught, the views of truth which he held, the duties which he
enjoined, the course of life which he would prescribe as proper for
a Christian to live, he meant to say that it was not at all new; it
was nothing which he had originated himself, but it was in fact the
same system of doctrines which they had always received since they became
Christians. He might have been induced to say this because he apprehended
that some of those whom he had in his eye, and whose doctrines he meant
to oppose, might say that this was all new; that it was not the nature of
religion as it had been commonly understood, and as it was laid down by
the Saviour. In a somewhat different sense, indeed, he admits
1 John 2:8 that there was a "new" commandment which it was proper to
enjoin--for he did not forget that the Saviour himself called that
"new;" and though that commandment had also been all along inculcated
under the gospel, yet there was a sense in which it was proper to call
that new, for it had been so called by the Saviour. But in respect to
all the doctrines which he maintained, and in respect to all the
duties which he enjoined, he said that they were not new in the sense
that he had originated them, or that they had not been enjoined from
the beginning. Perhaps, also, the apostle here may have some allusion to
false teachers who were in fact scattering new doctrines among the
people, things before unheard of, and attractive by their novelty; and he
may mean to say that he made no pretensions to any such novelty, but was
content to repeat the old and familiar truths which they had always
received. Thus, if he was charged with breaching new opinions, he
denies it fully; if they were advancing new opinions, and were even
"making capital" out of them, he says that he attempted no such thing,
but was content with the old and established opinions which they had
always received.
But an old commandment. Old, in the sense that it has always been
inculcated; that religion has always enjoined it.
Which ye had from the beginning. Which you have always received ever
since you heard anything about the gospel. It was preached when the
gospel was first preached; it has always been promulgated when that has
been promulgated; it is what you first heard when you were made
acquainted with the gospel. Compare See Barnes "1 John 1:1".
The old commandment is the word which ye have heard from the
beginning. Is the doctrine; or is what was enjoined. John is often in
the habit of putting a truth in a new form or aspect in order to make it
emphatic, and to prevent the possibility of misapprehension. See
John 1:1,2. The sense here is, "All that I am saying to you is in
fact an old commandment, or one which you have always had. There is
nothing new in what I am enjoining on you."
Verse 8. Again, a new commandment I write unto you. "And yet, that
which I write to you, and particularly enjoin on you, deserves in
another sense to be called a new commandment, though it has been
also inculcated from the beginning, for it was called new by the
Saviour himself." Or the meaning may be, "In addition to the general
precepts which I have referred to, I do now call your attention to the
new commandment of the Saviour, that which he himself called new."
There can be no doubt here that John refers to the commandment to "love
one another," (1 John 2:9-11,) and that it is here called new, not
in the sense that John inculcated it as a novel doctrine, but in the
sense that the Saviour called it such. For the reasons why it was so
called by him, See Barnes "John 13:34".
Which thing is true in him. In the Lord Jesus. That is, which
commandment or law of love was illustrated in him, or was manifested by
him in his intercourse with his disciples. That which was most prominent
in him was this very love which he enjoined on all his followers.
And in you. Among you. That is, you have manifested it in your
intercourse with each other. It is not new in the sense that you have
never heard of it, and have never evinced it, but in the sense only that
he called it new.
Because the darkness is past, and the true light now shineth. The
ancient systems of error, under which men hated each other, have passed
away, and you are brought into the light of the true religion. Once
you were in darkness, like others; now the light of the pure gospel
shines around you, and that requires, as its distinguishing
characteristic, love. Religion is often represented as light; and
Christ spoke of himself, and was spoken of, as the light of the world.
See Barnes "John 1:4"; See Barnes "John 1:5". Comp. John 8:12;
John 12:35,36,46; Isaiah 9:2.
{c} "new commandment" John 13:34
{d} "darkness" Romans 13:12
Verse 9. He that saith he is in the light. That he has true religion,
or is a Christian. See 1 John 1:7.
And hateth his brother. The word brother seems here to refer to
those who professed the same religion. The word is indeed sometimes used
in a larger sense, but the reference here appears to be to that which is
properly brotherly love among Christians. Comp. Lucke, in loc.
Is in darkness even unto now. That is, he cannot have true religion
unless he has love to the brethren. The command to love one another was
one of the most solemn and earnest which Christ ever enjoined,
(John 15:17;) he made it the peculiar badge of discipleship, or that
by which his followers were to be everywhere known, (John 13:35;) and
it is, therefore, impossible to have any true religion without love to
those who are sincerely and truly his followers. If a man has not that,
he is in deep darkness, whatever else he may have, on the whole subject
of religion. Comp. See Barnes "1 Thessalonians 4:9".
{e} "darkness" 2 Peter 1:9
Verse 10. He that loveth his brother abideth in the light. Has true
religion, and enjoys it.
And there is none occasion of stumbling in him. Marg., scandal.
Greek, "and there is no stumbling" [or scandal--\~skandalon\~--in him.] The
word here used, means anything against which one strikes or stumbles; and
then a stumbling-block, an impediment, or anything which occasions a
fall. Then it is used in a moral or spiritual sense, as denoting that
which is the occasion of falling into sin. See Barnes "Matthew 5:29" and
See Barnes "Romans 14:13". Here it refers to an individual in respect to
his treatment of others, and means that there is nothing, so far as he is
concerned, to lead him into sin.--Rob. Lex. If he has love to the
brethren, he has true religion; and there is, so far as the influence of
this shall extend, nothing that will be the occasion of his falling into
sin in his conduct towards them, for "love worketh no ill to his
neighbour," Romans 13:10. His course will be just, and upright, and
benevolent. He will have no envy towards them in their prosperity, and
will not be disposed to detract from their reputation in adversity; he
will have no feelings of exultation when they fall, and will not be
disposed to take advantage of their misfortunes; and, loving them
as brethren, he will be in no respect under temptation to do them
wrong. In the bosom of one who loves his brother, the baleful
passions of envy, malice, hatred, and uncharitableness, can have no
place. At the same time, this love of the brethren would have an
important effect on his whole Christian life and walk, for there are
few things that will have more influence on a man's character in
keeping him from doing wrong, than the love of the good and the
pure. He who truly loves good men, will not be likely in any
respect to go astray from the paths of virtue.
{1} "stumbling" "scandal"
Verse 11. But he that hateth his brother. The word here used would,
in this connexion, include both the mere absence of love, and positive
hatred. It is designed to include the whole of that state of mind
where there is not love for the brethren.
Is in darkness. 1 John 2:9.
And walketh in darkness. He is like one who walks in the dark,
and who sees no object distinctly. See Barnes "John 12:35". And
knoweth not whither he goeth. Like one in the dark. He wanders about not
knowing what direction he shall take, or where the course which he is on
will lead. The general meaning is, that he is ignorant of the whole
nature of religion; or, in other words, love to the brethren is a central
virtue in religion, and when a man has not that, his mind is entirely
clouded on the whole subject, and he shows that he knows nothing of its
nature. There is no virtue that is designed to be made more prominent in
Christianity; and there is none that will throw its influence farther
over a man's life.
{a} "walketh in darkness" Proverbs 4:15; John 12:35
Verse 12. I write unto you, little children. There has been much
difference of opinion among commentators in regard to this verse and the
three following verses, on account of the apparent tautology. Even
Doddridge supposes that considerable error has here crept into the
text, and that a portion of these verses should be omitted in order to
avoid the repetition. But there is no authority for omitting any
portion of the text, and the passage is very much in accordance with
the general style of the apostle John. The author of this epistle was
evidently accustomed to express his thoughts in a great variety of
ways, having even the appearance of tautology, that the exact idea
might be before his readers, and that his meaning might not be mis-
apprehended. In order to show that the truths which he was uttering in
this epistle pertained to all, and to secure the interest of all in them,
he addresses himself to different classes, and says that there were
reasons existing in regard to each class why he wrote to them.
In the expressions, "I write," and "I have written," he refers to
what is found in the epistle itself, and the statements in these verses
are designed to be reasons why he brought these truths before their
minds. The word here rendered little children (\~teknia\~)is different
from that used in 1 John 2:13, and rendered there little children,
(\~paidia\~;) but there can be little doubt that the same class of persons
is intended. Some have indeed supposed that by the term little children
here, as in 1 John 2:1, the apostle means to address all believers
--speaking to them as a father; but it seems more appropriate to suppose
that he means in these verses to divide the body of Christians whom he
addressed into three classes--children, young men, and the aged,
and to state particular reasons why he wrote to each. If the term
(\~teknia\~) little children here means the same as the term
(\~paidia\~) little children in 1 John 2:13, then he addresses each
of these classes twice in these two verses, giving each time somewhat
varied reasons why he addressed them. That, by the term "little children"
here, he means children literally, seems to me to be clear,
(1.) because this is the usual meaning of the word, and should be
understood to be the meaning here, unless there is something in the
connexion to show that it is used in a metaphorical sense;
(2.) because it seems necessary to understand the other expressions,
"young men," and "fathers," in a literal sense, as denoting those more
advanced in life;
(3.) because this would be quite in character for the apostle John.
He had recorded, and would doubtless remember the solemn injunction of
the Saviour to Peter, (John 21:15,) to "feed his lambs,"
and the aged apostle could not but feel that what was worthy of so
solemn an injunction from the Lord, was worthy of his attention and
care as an apostle; and
(4.) because in that case, each class, fathers, young men, and children,
would be twice addressed in these two verses; whereas if we understood
this of Christians in general, then fathers and young men would be twice
addressed, and children but once. If this be so, it may be remarked,
(1.) that there were probably quite young children in the church in the
time of the apostle John, for the word would naturally convey that idea.
(2.) The exact age cannot he indeed determined, but two things are
clear:
(a.) one is, that they were undoubtedly under twenty years of age,
since they were younger than the "young men"--\~neaniskoi\~ a word
usually applied to those who were in the vigour of life, from about
the period of twenty up to forty years, (See Barnes "1 John 2:13",) and
this word would embrace all who were younger than that class; and
(b.) the other is, that the word itself would convey the idea that they
were in quite early life, as the word children--a fair translation of it
--does now with us. It is not possible to determine, from the use of
this word, precisely of what age the class here referred to was, but
the word would imply that they were in quite early life. No rule
is laid down in the New Testament as to the age in which children
may be admitted to the communion. The whole subject is left to
the wise discretion of the church, and is safely left there. Cases
must vary so much that no rule could be laid down; and little or no
evil has arisen from leaving the point undetermined in the Scriptures. It
may be doubted, however, whether tile church has not been rather in
danger of erring by having it deferred too late, than by admitting
children too early.
(3.) Such children, if worthy the attention of an aged apostle, should
receive the particular notice of pastors now. See Barnes "John 21:15".
There are reasons in all cases now, as there were then, why this part of
a congregation should receive the special attention of a minister of
religion. The hopes of a church are in them. Their minds are susceptible
to impression. The character of the piety in the next age will depend on
their views of religion. All that there is of value in the church and the
world will soon pass into their hands. The houses, farms, factories; the
pulpits, and the chairs of professors in colleges; the seats of senators
and the benches of judges; the great offices of state, and all the
offices in the church; the interests of learning, and of benevolence
and liberty, are all soon to be under their control. Everything valuable
in this world will soon depend on their conduct and character; and who,
therefore, can over-estimate the importance of training them up in just
views of religion. As John wrote to this class, should not pastors
preach to them?
Because--\~oti\~. This particle may be rendered for, or
because; and the meaning may be either that the fact that their sins
were forgiven was a reason for writing to them, since it would be
proper, on that ground, to exhort them to a holy life; or that
he wrote to them because it was a privilege to address them as those
who were forgiven, for he felt that, in speaking to them, he could
address them as such. It seems to me that it is to be taken as a
causal particle, and that the apostle, in the various specifications
which he makes, designs to assign particular reasons why he wrote
to each class, enjoining on them the duties of a holy life. Comp.
1 John 2:21. Your sins are forgiven you. That is, this is a
reason why he wrote to them, and enjoined these things on them. The
meaning seems to be, that the fact that our past sins are blotted out
furnishes a strong reason why we should be holy. That reason is founded
on the goodness of God in doing it, and on the obligation under which
we are brought by the fact that God has had mercy on us. This is a
consideration which children will feel as well as others; for there
is nothing which will tend more to make a child obedient hereafter,
than the fact that a parent freely forgives the past.
For his name's sake. On account of the name of Christ; that is, in
virtue of what he has done for us. In 1 John 2:13, he states another
reason why he wrote to this same class--"because they had known the
Father."
{*} "little children" "Children"
{b} "name's sake" Psalms 25:11; Luke 24:47; Acts 10:43
Verse 13. I write unto you, fathers. As there were special reasons
for writing to children, so there were also for writing to those who were
more mature in life. The class here addressed would embrace all
those who were in advance of the \~neaniskoi\~, or young men, and would
properly include those who were at the head of families.
Because ye have known him that is from the beginning. That is, the
Lord Jesus Christ. See Barnes "1 John 1:1". The argument is, that they
had been long acquainted with the principles of his religion, and
understood well its doctrines and duties. It cannot be certainly inferred
from this that they had had a personal acquaintance with the Lord Jesus;
yet that this might have been is not impossible, for John had himself
personally known him, and there may have been some among those to whom he
wrote who had also seen and known him. If this were so, it would give
additional impressiveness to the reason assigned here for writing to
them, and for reminding them of the principles of that religion which
they had learned froth his own lips and example. But perhaps all that is
necessarily implied in this passage is, that they had had long
opportunity of becoming acquainted with the religion of the Son of God,
and that having understood that thoroughly, it was proper to address them
as aged and established Christians, and to call on them to maintain the
true doctrines of the gospel, against the specious but dangerous errors
which then prevailed.
I write unto you, young men. \~neaniskoi\~. This word would properly
embrace those who were in the rigour of life, midway between children and
old men. It is uniformly rendered young men in the New Testament:
Matthew 19:20,22; Mark 14:61; 16:6; Luke 7:14; Acts 2:17; 5:10; and in the passages
before us. It does not elsewhere occur. It is commonly understood as
embracing those in the prime and rigour of manhood up to the period of
about forty years.--Robinson.
Because ye have overcome the wicked one. That is, because you have
rigour, (see the next verse,)and that rigour you have shown by overcoming
the assaults of the wicked one--the devil. You have triumphed over
the passions which prevail in early life; you have combatted the
allurements of vice, ambition, covetousness, and sensuality; and you
have shown that there is a strength of character and of piety on
which reliance can be placed in promoting religion. It is proper,
therefore, to exhort you not to disgrace the victory which you have
already gained, but to employ your vigour of character in maintaining
the cause of the Saviour. The thing to which John appeals here
is the energy of those at this period of life, and it is proper at all
times to make this the ground of appeal in addressing a church,
It is right to call on those who are in the prime of life, and who are
endowed with energy of character, to employ their talents in the
service of the Lord Jesus, and to stand up as the open advocates of
truth. Thus the apostle calls on the three great classes into which
a community or a church may be considered as divided: youth, be;
cause their sins were already forgiven, and, though young, they had
actually entered on a career of virtue and religion, a career which
by all means they ought to be exhorted to pursue; fathers, or aged
men, because they had had long experience in religion, and had a
thorough acquaintance with the doctrines and duties of the gospel,
and they might be expected to stand steadfastly as examples to
others; and young men, those who were in the rigour and prime of
life, because they had shown that they had power to resist evil, and
were endowed with strength, and it was proper to call on them to
exert their rigour in the sacred cause of religion.
I write unto you, little children". Many Mss. read here,
I have written--\~egraqa\~--instead of I write--\~grafw\~. This
reading is found in both the ancient Syriac versions, and in the Coptic;
it was followed by Origen, Cyril, Photius, and OEcumenius; and it is
adopted by Grotius, Mill, and Hahn; and is probably the true reading. The
connexion seems to demand this. In 1 John 2:12,13, the apostle uses the
word \~grafw\~--I write--in relation to children, fathers, and young
men; in the passage before us, and in the next verse, he again addresses
children, fathers, and young men, and in relation to the two latter, he
says \~egraqa\~--I have written. The connexion, therefore, seems to
demand that the same word should be employed here also. Some persons have
supposed that the whole passage is spurious, but of that there is no
evidence; and, as we have elsewhere seen, it is not uncommon for John to
repeat a sentiment, and to place it in a variety of lights, in order that
he might make it certain that he was not misapprehended. Some have
supposed, also, that the expression "I have written," refers to some
former epistle which is now lost, or to the Gospel by the same author,
which had been sent to them, (Hug.,) and that he means here to remind
them that he had written to them on some former occasion, inculcating the
same sentiments which he now expressed. But there is no evidence of this,
and this supposition is not necessary in order to a correct understanding
of the passage. In the former expression, "I write," the state of
mind would be that of one who fixed his attention on what he was then
doing, and the particular reason why he did it--and the apostle states
these reasons in 1 John 2:12,13. Yet it would not be unnatural for him
immediately to throw his mind into the past, and to state the reasons why
he had resolved to write to them at all, and then to look at what he had
purposed to say as already done, and to state the reasons why that was
done. Thus one who sat down to write a letter to a friend might
appropriately state in any part of the letter the reasons which had
induced him to write at all to him on the subject. If he fixed his
attention on the fact that he was actually writing, and on the
reasons why he wrote, he would express himself in the present tense--
I write; if on the previous purpose, or the reasons which induced him
to write at all, he would use the past tense--I have written for such
and such reasons. So John seems here, in order to make what he says
emphatic, to refer to two states of his own mind: the one when he
resolved to write, and the reasons which occurred to him then; and
the other when he was actually writing, and the reasons which
occurred to him then. The reasons are indeed substantially the same, but
they are contemplated from different points of view, and that fact shows
that what he did was done with deliberation, and from a deep sense of
duty.
Because ye have known the Father. In 1 John 2:12, the reason
assigned for writing to this class is, that their sins were forgiven,
The reason assigned here is, that in early life they had become
acquainted with God as a Father. He desires that they would show
themselves dutiful and faithful children in this relation which they
sustained to him. Even children may learn to regard God as their
Father, and may have towards him all the affectionate interest which
grows out of this relation.
{a} "him" 1 John 1:1
{*} "little children" "Children"
{b} "Father" John 14:7,9
Verse 14. I have written unto you, fathers, because, etc. The reason
assigned here for writing to fathers is the same which is given in
the previous verse. It would seem that, in respect to them, the
apostle regarded this as a sufficient reason for writing to them, and
only meant to enforce it by repeating it. The fact that they had
through many years been acquainted with the doctrines and duties
of the true religion, seemed to him a sufficient reason for writing to
them, and for exhorting them to a steadfast adherence to those
principles and duties.
I have written unto you, young men, because ye are strong, etc. The
two additional circumstances which he here mentions as reasons for
writing to young men are, that they are strong, and that the word of God
abides in them. The first of these reasons is, that they were strong;
that is, that they were qualified for active and useful service in the
cause of the Redeemer. Children were yet too young and feeble to appeal
to them by this motive, and the powers of the aged were exhausted; but
those who were in the rigour of life might be called upon for active
service in the cause of the Lord Jesus. The same appeal may be made now
to the same class; and the fact that they are thus vigorous is a proper
ground of exhortation, for the church needs their active services, and
they are bound to devote their powers to the cause of truth. The other
additional ground of appeal is, that the word of God abode in them; that
is, that those of this class to whom he wrote had showed, perhaps in time
of temptation, that they adhered firmly to the principles of religion.
They had not flinched from an open defence of the truths of religion
when assailed; they had not been seduced by the plausible arts of
the advocates of error, but they had had strength to overcome the
wicked one. The reason here for appealing to this class is, that in
fact they had showed that they could be relied on, and it was proper
to depend on them to advocate the great principles of Christianity.
{c} "strong" Ephesians 6:10
{d} "abideth" John 15:7
{e} "overcome" Revelation 2:7
Verse 15. Love not the world. The term world seems to be used in
the Scriptures in three senses;
(1,) As denoting the physical universe; the world as it appears to the
eye; the world considered as the work of God, as a material creation.
(2.) The world as applied to the people that reside in it--" the world of
mankind."
(3.) As the dwellers on the earth are by nature without religion, and act
under a set of maxims, aims, and principles that have reference only to
this life, the term comes to be used with reference to that community;
that is, to the objects which they peculiarly seek, and the
principles by which they are actuated, Considered with reference to the
first sense of the word, it is not improper to love the world as
the work of God, and as illustrating his perfections; for we may
suppose that God loves his own works, and it is not wrong that we
should find pleasure in their contemplation. Considered with reference to
the second sense of the word, it is not wrong to love the people of the
world with a love of benevolence, and to have attachment to our kindred
and friends who constitute a part of it, though they are not Christians.
It is only with reference to the word as used in the third sense that the
command here can be understood to be applicable, or that the love of the
world is forbidden; with reference to the objects sought, the maxims that
prevail, the principles that reign in that community that lives for this
world as contradistinguished from the world to come. The meaning is, that
we are not to fix our affections on worldly objects--on what the world
can furnish--as our portion, with the spirit with which they do who live
only for this world, regardless of the life to come. We are not to
make this world the object of our chief affection; we are not to be
influenced by the maxims and feelings which prevail among those
who do. Comp. See Barnes "Romans 12:2", and See Barnes "James 4:4".
See also Matthew 16:26; Luke 9:25; 1 Corinthians 1:20; 3:19; Galatians 4:3; Colossians 2:8".
Neither the things that are in the world. Referred to in the
next verse as "the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the
pride of life." This explanation shows what John meant by "the
things that are in the world." He does not say that we are in no
sense to love anything that is in the material world; that we are to
feel no interest in flowers, and streams, and forests, and fountains;
that we are to have no admiration for what God has done as the
Creator of all things; that we are to cherish no love for any of the
inhabitants of the world, our friends and kindred; or that we are to
pursue none of the objects of this life in making provision for our
families; but that we are not to love the things which are sought
merely to pamper the appetite, to please the eye, or to promote pride
in living. These are the objects sought by the people of the world;
these are not the objects to be sought by the Christian.
If any man love the world, etc. If, in this sense, a man loves the
world, it shows that he has no true religion; that is, if
characteristically he loves the world as his portion, and lives for that;
if it is the ruling principle of his life to gain and enjoy that, it
shows that his heart has never been renewed, and that he has no part with
the children of God. See Barnes "James 4:4"; See Barnes "Matthew 6:24".
{f} "Love" Romans 12:2
{g} "If any man" Matthew 6:24; Galatians 1:10; James 4:4
Verse 16. For all that is in the world. That is, all that really
constitutes the world, or that enters into the aims and purposes of those
who live for this life. All that that community lives for may be
comprised under the following things.
The lust of the flesh. The word lust is used here in the general
sense of desire, or that which is the object of desire--not in the narrow
sense in which it is now commonly used to denote libidinous passion.
See Barnes "James 1:14". The phrase, "the lust of the flesh," here
denotes that which pampers the appetites, or all that is connected with
the indulgence of the mere animal propensities. A large part of the world
lives for little more than this. This is the lowest form of worldly
indulgence; those which are immediately specified being of a higher
order, though still merely worldly.
And the lust of the eyes. That which is designed merely to gratify
the sight. This would include, of course, costly raiment, jewels,
gorgeous furniture, splendid palaces, pleasure-grounds, etc. The object
is to refer to the gay vanities of this world, the thing on which the eye
delights to rest where there is no higher object of life. It does not, of
course, mean that the eye is never to be gratified, or that we can find
as much pleasure in an ugly as in a handsome object, or that it is sinful
to find pleasure in beholding objects of real beauty--for the world, as
formed by its Creator, is full of such things, and he could not but have
intended that pleasure should enter the soul through the eye, or that the
beauties which he has shed so lavishly over his works should contribute
to the happiness of his creatures; but the apostle refers to this when it
is the great and leading object of life,--when it is sought without any
connexion with religion or reference to the world to come.
And the pride of life. The word here used means, properly,
ostentation or boasting, and then arrogance or pride.--Robinson. It
refers to whatever there is that tends to promote pride, or that is an
index of pride, such as the ostentatious display of dress, equipage,
furniture, etc.
Is not of the Father. Does not proceed from God, or meet with his
approbation. It is not of the nature of true religion to seek these
things, nor can their pursuit be reconciled with the existence of real
piety in the heart. The sincere Christian has nobler ends; and he who has
not any higher ends, and whose conduct and feelings can all be accounted
for by a desire for these things, cannot be a true Christian.
But is of the world. Is originated solely by the objects and purposes
of this life, where religion and the life to come are excluded.
{*} "lust" "desire"
{b} "flesh" 2 Peter 2:10
{c} "the eyes" Psalms 119:37
{d} "pride of life" Psalms 83:6
Verse 17. And the world passeth away. Everything properly
constituting this world where religion is excluded. The reference here
does not seem to be so much to the material world, as to the scenes of
show and vanity which make up the world. These things are passing
away like the shifting scenes of the stage. See Barnes "1 Corinthians 7:31".
And the lust thereof. All that is here so much the object of
desire. These things are like a pageant, which only amuses the
eve for a moment, and then disappears for ever.
But he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever. This cannot mean
that he will never die; but it means that he has built his happiness on a
basis which is secure, and which can never pass away.
See Barnes "Matthew 7:24"; seq.
{e} "And the world" Psalms 39:6; 1 Corinthians 7:31
Verse 18. Little children. See 1 John 2:1.
It is the last time. The closing period or dispensation; that
dispensation in which the affairs of the world are ultimately to be wound
up. The apostle does not, however, say that the end of the world would
soon occur, nor does he intimate how long this dispensation would be.
That period might continue through many ages or centuries, and still be
the last dispensation, or that in which the affairs of the world would be
finally closed. See Barnes "Isaiah 2:2"; See Barnes "Acts 2:17";
See Barnes "Hebrews 1:2". Some have supposed that the "last time" here
refers to the destruction of Jerusalem, and the end of the Jewish
economy; but the more natural interpretation is to refer it to the last
dispensation of the world, and to suppose that the apostle meant to say
that there were clear evidences that that period had arrived.
And as ye have heard that antichrist shall come. The word
antichrist occurs in the New Testament only in these epistles of
John, 1 John 2:18,22; 4:3; 2 John 1:7. The proper meaning of anti
(\~anti\~) in composition is,
(1.) over against, as \~antitattein\~;
(2.) contrary to, as \~antilegein\~;
(3.) reciprocity, as \~antapodidwmi\~;
(4.) substitution, as \~antibasileuv\~, in the place of the king, or
\~anyupatov\~--proconsul. The word antichrist, therefore, might
denote any one who either was or claimed to be in the place of Christ, or
one who, for any cause, was in opposition to him. The word, further,
would apply to one opposed to him, on whatever ground the opposition
might be; whether it were open and avowed, or whether it were only
in fact, as resulting from certain claims which were adverse to his,
or which were inconsistent with his.
A vice-functionary, or an opposing functionary, would be the
idea which the word would naturally suggest. If the word stood alone, and
there were nothing said further to explain its meaning, we should think,
when the word antichrist was used, either of one who claimed to be
the Christ, and who thus was a rival; or of one who stood in opposition
to him on some other ground. That which constituted the characteristics
of antichrist, according to John, who, only has used the word, he has
himself stated. 1 John 2:22, "Who is a liar, but he that denieth that
Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the
Son." 1 John 4:3, "And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus
Christ is come in the flesh, is not of God; and this is that spirit of
antichrist." 2 John 1:7, "For many deceivers are entered into the
world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a
deceiver and an antichrist." From this it is clear, that John understood
by the word all those that denied that Jesus is the Messiah, or that the
Messiah has come in the flesh. If they held that Jesus was a deceiver,
and that he was not the Christ, or if they maintained that, though
Christ had come, he had not come in the flesh, that is, with a proper
human nature, this showed that such persons had the spirit of antichrist.
They strayed themselves against him, and held doctrines which were in
fact in entire opposition to the Son of God. It would appear then that
John does not use the word in the sense which it would bear as denoting
one who set up a rival claim, or who came in the place of Christ, but in
the sense of those who were opposed to him by denying essential doctrines
in regard to his person and advent. It is not certainly known to what
persons he refers, but it would seem not improbable to Jewish
adversaries, (see Suicer's Thesaurus. voc.,) or to some forms of the
Gnostic belief. See Barnes "1 John 4:2". The doctrine respecting
antichrist, as stated in the New Testament, may be summed up in the
following particulars:
(1.) That there would be those, perhaps in considerable numbers,
who would openly claim to be the Christ, or the true Messiah,
Matthew 24:5,24.
(2.) That there would be a spirit, which would manifest itself early in
the church, that would strongly tend to some great apostasy under some
one head or leader, or to a concentration on an individual, or a
succession of individuals, who would have eminently the spirit of
antichrist, though for a time the developement of that spirit would be
hindered or restrained, See Barnes "2 Thessalonians 2:1", seq.
(3.) That this would be ultimately concentrated on a single leader --
"the man of sin"--and embodied under some great apostasy, at the head of
which would be that "man of sin," 2 Thessalonians 2:3,4,8,9,10. It is to this
that Paul particularly refers, or this is the view which he took
of this apostasy, and it is this which he particularly describes.
(4.) That, in the mean time, and before the elements of the great
apostasy should be concentrated and embodied, there might not be a few
who would partake of the same general spirit, and who would be equally
opposed to Christ in their doctrines and aims; that is, who would embody
in themselves the essential spirit of antichrist, and by whose appearing
it might be known that the last dispensation had come. It is to these
that John refers, and these he found in his own age. Paul fixed the
eye on future times, when the spirit of antichrist should be embodied
under a distinct and mighty organization; John on his own time, and
found then essentially what it had been predicted would occur in the
church. He here says that they had been taught to expect that antichrist
would come under the last dispensation; and it is implied that it could
be ascertained that it was the last time, from the fact that the
predicted opposer of Christ had come. The reference is probably to the
language of the Saviour, that before the end should be, and as a sign
that it was coming, many would arise claiming to be Christ, and, of
course, practically denying that he was the Christ. Matthew 24:5,
"Many shall come m my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive
many." Verse 24, "And there shall arise false Christs, and false
prophets; and they shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch that, if
it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect." This prediction it
is probable the apostles had referred to wherever they had preached, so
that there was a general expectation that one or more persons would
appear claiming to be the Christ, or maintaining such opinions as to be
inconsistent with the true doctrine that Jesus was the Messiah. Such
persons, John says, had then in fact appeared, by which it could be known
that they were living under the closing dispensation of the world
referred to by the Saviour. See Barnes "2 Thessalonians 2:2", seq.
Even now are there many antichrists. There are many who have the
characteristics which it was predicted that antichrist would have; that
is, as explained above, there are many who deny that Jesus is the
Messiah, or who deny that he has come in the flesh. If they maintained
that Jesus was an impostor and not the true Messiah, or if, though they
admitted that the Messiah had come, they affirmed, as the Docetae did,
(See Barnes "1 John 4:2",) that he had come in appearance only, and
not really come in the flesh, this was the spirit of antichrist. John
says that there were many such persons in fact in his time. It would
seem from this that John did not refer to a single individual, or to a
succession of individuals who should come previous to the winding
up of the affairs of the world, as Paul did, (2 Thessalonians 2:2, seq.,) but
that he understood that there might be many at the same time who
would evince the spirit of antichrist. Both he and Paul, however,
refer to the expectation that before the coming of the Saviour to
Judge the world there would be prominent adversaries of the Christian
religion, and that the end would not come until such adversaries
appeared. Paul goes more into detail, and describes the characteristics
of the great apostasy more at length, (2 Thessalonians 2:2, seq.; 1 Timothy 4:1,
seq.; 2 Timothy 3:1, seq.;) John says, not that the appearing of these
persons indicated that the end of the world was near, but that they had
such characteristics as to show that they were living in the last
dispensation. Paul so describes them as to show that the end of the world
was not to be immediately expected, (See Barnes "2 Thessalonians 2:1", seq.;)
John, without referring to that point, says that there were enough of
that character then to prove that the last dispensation had come, though
he does not say how long it would continue.
Whereby we know it is the last time. They have the characteristics
which it was predicted many would have before the end of the world should
come. The evidence that it was "the last time," or the closing
dispensation of the world, derived from the appearing of these persons,
consists simply in the fact that it was predicted that such persons would
appear under the Christian, or the last dispensation, Matthew 24:5,
Matthew 24:24-27. Their appearance was to precede the coming of the
Saviour, though it is not said how long it would precede that; but at
any time the appearing of such persons would be an evidence that it was
the closing dispensation of the world, for the Saviour, in his
predictions respecting them, had said that they would appear before he
should return to judgment. It cannot now be determined precisely to what
classes of persons there is reference here, because we know too little of
the religious state of the times to which the apostle refers. No one can
prove, however, that there were not persons at that time who so fully
corresponded to the predictions of the Saviour as to be a complete
fulfilment of what he said, and to demonstrate that the last age had
truly come. It would seem probable that there may have been reference
to some Jewish adversaries, who denied that Jesus was the Messiah,
(Rob. Lex.,) or to some persons who had already broached the doctrine of
the Docetae, that thought Jesus was the Messiah, yet that he was a
man in appearance only, and had not really come in the flesh. Classes of
persons of each description abounded in the early ages of the church.
{+} "Little children" "My children"
{f} "last time" Hebrews 1:2
{g} "ye have heard" Matthew 24:24; 1 Timothy 4:1
Verse 19. They went out from us. From the church. That is, they had
once been professors of the religion of the Saviour, though their
apostasy showed that they never had any true piety. John refers
to the fact that they had once been in the church, perhaps to remind
those to whom he wrote that they knew them well, and could readily
appreciate their character. It was a humiliating statement that
those who showed themselves to be so utterly opposed to religion
had once been members of the Christian church; but this is a statement
which we are often compelled to make.
But they were not of us. That is, they did not really belong to us,
or were not true Christians. See Barnes "Matthew 7:23". This passage
proves that these persons, whatever their pretensions and professions may
have been, were never sincere Christians. The same remark may be
made of all who apostatize from the faith, and become teachers of
error. They never were truly converted; never belonged really to
the spiritual church of Christ.
For if they had been of us. If they had been sincere and true
Christians.
They would no doubt have continued with us. The words
"no doubt" are supplied by our translators, but the affirmation is
equally strong without them: "they would have remained with us." This
affirms, without any ambiguity or qualification, that if they had been
true Christians they would have remained in the church;, that is, they
would not have apostatized. There could not be a more positive
affirmation than that which is implied here, that those who are true
Christians will continue to be such; or that the saints will not fall
away from grace. John affirms it of these persons, that if they had been
true Christians they would never have departed from the church, he makes
the declaration so general that it may be regarded as a universal truth,
that if any are truly "of us," that is, if they are true Christians,
they will continue in the-church, or will never fall away. The statement
is so made also as to teach that if any do fall away from the church,
the fact is full proof that they never had any religion, for if they had
had they would have remained steadfast in the church. But they went out,
that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us. It was
suffered or permitted in the providence of God that this should occur, in
order that it might be seen and known that they were not true Christians,
or in order that their real character might be developed. It was
desirable that this should be done,
(a.) in order that the church might be purified from their
influence--comp. See Barnes " :";
(b.) in order that it might not be responsible for their conduct, or
reproached on account of it;
(c.) in order that their real character might be developed, and they
might themselves see that they were not true Christians;
(d.) in order that, being seen and known as apostates, their opinions and
conduct might have less influence than if they were connected with the
church;
(e.) in order that they might themselves understand their own true
character, and no longer live under the delusive opinion that they
were Christians and were safe, but that, seeing themselves in their
true light, they might be brought to repentance. For there is only
a most slender prospect that any who are deceived in the church will
ever be brought to true repentance there; and slight as is the hope
that one who apostatizes will be, such an event is much more probable
than it would be if he remained in the church. Men are more likely to be
converted when their character is known and understood, than they are
when playing a game of deception, or are themselves deceived. What is
here affirmed of these persons often occurs now; and those who have no
true religion are often suffered to apostatize from their profession for
the same purposes. It is better that they should cease to have any
connexion with the church than that they should remain in it; and God
often suffers them to fall away even from the profession of religion, in
order that they may not do injury as professing Christians. This very
important passage, then, teaches the following things:
(1.) That when men apostatize from the profession of religion, and
embrace fatal error, or live in sin, it proves that they never had any
true piety.
(2.) The fact that such persons fall away cannot be adduced to prove that
Christians ever fall from grace, for it demonstrates nothing on that
point, but proves only that these persons never had any real piety. They
may have had much that seemed to be religion; they may have been zealous,
and apparently devoted to God, and may even have had much comfort and
peace in what they took to be piety; they may have been eminently
"gifted" in prayer, or may have even been successful preachers of
the gospel, but all this does not prove that they ever had any piety,
nor does the fact that such persons apostatize from their profession
throw any light on a question quite foreign to this--whether true
Christians ever fall from grace. Comp. Matthew 7:22,23.
(3.) The passage before us proves that if any are true Christians they
will remain in the church, or will certainly persevere and be saved.
They may indeed backslide grievously; they may wander far away,
and pain the hearts of their brethren, and give occasion to the
enemies of religion to speak reproachfully; but the apostle says, "if
they had been of us, they would have continued with us."
(4.) One of the best evidences of true piety is found in the fact of
continuing with the church. I do not mean nominally and formally,
but really and spiritually, having the heart with the church; loving
its peace and promoting its welfare; identifying ourselves with real
Christians, and showing that we are ready to co-operate with those
who love the Lord Jesus and his cause.
(5.) The main reason why professing Christians are suffered to apostatize
is to show that they had no true religion. It is desirable that they
should see it themselves; desirable that others should see it also. It is
better that it should be known that they had no true religion than that
they should remain in the church to be a burden on its movements, and
a reproach to the cause. By being allowed thus to separate themselves
from the Church, they may be brought to remember their violated vows, and
the church will be free from the reproach of having those in its bosom
who are a dishonour to the Christian name. We are not to wonder, then, if
persons apostatize who have been professors of true religion; and we are
not to suppose that the greatest injury is done to the cause when they do
it. A greater injury by far is done when such persons remain in the
church.
{a} "for if they had been of us" 2 Timothy 2:19
{a1} "manifest" 2 Timothy 3:9
Verse 20. But ye have an unction from the Holy One. The apostle in
this verse evidently intends to say that he had no apprehension in regard
to those to whom he wrote that they would thus apostatize, and bring
dishonour on their religion. They had been so anointed by the Holy
Spirit that they understood the true nature of religion, and it might
be confidently expected that they would persevere, The word unction
or anointing (\~crisma\~) means, properly, "something rubbed in or
ointed;" oil for anointing, ointment; then it means an anointing.
The allusion is to the anointing of kings and priests, or their
inauguration or coronation, (1 Samuel 10:1; 16:13; Exodus 28:41; 40:15; compare
See Barnes "Matthew 1:1";) and the idea seems to have been that the oil
thus used was emblematic of the gifts and graces of the Holy Spirit as
qualifying them for the discharge of the duties of their office.
Christians, in the New Testament, are described as "kings and priests,"
(Revelation 1:6; 5:10,) and as a "royal priesthood,"
See Barnes "1 Peter 2:5", See Barnes "1 Peter 2:9";) and hence they are
represented as anointed, or as endowed with those graces of the
Spirit, of which anointing was the emblem. The phrase "the Holy One"
refers here, doubtless, to the Holy Spirit, that Spirit whose influences
are imparted to the people of God, to enlighten, to sanctify, and to
comfort them in their trials. The particular reference here is to the
influences of that Spirit as giving them clear and just views of the
nature of religion, and thus securing them from error and apostasy.
And ye know all things. That is, all things which it is essential
that you should know on the subject of religion.
See Barnes "John 17:13"; See Barnes "1 Corinthians 2:15". The meaning cannot
be that they knew all things pertaining to history, to science, to
literature, and to the arts; but that, under the influences of the Holy
Spirit, they had been made so thoroughly acquainted with the truths and
duties of the Christian religion, that they might be regarded as safe
from the danger of fatal error. The same may be said of all true
Christians now, that they are so taught by the Spirit of God, that they
have a practical acquaintance with what religion is, and with what it
requires, and are secure from falling into fatal error. In regard to the
general meaning of this verse, then, it may be observed:
I. That it does not mean any one of the following things:
(1.) That Christians are literally instructed by the Holy Spirit in all
things, or that they literally understand all subjects. The teaching,
whatever it may be, refers only to religion.
(2.) It is not meant that any new faculties of mind are conferred on
them, or any increased intellectual endowments, by their religion. It is
not a fact that Christians, as such, are superior in mental endowments to
others; not that by their religion they have any mental traits which they
had not before their conversion. Paul, Peter, and John had essentially
the same mental characteristics after their conversion which they had
before; and the same is true of all Christians.
(3.) It is not meant that any new truth is revealed to the mind by the
Holy Spirit. All the truth that is brought before the mind of the
Christian is to be found in the word of God, and revelation, as such,
was completed when the Bible was finished.
(4.) It is not meant that anything is perceived by Christians which
they had not the natural faculty for perceiving before their conversion,
or which other men have not also the natural faculty for perceiving. The
difficulty with men is not a defect of natural faculties, it is in the
blindness of the heart.
II. The statement here made by John does imply, it is supposed, the
following things:
(1.) That the minds of Christians are so enlightened that they have a new
perception of the truth. They see it in a light in which they did not
before. They see it as truth. They see its beauty, its force, its
adaptedness to their condition and wants. They understand the
subject of religion better than they once did, and better than others
do. What was once dark appears now plain; what once had no
beauty to their minds now appears beautiful; what was once repellent is
now attractive.
(2.) They see this to be true; that is, they see it in such a light
that they cannot doubt that it is true. They have such views of the
doctrines of religion, that they have no doubt that they are true, and
are willing on the belief of their truth to lay down their lives, and
stake their eternal interests.
(3.) Their knowledge of truth is enlarged. They become acquainted with
more truths than they would have known if they had not been under the
teaching of the Holy Spirit. Their range of thought is greater; their
vision more extended, as well as more clear.
III. The evidence that this is so is found in the following things:
(1.) The express statements of Scripture. See 1 Corinthians 2:14,15, and the
Notes on that passage. See Barnes "1 Corinthians 2:14",
See Barnes "1 Corinthians 2:15", Compare John 16:13,14.
(2.) It is a matter of fact that it is so.
(a.) Men by nature do not perceive any beauty in the truths of religion.
They are distasteful to them, or they are repulsive and offensive. "The
doctrine of the cross is to the Jew a stumbling-block, and to the Greek
foolishness." They may see indeed the force of an argument, but they do
not see the beauty of the way of salvation.
(b.) When they are converted they do. These things appear to them to be
changed, and they see them in a new light, and perceive a beauty in them
which they never did before.
(c.) There is often a surprising developement of religious knowledge
when persons are converted. They seem to understand the way of salvation,
and the whole subject of religion, in a manner and to an extent
which cannot be accounted for, except on the supposition of a teaching
from above.
(d.) This is manifest also in the knowledge which persons otherwise
ignorant exhibit on the subject of religion. With few advantages for
education, and with no remarkable talents, they show an acquaintance with
the truth, a knowledge of religion, an ability to defend the doctrines of
Christianity, and to instruct others in the way of salvation, which could
have been derived only from some source superior to themselves. Comp.
John 7:15; Acts 4:13.
(e.) The same thing is shown by their adherence to truth in the midst
of persecution, and simply because they perceive that for which they
die to be the truth. And is there anything incredible in this? May
not the mind see what truth is? How do we judge of an axiom in
mathematics, or of a proposition that is demonstrated, but by the
fact that the mind perceives it to be true, and cannot doubt it? And
may it not be so in regard to religious truth--especially when that
truth is seen to accord with what we know of ourselves, our lost
condition as sinners, and our need of a Saviour, and when we see
that the truths revealed in the Scriptures are exactly adapted to our
wants?
{b} "unction" 2 Corinthians 1:21
{c} "know" 1 Corinthians 2:15
Verse 21. I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth.
You are not to regard my writing to you in this earnest manner as any
evidence that I do not suppose you to be acquainted with religion
and it duties. Some, perhaps, might have been disposed to put this
construction on what he had said, but he assures them that that
was not the reason why he had thus addressed them. The very fact
that they did understand the subject of religion, he says, was rather
the reason why he wrote to them.
But because ye know it. This was the ground of his hope that his
appeal would be effectual. If they had never known what religion was, if
they were ignorant of its nature and its claims, he would have had much
less hope of being able to guard them against error, and of securing
their steady walk in the path of piety. We may always make a strong and
confident appeal to those who really understand what the nature of
religion is, and what are the evidences of its truth.
And that no lie is of the truth. No form of error, however plausible
it may appear, however ingeniously it may be defended, and however much
it may seem to be favourable to human virtue and happiness, can be
founded in truth. What the apostle says here has somewhat the aspect of a
truism, but it contains a real truth of vital importance, and one
which should have great influence in determining our minds in regard to
any proposed opinion or doctrine. Error often appears plausible. It seems
to be adapted to relieve the mind of many difficulties which perplex and
embarass it on the subject of religion. It seems to be adapted to promote
religion. It seems to make those who embrace it happy, and for a time
they apparently enjoy religion. But John says that however plausible all
this may be, however much it may seem to prove that the doctrines thus
embraced are of God, it is a great and vital maxim that no error can have
its foundation in truth, and, of course, that it must be worthless. The
grand question is, what is truth; and when that is determined, we can
easily settle the inquiries which come up about the various doctrines
that are abroad in the world. Mere plausible appearances, or temporary
good results that may grow out of a doctrine, do not prove that it is
based on truth; for whatever those results may be, it is impossible
that any error, however plausible, should have its origin in the truth.
Verse 22. Who is a liar. That is, who is false; who maintains an
erroneous doctrine; who is an impostor, if he is not? The object of
the apostle is to specify one of the prevailing forms of error, and to
show that, however plausible the arguments might be by which it
was defended, it was impossible that it should be true. Their own
knowledge of the nature of religion must convince them at once that
this opinion was false.
That denieth that Jesus is the Christ. It would seem that the apostle
referred to a class who admitted that Jesus lived, but who denied that he
was the true Messiah. On what grounds they did this is unknown; but to
maintain this was, of course, the same as to maintain that he was an
impostor. The ground taken may have been that he had not the
characteristics ascribed to the Messiah in the prophets; or that he did
not furnish evidence that he was sent from God; or that he was an
enthusiast. Or perhaps some peculiar form of error may be referred to,
like that which is said to have been held by Corinthus, who in his
doctrine separated Jesus from Christ, maintaining them to be two
distinct persons.--Doddridge.
He is antichrist. See Barnes "1 John 2:18". He has all the
characteristics and attributes of antichrist; or, a doctrine which
practically involves the denial of both the Father and the Son, must be
that of antichrist.
That denieth the Father and the Son. That denies the peculiar truths
pertaining to God the Father, and to the Son of God. The charge here is
not that they entertained incorrect views of God as such--as
almighty, eternal, most wise, and good; but that they denied the
doctrines which religion taught respecting God as Father and Son.
Their opinions tended to a denial of what was revealed respecting God as
a Father --not in the general sense of being the Father of the
universe, but in the particular sense of his relation to the Son. It
cannot be supposed that they denied the existence and perfections of God
as such, nor that they denied that God is a Father in the relation
which he sustains to the universe; but the meaning must be that what they
held went to a practical denial of that which is peculiar to the true
God, considered as sustaining the relation of a Father to his Son
Jesus Christ. Correct views of the Father could not be held without
correct views of the Son; correct views of the Son could not be
held without correct views of the Father. The doctrines respecting
the Father and the Son were so connected that one could not be
held without holding the other, and one could not be denied without
denying the other. See Barnes "Matthew 11:27"; See Barnes "John 5:23".
No man can have just views of God the Father who has not right
apprehensions of the Son. As a matter of fact in the world, men have
right apprehensions of God only when they have correct views of the
character of the Lord Jesus Christ.
{a} "that denieth" 1 John 4:3
Verse 23. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father.
That is, has no just views of the Father, and has no evidence of his
friendship. It is only by the Son of God that the Father is made known
to men, (Matthew 11:27; Hebrews 1:2,3,) and it is only through him that
we can become reconciled to God, and obtain evidence of his favour,
See Barnes "John 5:23".
But he that acknowledges the Son, hath the Father also. This passage,
in the common version of the New Testament, is printed in Italics, as if
it were not in the original, but was supplied by the translators. It is
true that it is not found in all the MSS. and versions; but it is found
in a large number of Mss., and in the Vulgate, the Syriac, the AEthiopic,
the Coptic, the Armenian, and the Arabic versions, and in the critical
editions of Griesbach, Tittman, and Hahn. It is probable, therefore, that
it should be regarded as a genuine portion of the sacred text. It is much
in the style of John, and though not necessary to complete the sense, yet
it well suits the connexion. As it was true that if one denied the
Son of God he could have no pretensions to any proper acquaintance
with the Father, so it seemed to follow that if any one had any
proper knowledge of the Son of God, and made a suitable confession
of him, he had evidence that he was acquainted with the Father.
Compare John 17:3;; Romans 10:9. Though, therefore, this passage
was wanting in many of the Mss. consulted by the translators of the
Bible, and though in printing it in the manner in which they have
they showed the great caution with which they acted in admitting
anything doubtful into their translation, yet the passage should be
restored to the text, and be regarded as a genuine portion of the
word of God. The great truth can never be too clearly stated, or
too often inculcated, that it is only by a knowledge of the Lord Jesus
Christ that we can have any true acquaintance with God, and that
all who have just views of the Saviour are in fact acquainted with the
true God, and are heirs of eternal life.
{b} "Whosever" John 15:23
Verse 24. Let that therefore abide in you. Adhere steadfastly to it;
let the truth obtain a permanent lodgement in the soul. In view of its
great importance, and its influence on your happiness here and hereafter,
let it never depart from you.
Which ye have heard from the beginning. That is, the same doctrines
which you have always been taught respecting the Son of God and the way
of salvation. See Barnes "1 John 2:7".
Ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father. Truly
united to the Son and to the Father; or having evidence of the
favour and friendship of the Son and the Father.
{c} "Let" 2 John 1:6
{*} "remain" "abide"
{*} "continue" "abide"
Verse 25. And this is the promise that he hath promised us, even
eternal life. This is evidently added to encourage them in adhering
to the truths which they had embraced respecting the Son of God. In
maintaining these truths they had the promise of eternal life; in
departing from them they had none, for the promise of heaven in our
world is made only to those who embrace one class of doctrines or
opinions. No one can show that any promise of heaven is made to
the mere possessor of beauty, or wealth, or talent; to the accomplished
or the gay; to those who are distinguished for science, or skill in the
arts; to rank, or birth, or blood; to courage or strength, whatever
expectation of heaven any one may entertain on account of any of these
things, must be traced to something else than a promise, for there is
none in the Bible to that effect. The promise of heaven to men is
limited to those who repent of their sins, who believe in the Lord Jesus
Christ, and who lead a holy life; and if any one will base his hope of
heaven on a promise, it must be limited to these things. And yet what
well-founded hope of heaven can there be, except that which is based
on a promise? How does any one know that he can be saved, unless he
has some assurance from God that it may and shall be so? Is not heaven
his home? How does any one know that he may dwell there, without some
assurance from him that he may? Is not the crown of life his gift? How
can any one know that he will possess it, unless he has some promise
from him? However men may reason, or conjecture, or hope, the only
promise of eternal life is found in the Bible; and the fact that
we have such a promise should surely be a sufficient inducement to
us to hold fast the truth. On the promise of life in the gospel, see
John 17:2; Romans 2:6,7; Mark 16:16; Matthew 25:46.
{d} "even eternal life" John 17:3
Verse 26. These things have I written unto you concerning them that
seduce you. Respecting their character, and in order to guard you
against their arts. The word seduce means to lead astray; and it here
refers to those who would seduce them from the truth, or lead them
into dangerous error. The apostle does not mean that they had actually
seduced them, for he states in the following verse that they were
yet safe; but he refers to the fact that there was danger that they
might be led into error.
{*} "seduce" "deceive"
Verse 27. But the anointing which ye have received of him.
See Barnes "1 John 2:20".
Abideth in you. The meaning is, that the influence on your heart and
life, which results from the fact that you are anointed of God,
permanently abides with you, and will keep you from dangerous error. The
apostle evidently meant to say that he felt assured that they would not
be seduced from the truth, and that his confidence in regard to this was
placed in the fact that they had been truly anointed unto God as kings
and priests. Thus understood, what he here says is equivalent to the
expression of a firm conviction that those who are true Christians will
not fall away. Comp, See Barnes "1 John 2:19",
See Barnes "1 John 2:20".
And ye need not that any man teach you. That is, what are the things
essential to true religion. See Barnes "1 John 2:20".
But as the same anointing teacheth you of all things. This cannot
mean that the mere act of anointing, if that had been performed in
their case, would teach them; but it refers to what John includes in
what he calls the anointing--that is, in the solemn consecrating to the
duties of religion under the influences of the Holy Spirit.
And is truth, and is no lie. Leads to truth, and not to error. No man
was ever led into error by those influences which result from the fact
that he has been consecrated to the service of God.
Ye shall abide in him. Marg., "or it." The Greek will bear either
construction. The connexion, however, seems to demand that it should be
understood as referring to him--that is, to the Saviour.
{a} "teacheth" John 16:26
{1} "him" "it"
Verse 28. And now, little children. See Barnes "1 John 2:1". Abide
in him; that, when he shall appear. In the end of the world, to receive
his people to himself. See Barnes "John 14:2,3". We may have
confidence. Greek, boldness--\~parrhsian\~. This word is commonly used
to denote openness, plainness, or boldness in speaking,
Mark 8:32; John 7:4,13,26; Acts 2:29; 4:13,29; 2 Corinthians 3:12; 7:4.
Here it means the kind of boldness, or calm assurance, which arises
from evidence of piety, and of preparation for heaven. It means
that they would not be overwhelmed and confounded at the coming
of the Saviour, by its being then found that all their hopes were
fallacious.
And not be ashamed before him at his coming. By having all our hopes
taken away; by being held up to the universe as guilty and condemned. We
feel ashamed when our hopes are disappointed; when it is shown that we
have a character different from what we professed to have; when our
pretensions to goodness are stripped off, and the heart is made bare.
Many will thus be ashamed in the last day, (Matthew 7:21-23;) but it is
one of the promises made to those who truly believe on the Saviour, that
they shall never be ashamed or confounded. See Barnes "1 Peter 2:6",
Comp. Isaiah 45:17; Romans 5:5; 1 Peter 4:16; Mark 8:38.
Verse 29. If ye know that he is righteous. This is not said as if
there could be any doubt on the subject, but merely to call their
attention to it as a well-known truth, and to state what followed from
it. Every one who has any true acquaintance with God, must have the
fullest conviction that he is a righteous Being. But, if this be so,
John says, then it must follow that only those who are truly righteous
can regard themselves as begotten of him.
Ye know. Marg., know ye. The Greek will bear either construction,
and either would make good sense. Assuming that God is righteous, it
would be proper to state, as in the text, that it followed from this that
they must know that only those who are righteous can be regarded as
begotten of him; or, assuming this to be true, it was proper to
exhort them to be righteous, as in the margin. Whichever interpretation
is adopted, the great truth is taught, that only those who are truly
righteous can regard themselves as the children of God.
That every one that doeth righteousness is born of him. Or rather,
is begotten of him; is truly a child of God. This truth is everywhere
taught in the Bible, and is worthy of being often repeated. No one who is
not, in the proper sense of the term, a righteous man, can have any
well-founded pretensions to being regarded as a child of God. If this be
so, then it is not difficult to determine whether we are the children of
God.
(1.) If we are unjust, false, dishonest, we cannot be his children.
(2.) If we are indulging in any known sin, we cannot be.
(3.) If we are not truly righteous, all visions and raptures, all zeal
and ardour, though in the cause of religion, all that we may pride
ourselves on in being fervent in prayer, or eloquent in preaching, is
vain.
(4.) If we are righteous, in the true and proper sense, doing that which
is right toward God and toward men, to ourselves, to our families, to our
neighbours, to the world at large, to the Saviour who died for us, then
we are true Christians; and then, no matter how soon he may appear, or
how solemn and overwhelming the scenes that shall close the world, we
shall not be ashamed or confounded, for we shall hail him as our Saviour,
and rejoice that the time has come that we may go and dwell with him
for ever.
{2} "ye know" "know ye"
{b} "that every one" Jeremiah 13:23; Matthew 7:16-18
Printer friendly version
HOME
TOP