Text -- 1 John 2:2 (NET)

2:2 and he himself is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for our sins but also for the whole world.

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per phrase)

Robertson: 1Jo 2:2

And he ( kai autos ).

He himself in his own person, both priest and sacrifice (Heb 9:14).

Robertson: 1Jo 2:2

The propitiation ( hilasmos ).

Late substantive from hilaskomai (Luk 18:13; Heb 2:17), in lxx, Philo, Plutarch, in N.T. only here and 1Jo 4:10. Christ himself is the means of propitiation for (peri concerning) our sins. See hilastērion in Rom 3:15.

Robertson: 1Jo 2:2

For the whole world ( peri holou tou kosmou ).

It is possible to supply the ellipsis here of tōn hamartiōn (the sins of) as we have it in Heb 7:27, but a simpler way is just to regard "the whole world"as a mass of sin (1Jo 5:19). At any rate, the propitiation by Christ provides for salvation for all (Heb 2:9) if they will only be reconciled with God (2Co 5:19-21).

Vincent: 1Jo 2:2

And He ( καὶ αὐτὸς )

The He is emphatic: that same Jesus : He himself .

Vincent: 1Jo 2:2

The propitiation ( ἱλασμός )

Only here and 1Jo 4:10. From ἱλάσκομαι to appease , to conciliate to one's self , which occurs Luk 18:13; Heb 2:17. The noun means originally an appeasing or propitiating , and passes, through Alexandrine usage, into the sense of the means of appeasing , as here. The construction is to be particularly noted; for , in the matter of (περί ) our sins ; the genitive case of that for which propitiation is made. In Heb 2:17, the accusative case, also of the sins to be propitiated. In classical usage, on the other hand, the habitual construction is the accusative (direct objective case), of the person propitiated. So in Homer, of the gods. Θεὸν ἱλάσκεσθαι is to make a God propitious to one. See " Iliad," i., 386, 472. Of men whom one wishes to conciliate by divine honors after death. So Herodotus, of Philip of Crotona. " His beauty gained him honors at the hands of the Egestaeans which they never accorded to any one else; for they raised a hero-temple over his grave, and they still propitiate him (αὐτὸν ἱλάσκονται ) with sacrifices" (v., 47). Again, " The Parians, having propitiated Themistocles (Θεμιστοκλέα ἱλασάμενοι ) with gifts, escaped the visits of the army" (viii., 112). The change from this construction shows, to quote Canon Westcott, " that the scriptural conception of the verb is not that of appeasing one who is angry, with a personal feeling, against the offender; but of altering the character of that which, from without, occasions a necessary alienation, and interposes an inevitable obstacle to fellowship. Such phrases as 'propitiating God,' and God 'being reconciled' are foreign to the language of the New Testament. Man is reconciled (2Co 5:18 sqq.; Rom 5:10 sq.). There is a propitiation in the matter of the sin or of the sinner ."

Vincent: 1Jo 2:2

For the sins of the whole world ( περὶ ὅλου τοῦ κόσμου )

The sins of (A. V., italicized) should be omitted; as in Revelation, for the whole world . Compare 1Jo 4:14; Joh 4:42; Joh 7:32. " The propitiation is as wide as the sin" (Bengel). If men do not experience its benefit, the fault is not in its efficacy. Düsterdieck (cited by Huther) says, " The propitiation has its real efficacy for the whole world; to believers it brings life, to unbelievers death." Luther: " It is a patent fact that thou too art a part of the whole world; so that thine heart cannot deceive itself, and think, the Lord died for Peter and Paul, but not for me." On κόσμου see on Joh 1:9.

Wesley: 1Jo 2:2

The atoning sacrifice by which the wrath of God is appeased.

Wesley: 1Jo 2:2

Who believe. And not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world - Just as wide as sin extends, the propitiation extends also .

JFB: 1Jo 2:2

Greek, "And Himself." He is our all-prevailing Advocate, because He is Himself "the propitiation"; abstract, as in 1Co 1:30 : He is to us all that is needed for propitiation "in behalf of our sins"; the propitiatory sacrifice, provided by the Father's love, removing the estrangement, and appeasing the righteous wrath, on God's part, against the sinner. "There is no incongruity that a father should be offended with that son whom he loveth, and at that time offended with him when he loveth him" [BISHOP PEARSON]. The only other place in the New Testament where Greek "propitiation" occurs, is 1Jo 4:10; it answers in the Septuagint to Hebrew, "caphar," to effect an atonement or reconciliation with God; and in Eze 44:29, to the sin offering. In Rom 3:25, Greek, it is "propitiatory," that is, the mercy seat, or lid of the ark whereon God, represented by the Shekinah glory above it, met His people, represented by the high priest who sprinkled the blood of the sacrifice on it.

JFB: 1Jo 2:2

Greek, "yet."

JFB: 1Jo 2:2

Believers: not Jews, in contrast to Gentiles; for he is not writing to Jews (1Jo 5:21).

JFB: 1Jo 2:2

Christ's "advocacy" is limited to believers (1Jo 2:1; 1Jo 1:7): His propitiation extends as widely as sin extends: see on 2Pe 2:1, "denying the Lord that bought them." "The whole world" cannot be restricted to the believing portion of the world (compare 1Jo 4:14; and "the whole world," 1Jo 5:19). "Thou, too, art part of the world, so that thine heart cannot deceive itself and think, The Lord died for Peter and Paul, but not for me" [LUTHER].

Clarke: 1Jo 2:2

And he is the propitiation - ‘ Ἱλασμος· The atoning sacrifice for our sins. This is the proper sense of the word as used in the Septuagint, where it often occurs; and is the translation of אשם asham , an oblation for sin, Amo 8:14. חטאת chattath , a sacrifice for sin, Eze 44:27. כפור kippur , an atonement, Num 5:8. See the note on Rom 3:25, and particularly the note on Luk 18:13. The word is used only here and in 1Jo 4:10

Clarke: 1Jo 2:2

And not for ours only - It is not for us apostles that he has died, nor exclusively for the Jewish people, but περι ὁλου του κοσμου, for the whole world, Gentiles as well as Jews, all the descendants of Adam. The apostle does not say that he died for any select part of the inhabitants of the earth, or for some out of every nation, tribe, or kindred; but for All Mankind; and the attempt to limit this is a violent outrage against God and his word

For the meaning of the word παρακλητος, which we here translate advocate, see the note on Joh 14:16

From these verses we learn that a poor backslider need not despair of again finding mercy; this passage holds out sufficient encouragement for his hope. There is scarcely another such in the Bible, and why? That sinners might not presume on the mercy of God. And why this one? That no backslider might utterly despair. Here, then, is a guard against presumption on the one hand, and despondency on the other.

Calvin: 1Jo 2:2

2.And not for ours only He added this for the sake of amplifying, in order that the faithful might be assured that the expiation made by Christ, extends to all who by faith embrace the gospel.

Here a question may be raised, how have the sins of the whole world been expiated? I pass by the dotages of the fanatics, who under this pretense extend salvation to all the reprobate, and therefore to Satan himself. Such a monstrous thing deserves no refutation. They who seek to avoid this absurdity, have said that Christ ⁶³ suffered sufficiently for the whole world, but efficiently only for the elect. This solution has commonly prevailed in the schools. Though then I allow that what has been said is true, yet I deny that it is suitable to this passage; for the design of John was no other than to make this benefit common to the whole Church. Then under the word all or whole, he does not include the reprobate, but designates those who should believe as well as those who were then scattered through various parts of the world. For then is really made evident, as it is meet, the grace of Christ, when it is declared to be the only true salvation of the world.

Defender: 1Jo 2:2

"Propitiation," in this context, means "sacrifice" or "satisfaction" (1Jo 4:10).

Defender: 1Jo 2:2

The value of Christ's blood was infinite, sufficient to cover all the sins of all the men and women of every age of history. The fact that it is efficacious unto eternal salvation only for the elect (a term that includes all and only those who believe on Him) is no argument that its value was thereby limited."

TSK: 1Jo 2:2

he is : 1Jo 1:7, 1Jo 4:10; Rom 3:25, Rom 3:26; 1Pe 2:24, 1Pe 3:18

for the : 1Jo 4:14, 1Jo 5:19; Joh 1:29, Joh 4:42, Joh 11:51, Joh 11:52; 2Co 5:18-21; Rev 12:9

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per Verse)

Barnes: 1Jo 2:2

And he is the propitiation for our sins - The word rendered "propitiation"( ἱλασμός hilasmos ) occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, except in 1Jo 4:10 of this Epistle; though words of the same derivation, and having the same essential meaning, frequently occur. The corresponding word ἱλαστήριον hilastērion occurs in Rom 3:25, rendered "propitiation"- "whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood;"and in Heb 9:5, rendered mercy-seat - "shadowing the mercy-seat."The verb ἱλάσκομαι hilaskomai occurs also in Luk 18:3 - God be merciful to me a sinner;"and Heb 2:17 - "to make reconciliation for the sins of the people."For the idea expressed by these words, see the notes at Rom 3:25. The proper meaning of the word is that of reconciling, appeasing, turning away anger, rendering propitious or favorable. 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)\caps1     t\caps0 hat his will has been disregarded, and his law violated, and that he has reason to be offended with us;

(2)\caps1     t\caps0 hat 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)\caps1     t\caps0 hat 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)\caps1     t\caps0 hat 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:

\tx720 \tx1080 (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.

©    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 honor 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 connection demands it. This is one of the expressions occurring in the New Testament which demonstrate that the atonement was made for all people, 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 people; is such as would be used if it be supposed that the apostle meant to teach that Christ died for all people; 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)\caps1     t\caps0 hat the atonement in its own nature is adapted to all people, or that it is as much fitted to one individual, or one class, as another;

(2)\caps1     t\caps0 hat it is sufficient in merit for all; that is, that if anymore should be saved than actually will be, there would be no need of any additional suffering in order to save them;

(3)\caps1     t\caps0 hat 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 easier than that of another.

It so magnified the law, so honored God, so fully expressed the divine sense of the evil of sin in respect to all people, 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 the 2Co 5:14 note, and Heb 2:9 note.

(See also the Supplementary notes at these passages, for a general review of the argument regarding the extent of atonement.)

Poole: 1Jo 2:2

And he is the propitiation for our sins: the adding of these words, shows that our Lord grounds his intercession for pardon of sin unto penitent believers, upon his having made atonement for them before; and therefore that he doth not herein merely supplicate for favour, but (which is the proper business of an advocate) plead law and right; agreeably to what is said above, 1Jo 1:9 .

And not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world nor is his undertaking herein limited to any select persons among believers, but he must be understood to be an Advocate for all, for whom he is effectually a Propitiation, i.e. for all that truly believe in him, Rom 3:25all the world over.

Gill: 1Jo 2:2

And he is the propitiation for our sins,.... For the sins of us who now believe, and are Jews:

and not for ours only; but for the sins of Old Testament saints, and of those who shall hereafter believe in Christ, and of the Gentiles also, signified in the next clause:

but also for the sins of the whole world; the Syriac version renders it, "not for us only, but also for the whole world"; that is, not for the Jews only, for John was a Jew, and so were those he wrote unto, but for the Gentiles also. Nothing is more common in Jewish writings than to call the Gentiles עלמא, "the world"; and כל העולם, "the whole world"; and אומות העולם, "the nations of the world" ^l; See Gill on John 12:19; and the word "world" is so used in Scripture; see Joh 3:16; and stands opposed to a notion the Jews have of the Gentiles, that אין להן כפרה, "there is no propitiation for them" ^m: and it is easy to observe, that when this phrase is not used of the Gentiles, it is to be understood in a limited and restrained sense; as when they say ⁿ,

"it happened to a certain high priest, that when he went out of the sanctuary, כולי עלמא, "the whole world" went after him;''

which could only design the people in the temple. And elsewhere ^o it is said,

"amle ylwk, "the "whole world" has left the Misna, and gone after the "Gemara";''

which at most can only intend the Jews; and indeed only a majority of their doctors, who were conversant with these writings: and in another place ^p,

"amle ylwk, "the whole world" fell on their faces, but Raf did not fall on his face;''

where it means no more than the congregation. Once more, it is said ^q, when

"R. Simeon ben Gamaliel entered (the synagogue), כולי עלמא, "the whole world" stood up before him;''

that is, the people in the synagogue: to which may be added ^r,

"when a great man makes a mourning, כולי עלמא, "the whole world" come to honour him;''

i.e. a great number of persons attend the funeral pomp: and so these phrases, כולי עלמא לא פליגי, "the whole world" is not divided, or does not dissent ^s; כולי עלמא סברי, "the whole world" are of opinion ^t, are frequently met with in the Talmud, by which, an agreement among the Rabbins, in certain points, is designed; yea, sometimes the phrase, "all the men of the world" ^u, only intend the inhabitants of a city where a synagogue was, and, at most, only the Jews: and so this phrase, "all the world", or "the whole world", in Scripture, unless when it signifies the whole universe, or the habitable earth, is always used in a limited sense, either for the Roman empire, or the churches of Christ in the world, or believers, or the present inhabitants of the world, or a part of them only, Luk 2:1; and so it is in this epistle, 1Jo 5:19; where the whole world lying in wickedness is manifestly distinguished from the saints, who are of God, and belong not to the world; and therefore cannot be understood of all the individuals in the world; and the like distinction is in this text itself, for "the sins of the whole world" are opposed to "our sins", the sins of the apostle and others to whom he joins himself; who therefore belonged not to, nor were a part of the whole world, for whose sins Christ is a propitiation as for theirs: so that this passage cannot furnish out any argument for universal redemption; for besides these things, it may be further observed, that for whose sins Christ is a propitiation, their sins are atoned for and pardoned, and their persons justified from all sin, and so shall certainly be glorified, which is not true of the whole world, and every man and woman in it; moreover, Christ is a propitiation through faith in his blood, the benefit of his propitiatory sacrifice is only received and enjoyed through faith; so that in the event it appears that Christ is a propitiation only for believers, a character which does not agree with all mankind; add to this, that for whom Christ is a propitiation he is also an advocate, 1Jo 2:1; but he is not an advocate for every individual person in the world; yea, there is a world he will not pray for Joh 17:9, and consequently is not a propitiation for them. Once more, the design of the apostle in these words is to comfort his "little children" with the advocacy and propitiatory sacrifice of Christ, who might fall into sin through weakness and inadvertency; but what comfort would it yield to a distressed mind, to be told that Christ was a propitiation not only for the sins of the apostles and other saints, but for the sins of every individual in the world, even of these that are in hell? Would it not be natural for persons in such circumstances to argue rather against, than for themselves, and conclude that seeing persons might be damned notwithstanding the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ, that this might, and would be their case. In what sense Christ is a propitiation; see Gill on Rom 3:25. The Jews have no notion of the Messiah as a propitiation or atonement; sometimes they say ^w repentance atones for all sin; sometimes the death of the righteous ^x; sometimes incense ^y; sometimes the priests' garments ^z; sometimes it is the day of atonement ^a; and indeed they are in the utmost puzzle about atonement; and they even confess in their prayers ^b, that they have now neither altar nor priest to atone for them; See Gill on 1Jo 4:10.

Commentary -- Verse Notes / Footnotes

NET Notes: 1Jo 2:2

¹ tn A suitable English translation for this word (ἱλασμός, Jilasmos) is a difficult and even controversial problem. “Expiation,” “propitiation,” and “atonement” have all been suggested. L. Morris, in a study that has become central to discussions of this topic (The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross, 140), sees as an integral part of the meaning of the word (as in the other words in the ἱλάσκομαι [Jilaskomai] group) the idea of turning away the divine wrath, suggesting that “propitiation” is the closest English equivalent. It is certainly possible to see an averting of divine wrath in this context, where the sins of believers are in view and Jesus is said to be acting as Advocate on behalf of believers. R. E. Brown’s point (Epistles of John [AB], 220-21), that it is essentially cleansing from sin which is in view here and in the other use of the word in 4:10, is well taken, but the two connotations (averting wrath and cleansing) are not mutually exclusive and it is unlikely that the propitiatory aspect of Jesus’ work should be ruled out entirely in the usage in 2:2. Nevertheless, the English word “propitiation” is too technical to communicate to many modern readers, and a term like “atoning sacrifice” (given by Webster’s New International Dictionary as a definition of “propitiation”) is more appropriate here. Another term, “satisfaction,” might also convey the idea, but “satisfaction” in Roman Catholic theology is a technical term for the performance of the penance imposed by the priest on a penitent.

sn The Greek word (ἱλασμός, Jilasmos) behind the phrase atoning sacrifice conveys both the idea of “turning aside divine wrath” and the idea of “cleansing from sin.”

² tn Many translations supply an understood repetition of the word “sins” here, thus: “but also for the sins of the whole world.”

Geneva Bible: 1Jo 2:2

And he is the ^{( b )} propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for [the sins of] the ^{( c )} whole world.

^{( b )} Reconciliation and intercession go together, to give us to understand that he is both advocate and high priest.

^{( c )} For men of all sorts, of all ages, and all places, so that this benefit being not to the Jews only, of whom he speaks as appears in (1Jo 2:7) but also to other nations.

Commentary -- Verse Range Notes

TSK Synopsis: 1Jo 2:1-29

1 He comforts them against the sins of infirmity.

3 Rightly to know God is to keep his commandments;

9 to love our brethren;

15 and not to love the world.

18 We must beware of seducers;

20 from whose deceits the godly are safe, preserved by perseverance in faith, and holiness of life.

MHCC: 1Jo 2:1-2

When have an Advocate with the Father; one who has undertaken, and is fully able, to plead in behalf of every one who applies for pardon and salvation in his name, depending on his pleading for them. He is " Jesus," the Saviour, and " Christ," the Messiah, the Anointed. He alone is " the Righteous One," who received his nature pure from sin, and as our Surety perfectly obeyed the law of God, and so fulfilled all righteousness. All men, in every land, and through successive generations, are invited to come to God through this all-sufficient atonement, and by this new and living way. The gospel, when rightly understood and received, sets the heart against all sin, and stops the allowed practice of it; at the same time it gives blessed relief to the wounded consciences of those who have sinned.

Matthew Henry: 1Jo 2:1-2

These verses relate to the concluding subject of the foregoing chapter, in which the apostle proceeds upon the supposition of the real Christian's sin. And here he gives them both dissuasion and support.

1. Dissuasion. He would leave no room for sin: " My little children, these things write I unto you, that you sin not, 1Jo 2:1. The design or purport of this letter, the design of what I have just said concerning communion with God and the overthrow of it by an irreligious course, is to dissuade and drive you from sin."See the familiar affectionate compellation with which he introduces his admonition: My little children, children as having perhaps been begotten by his gospel, little children as being much beneath him in age and experience, my little children, as being dear to him in the bonds of the gospel. Certainly the gospel most prevailed where and when such ministerial love most abounded. Or perhaps the judicious reader will find reason to think that the apostle's meaning in this dissuasion or caution is this, or amounts to this reading: These things write I unto you, not that you sin. And so the words will look back to what he had said before concerning the assured pardon of sin: God is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, etc., 1Jo 1:9. And so the words are a preclusion of all abuse of such favour and indulgence. "Though sins will be forgiven to penitent confessors, yet this I write, not to encourage you in sin, but upon another account."Or this clause will look forward to what the apostle is going to say about the Advocate for sinners: and so it is a prolepsis, a prevention of like mistake or abuse: " These things write I unto you, not that you sin, but that you may see your remedy for sin."And so the following particle (as the learned know) may be rendered adversatively: But, if a man sin, he may know his help and cure. And so we see,

II. The believer's support and relief in case of sin: And ( or but ) if any man sin (any of us, or of our foresaid communion), We have we an Advocate with the Father, etc., 1Jo 2:1. Believers themselves, those that are advanced to a happy gospel-state, have yet their sins. There is a great distinction therefore between the sinners that are in the world. There are Christianized (such as are instated in the sacred saving privileges of Christ's mystical or spiritual body) and unchristianized, converted and unconverted sinners. There are some who, though they really sin, yet, in comparison with others, are said not to sin, as 1Jo 3:9. Believers, as they have an atonement applied unto them at their entrance into a state of pardon and justification, so they have an Advocate in heaven still to continue to them that state, and procure their continued forgiveness. And this must be the support, satisfaction, and refuge of believers (or real Christians) in or upon their sins: We have an Advocate. The original name is sometimes given to the Holy Ghost, and then it is rendered, the Comforter. He acts within us; he puts pleas and arguments into our hearts and mouths; and so is our advocate, by teaching us to intercede for ourselves. But here is an advocate without us, in heaven and with the Father. The proper office and business of an advocate is with the judge; with him he pleads the client's cause. The Judge with whom our advocate pleads is the Father, his Father and ours. He who was our Judge in the legal court (the court of the violated law) is our Father in the gospel court, the court of heaven and of grace. His throne or tribunal is the mercy-seat. And he that is our Father is also our Judge, the supreme arbitrator of our state and circumstances, either for life or death, for time or eternity. You have come - to God, the Judge of all, Heb 12:23. That believers may be encouraged to hope that their cause will go well, as their Judge is represented to them in the relation of a Father, so their advocate is recommended to them upon these considerations: - 1. By his person and personal names. It is Jesus Christ the Son of the Father, one anointed by the Father for the whole office of mediation, the whole work of salvation, and consequently for that of the intercessor or advocate. 2. By his qualification for the office. It is Jesus Christ the righteous, the righteous one in the court and sight of the Judge. This is not so necessary in another advocate. Another advocate (or an advocate in another court) may be an unjust person himself, and yet may have a just cause (and the cause of a just person in that case) to plead, and may accordingly carry his cause. But here the clients are guilty; their innocence and legal righteousness cannot be pleaded; their sin must be confessed or supposed. It is the advocate's own righteousness that he must plead for the criminals. He has been righteous to the death, righteous for them; he has brought in everlasting righteousness. This the Judge will not deny. Upon this score he pleads, that the clients' sins may not be imputed to them. 3. By the plea he has to make, the ground and basis of his advocacy: And he is the propitiation for our sins, 1Jo 2:2. He is the expiatory victim, the propitiatory sacrifice that has been offered to the Judge for all our offences against his majesty, and law, and government. In vain do the professors of Rome distinguish between and advocate of redemption and an advocate of intercession, or a mediator of such different service. The Mediator of intercession, the Advocate for us, is the Mediator of redemption, the propitiation for our sins. It is his propitiation that he pleads. And we might be apt to suppose that his blood had lost its value and efficacy if no mention had been made of it in heaven since the time it was shed. But now we see it is of esteem there, since it is continually represented in the intercession of the great advocate (the attorney-general) for the church of God. He ever lives to make intercession for those that come to God through him. 4. By the extent of his plea, the latitude of his propitiation. It is not confined to one nation; and not particularly to the ancient Israel of God: He is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only (not only for the sins of us Jews, us that are Abraham's seed according to the flesh), but also for those of the whole world (1Jo 2:2); not only for the past, or us present believers, but for the sins of all who shall hereafter believe on him or come to God through him. The extent and intent of the Mediator's death reach to all tribes, nations, and countries. As he is the only, so he is the universal atonement and propitiation for all that are saved and brought home to God, and to his favour and forgiveness.

Barclay: 1Jo 2:1-2

The first thing to note in this passage is the sheer affection in it. John begins with the address, "My little children." Both in Latin and in Greek diminutives carry a special affection. They are words which are used, as it were, with a caress. John is a very old man; he must be, in fact, the last survivor of his generation, maybe the last man alive who had walked and talked with Jesus in the days of his flesh. So often age gets out of sympathy with youth and acquires even an impatient irritableness with the new and laxer ways of the younger generation. But not John, in his old age he has nothing but tenderness for those who are his little children in the faith. He is writing to tell them that they must not sin but he does not scold. There is no cutting edge in his voice; he seeks to love them into goodness. In this opening address there is the yearning, affectionate tenderness of a pastor for people whom he has known for long in all their wayward foolishness and still loves.

His object in writing is that they may not sin. There is a two-fold connection of thought here--with what has gone before and with what comes afterwards. There is a two-fold danger that they may indeed think lightly of sin.

John says two things about sin. First, he has just said that sin is universal; anyone who says that he has not sinned is a liar. Second, there is forgiveness of sins through what Jesus Christ has done, and still does, for men. Now it would be possible to use both these statements as an excuse to think lightly of sin. If all have sinned, why make a fuss about it and what is the use of struggling against something which is in any event an inevitable part of the human situation? Again, if there is forgiveness of sins, why worry about it?

In face of that, John, as Westcott points out, has two things to say.

First, the Christian is one who has come to know God; and the inevitable accompaniment of knowledge must be obedience. We shall return to this more fully; but at the moment we note that to know God and to obey God must, as John sees it, be twin parts of the same experience.

Second, the man who claims that he abides in God (1Jo 2:6) and in Jesus Christ must live the same kind of life as Jesus lived. That is to say, union with Christ necessarily involves imitation of Christ.

So John lays down his two great ethical principles; knowledge involves obedience, and union involves imitation. Therefore, in the Christian life there can never be any inducement to think lightly of sin.

Barclay: 1Jo 2:1-2

It will take us some considerable time to deal with these two verses for there are hardly any other two in the New Testament which so succinctly set out the work of Christ.

Let us first set out the problem. It is clear that Christianity is an ethical religion; that is what John is concerned to stress. But it is also clear that man is so often an ethical failure. Confronted with the demands of God, he admits them and accepts them--and then fails to keep them. Here, then, there is a barrier erected between man and God. How can man, the sinner, ever enter into the presence of God, the all-holy? That problem is solved in Jesus Christ. And in this passage John uses two great words about Jesus Christ which we must study, not simply to acquire intellectual knowledge but to understand and so to enter into the benefits of Christ.

He calls Jesus Christ our Advocate with the Father. The word is parakletos (3875) which in the Fourth Gospel the King James Version translates Comforter. It is so great a word and has behind it so great a thought that we must examine it in detail. Parakletos (3875) comes from the verb parakalein (3870). There are occasions when parakalein (3870) means to comfort. It is, for instance, used with that meaning in Gen 37:35, where it is said that all Jacob's sons and daughters rose up to comfort him at the loss of Joseph; in Isa 61:2, where it is said that the function of the prophet is to comfort all that mourn; and in Mat 5:4, where it is said that those who mourn will be comforted.

But that is neither the commonest nor the most literal sense of parakalein (3870); its commonest sense is to call someone to one's side in order to use him in some way as a helper and a counsellor. In ordinary Greek that is a very common usage. Xenophon (Anabasis 1.6.5) tells how Cyrus summoned (parakalein, 3870) Clearchos into his tent to be his counsellor, for Clearchos was a man held in the highest honour by Cyrus and by the Greeks. Aeschines, the Greek orator, protests against his opponents calling in Demosthenes, his great rival, and says: "Why need you call Demosthenes to your support? To do so is to call in a rascally rhetorician to cheat the ears of the jury" (Against Ctesiphon 200).

Parakletos (3875) itself is a word which is passive in form and literally means someone who is called to one's side; but since it is always the reason for the calling in that is uppermost in the mind, the word, although passive in form, has an active sense, and comes to mean a helper, a supporter and. above all, a witness in someone's favour, an advocate in someone's defence. It too is a common word in ordinary secular Greek. Demosthenes (De Fals. Leg. 1) speaks of the importunities and the party spirit of advocates (parakletoi, 3875) serving the ends of private ambition instead of public good. Diogenes Laertius (4: 50) tells of a caustic saying of the philosopher Bion. A very talkative person sought his help in some matter. Bion said, "I will do what you want, if you will only send someone to me to plead your case (i.e., send a parakletos, 3875), and stay away yourself." When Philo is telling the story of Joseph and his brethren, he says that, when Joseph forgave them for the wrong that they had done him, he said, "I offer you an amnesty for all that you did to me; you need no other parakletos (3875)" (Life of Joseph 40). Philo tells how the Jews of Alexandria were being oppressed by a certain governor and determined to take their case to the emperor. "We must find," they said, "a more powerful parakletos (3875) by whom the Emperor Gaius will be brought to a favourable disposition towards us" (Leg. in Flacc. 968 B).

So common was this word that it came into other languages just as it stood. In the New Testament itself the Syriac, Egyptian, Arabic, and Ethiopic versions all keep the word parakletos (3875) just as it stands. The Jews especially adopted the word and used it in this sense of advocate, someone to plead one's cause. They used it as the opposite of the word accuser and the Rabbis had this saying about what would happen in the day of God's judgment. "The man who keeps one commandment of the Law has gotten to himself one parakletos (3875); the man who breaks one commandment of the Law has gotten to himself one accuser." They said, "If a man is summoned to court on a capital charge, he needs powerful parakletoi (3875) (the plural of the word) to save him; repentance and good works are his parakletoi (3975) in the judgment of God." "All the righteousness and mercy which an Israelite does in this world are great peace and great parakletoi (3875) between him and his father in heaven." They said that the sin-offering is a man's parakletos (3875) before God.

So the word came into the Christian vocabulary. In the days of the persecutions and the martyrs, a Christian pleader called Vettius Epagathos ably pled the case of those who were accused of being Christians. "He was an advocate (parakletos, 3875) for the Christians, for he had the Advocate within himself, even the Spirit" (Eusebius: The Ecclesiastical History,, 5: 1). The Letter of Barnabas (20) speaks of evil men who are the advocates of the wealthy and the unjust judges of the poor. The writer of Second Clement asks: "Who shall be your parakletos (3875) if it be not clear that your works are righteous and holy?" (2 Clement 6: 9).

A parakletos (3875) has been defined as "one who lends his presence to his friends." More than once in the New Testament there is this great conception of Jesus as the friend and the defender of man. In a military court-martial the officer who defends the soldier under accusation is called the prisoner's friend. Jesus is our friend. Paul writes of that Christ who is at the right hand of God and "who intercedes for us" (Rom 8:34). The writer of the Letter to the Hebrews speaks of Jesus Christ as the one who "ever lives to make intercession" for men (Heb 7:25); and he also speaks of him as "appearing in the presence of God for us" (Heb 9:24).

The tremendous thing about Jesus is that he has never lost his interest in, or his love for, men. We are not to think of him as having gone through his life upon the earth and his death upon the Cross, and then being finished with men. He still bears his concern for us upon his heart; he still pleads for us; Jesus Christ is the prisoner's friend for all.

Barclay: 1Jo 2:1-2

John goes on to say that Jesus is the propitiation for our sins. The word is hilasmos (2434). This is a more difficult picture for us fully to grasp. The picture of the advocate is universal for all men have experience of a friend coming to their aid; but the picture in propitiation is from sacrifice and is more natural to the Jewish mind than to ours. To understand it we must get at the basic ideas behind it.

The great aim of all religion is fellowship with God, to know him as friend and to enter with joy, and not fear, into his presence. It therefore follows that the supreme problem of religion is sin, for it is sin that interrupts fellowship with God. It is to meet that problem that all sacrifice arises. By sacrifice fellowship with God is restored. So the Jews offered, night and morning, the sin-offering in the Temple. That was the offering, not for any particular sin but for man as a sinner; and so long as the Temple lasted it was made to God in the morning and in the evening. The Jews also offered their trespass-offerings to God; these were the offerings for particular sins. The Jews had their Day, of Atonement, whose ritual was designed to atone for all sins, known and unknown. It is with that background that we must come at this picture of propitiation.

As we have said, the Greek word for propitiation is hilasmos (2434), and the corresponding verb is hilaskesthai (2433). This verb has three meanings. (i) When it is used with a man as the subject, it means to placate or to pacify, someone who has been injured or offended, and especially to placate a god. It is to bring a sacrifice or to perform a ritual whereby a god, offended by sin, is placated. (ii) If the subject is God, the verb means to forgive, for then the meaning is that God himself provides the means whereby the lost relationship between him and men is restored. (iii) The third meaning is allied with the first. The verb often means to perform some deed, by which the taint of guilt is removed. A man sins; at once he acquires the taint of sin; he needs something, which, to use C. H. Dodd's metaphor, will disinfect him from that taint and enable him once again to enter into the presence of God. In that sense hilaskesthai (2433) means, not to propitiate but to expiate, not so much to pacify God as to disinfect man from the taint of sin and thereby fit him again to enter into fellowship with God.

When John says that Jesus is the hilasmos (2434) for our sins, he is, we think, bringing all these different senses into one. Jesus is the person through whom guilt for past sin and defilement from present sin are removed. The great basic truth behind this word is that it is through Jesus Christ that man's fellowship with God is first restored and then maintained.

We note one other thing. As John sees it, this work of Jesus was carried out not only for us but for the whole world. There is in the New Testament a strong line of thought in which the universality of the salvation of God is stressed. God so loved the world that he sent his son (Joh 3:16). Jesus is confident that, if he is lifted up, he will draw all men to him (Joh 12:32). God will have all men to be saved (1Ti 2:4). He would be a bold man who would set limits to the grace and love of God or to the effectiveness of the work and sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Truly the love of God is broader than the measures of man's mind; and in the New Testament itself there are hints of a salvation whose arms are as wide as the world.

Constable: 1Jo 1:5--3:1

II. Living in the light 1:5--2:29

"The teaching of 1 John is concerned essentially with the conditions for true Christian discipleship. The two main divisions of the letter set out these conditions and exhort the readers to live in the light (1:5-2:29) as children of God (3:1-5:13)."²⁷

John began his exposition of how his readers could enjoy fellowship with God by introducing the concept of God as light (1:5-7) and then explaining with four conditions what fellowship with God requires (1:8-2:29).

Constable: 1Jo 1:8--3:1

B. Conditions for living in the light 1:8-2:29

John articulated four fundamental principles that underlie fellowship with God to facilitate his readers' experience of that fellowship. One must renounce sin (1:8-2:2), obey God (2:3-11), reject worldliness (2:12-17), and keep the faith (2:18-29) to live in the light of God's presence.

"If the readers are to have fellowship with the Father and with the Son (v. 3), they must understand what makes this possible. They must know who God is in himself and, consequently, who they are in themselves as creatures of God. So the author first describes the moral character of God in terms of light (v. 5) and then goes on to deny three claims made by those who falsely boast of their knowledge and fellowship with God. The false positions are (1) moral behavior is a matter of indifference in one's relationship to God (v. 6); (2) immoral conduct does not issue in sin for one who knows God (v. 8); and (3) the knowledge of God removes sin as even a possibility in the life of the believer (v. 10). True tests' or evidence of fellowship with God or walking in the light are (1) fellowship with one another (v. 7), with subsequent cleansing by the blood of Christ; (2) confession of sin, (v. 9) which brings both forgiveness and cleansing; and (3) trusting that if we sin we have Jesus Christ as an advocate and sacrifice for our sins (2:2)."⁴³

"It would be difficult to find any single passage of Scripture more crucial and fundamental to daily Christian living than 1 John 1:5-10. For here, in a few brief verses, the disciple whom Jesus loved' has laid down for us the basic principles which underlie a vital walk with God."⁴⁴

Constable: 1Jo 1:8--2:3

1. Renouncing sin 1:8-2:2

John continued a structural pattern that he established in the previous section (vv. 6-7) in which he used pairs of clauses to present a false assertion followed by his correction.

1:8 This second claim (cf. v. 6) is more serious, and its results are worse: we do not just lie, but we deceive ourselves.

If a Christian claims to be experiencing fellowship with God, he may think he is temporarily or permanently entirely sinless. Our sinfulness exceeds our consciousness of guilt. We have only a very limited appreciation of the extent to which we sin. We commit sins of thought as well as deed, sins of omission as well as commission, and sins of nature as well as action.

Some have interpreted the phrase "no sin" to mean no sin nature or no sin principle.⁴⁵ However this seems out of harmony with John's other uses of "to have sin" (cf. John 15:22, 24; 19:11). Rather, it probably means to have no guilt for sin.⁴⁶

God's truth as Scripture reveals it does not have a full hold on us if we make this claim. "In us" suggests not that we have the facts in our mental grasp but that they have control over us. They are in us as a thread is in a piece of cloth rather than as a coin is in a pocket. The same contrast exists between intellectual assent and saving faith.

1:9 This verse is the converse of verse 8. Acknowledging the sins of which we are aware is opposite to saying we are not guilty for sinning. The Greek word translated "confess" (homologemen) literally means to say the same thing. Confessing therefore means saying about our sins what God says about them, namely, that they are indeed sins, offenses against Him, and not just mistakes, blunders, or errors.⁴⁷

"He who confesses and condemns his sins,' says Augustine, already acts with God. God condemns thy sins: if thou also dost condemn them, thou art linked on to God.'"⁴⁸

If we confess our sins, God will then forgive the sins we confess and will in addition cleanse us from all unrighteousness. Consequently we do not need to worry that He has failed to forgive us for sins of which we are unaware! Sin incurs a debt to God, but forgiveness (Gr. aphiemi) cancels the debt and dismisses the charge. Sin also pollutes the sinner, but God's cleansing (katharizo) removes the stain so we can be holy again.

God absolutely promises forgiveness that is consistent with His justice (because Jesus Christ paid the penalty for all our sins).

Some expositors teach that this verse cannot apply to Christians since God has already forgiven Christians and therefore we do not need to ask for what we already have.⁴⁹ This viewpoint fails to distinguish between forensic forgiveness that we receive at conversion and family forgiveness that we need after conversion. For example, a judge could pay his own son's fine in court but then discipline him when they got home. Jesus instructed His believing disciples to ask the Father for forgiveness (Luke 11:14). The fact that God has removed the penalty for our sins at conversion (Eph. 1:7) does not remove the necessity of confessing our sins frequently (cf. Matt. 6:11-12). Again, the issue is not acceptance by God but fellowship with God. Conversion (forensic) forgiveness makes us acceptable as members of God's family. Continual (family) forgiveness enables us to experience intimate fellowship as sons within God's family.

1:10 The false claim here is that what we have done is not really sin. This is the third and most serious charge (cf. vv. 6, 8). It puts God's revelation of sin aside and makes man the authority for what is and what is not sin. This claim says God is wrong in His judgment of man and is therefore a liar. The claimant dismisses His Word as invalid (e.g., Ps. 14:3; Isa. 53:6; John 2:24-25; Rom. 3:23).

Note that each of these three false claims in verses 6, 8, and 10 is a denial of the truth that immediately precedes it in verses 5, 7, and 9 respectively. The corrective to each false claim follows in the verse immediately after it.

Truth	False claim
God is light (v. 5).	We have fellowship with Him (v. 6).
Walking in the light is necessary for fellowship with God (v. 7).	We have no guilt for sin (v. 8).
Confession restores fellowship with God (v. 9).	We have not sinned (v. 10).

"What then is the principle of fellowship with God? Succinctly stated, it is openness to God and full integrity in the light of His Word."⁵⁰

2:1 John's preceding comments on the inevitability of sinful behavior (vv. 6-10) led to his assuring his readers here that he did not want them to sin. Avoidance of sin is important even though it is not entirely possible.

John used the Greek word translated "children" here (teknia) as a family term of endearment. It means "little born ones" (2:12, 28; 3:7, 18; 4:4; 5:21; John 13:33; cf. Gal. 4:19). "My" adds a further note of tenderness. These terms do not require us to conclude that the recipients were necessarily John's personal converts.

"May not sin" does not mean "may never ever sin again." Sinning is inevitable for sinners, even forgiven sinners, but in every instance of temptation there is always the possibility that we will not fall (1 Cor. 10:13). "If" introduces a condition assumed to take place for the sake of the argument (a third class condition in Greek).

As our Advocate (friend in court, or defense attorney) Jesus Christ pleads the cause of the sinning Christian before God the Father (cf. Heb. 7:25). This ministry appears to be broader than simply aiding the sinner after he or she sins. It evidently includes pleading the sinner's cause with the Father whenever that becomes necessary, as when Jesus prayed that Peter's faith would not fail (Luke 22:31-32). Here, however, the emphasis is on Jesus Christ's help after we have sinned. Since Jesus Christ is righteous He is the perfect Advocate with God (cf. Acts 3:14; 7:52).

The Greek word translated "Advocate" is parakleton that transliterated into English is "Paraclete." It means one who gets called to the side of another to help. Jesus used this word four times in the Upper Room Discourse to describe the Holy Spirit (John 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7). He called the Holy Spirit another Paraclete like Himself (John 14:16).

"Whereas in the first part of this v[erse] John is anticipating too lenient an attitude toward sin, in the second half he is countering the possibility of too harsh a view."⁵¹

2:2 Jesus Christ did not just make satisfaction for our sins, though He did that. He is the satisfaction Himself. The Septuagint translators used the same Greek word translated "propitiation" here (hilasmos, satisfaction, cf. 4:10) to translate the "mercy seat" on the ark of the covenant. Jesus' body was the site where God placated His wrath against sin. Verses 1:5-2:2 all have Old Testament tabernacle connotations. Jesus' death not only expiated (cleansed) sins, but it satisfied God's wrath against sin.⁵²

This verse provides strong support for the fact that Jesus Christ died for all people (unlimited atonement). In His death the Lord Jesus provided salvation that is sufficient for all, though it is efficient only for those who trust in Him (2 Cor. 5:14-15, 19; Heb. 2:9; Rev. 22:17). "Our" refers to the sins of all believers, and the "whole world" means all humankind, not just the elect (cf. John 1:12; 3:16). Those who hold to "particular redemption" (i.e., that Jesus died only for the elect) limit the meaning of the "whole world" to the world of the elect.

John reminded his readers in this section (1:8-2:2) that fellowship with God is possible only when we deal with sin in our lives. This is true of believers (1:5-2:1) as well as unbelievers (2:2).

College: 1Jo 2:1-29

1 JOHN 2

C. THE ATONING SACRIFICE (2:1-2)

¹ My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defense - Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for ^a the sins of the whole world.

^a 2 Or He is the one who turns aside God's wrath, taking away our sins, and not only ours but also

2:1 My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin.

John probably uses the word teknivon ( teknion , "little child") to indicate the vulnerability of these Christians due to their lack of mature experience in the Church. John, the disciple of love, was very fond of those to whom he was writing. He uses two intimately personal terms to refer to them: "my little children," or "dear children," and "dear friends." It is interesting that this man whom Jesus called a "son of thunder" in his early days of discipleship would become by the end of his life the "disciple of love." This is a further evidence of the power of Jesus on one's life. This statement is another one of those places in which John says, "I write to you so that . . . ." His purpose for writing was "that you will not sin." This is a continuation of the argument he has been making about his case against sin. Probably it would have been better if chapter 1 had been extended through 2:2, for he is discussing the same matter.

But if anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defense - Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. 2:2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

In 1 John 2:1-2, John is expounding on the remedy for sin. For, if anybody does sin , we have a remedy. If anyone sins, John says we have one who speaks . . . in our defense . He identifies Jesus Christ, the Righteous as that one who speaks in our defense. He is "representing our case" before the Father as he promised he would do. He is, therefore, our defense attorney, and he will represent us to God not only as we ask for forgiveness, but also when we stand before him on the day of judgment. He is qualified to do this because he is the atoning sacrifice for our sins . He has offered himself on the cross for our sins, and he has paid the debt for our guilt in the presence of God. This was the atoning sacrifice for our sins - but, not only for "our sins" but for the sins of all the world. John is not declaring here that this atoning sacrifice unconditionally paid the debt for out sins. We must accept the payment, obey his word and loyally serve him as our Savior.

D. KEEPING GOD'S COMMANDMENTS (2:3-6)

³ We know that we have come to know him if we obey his commands. ⁴ The man who says, "I know him," but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him. ⁵ But if anyone obeys his word, God's love ^a is truly made complete in him. This is how we know we are in him: ⁶ Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did.

^a 5 Or word, love for God

It is evident that John is continuing his argument for acceptance of the "witnessed one," Jesus. John has presented Jesus to us as the one who was the eternal "Word of life," the life that appeared, with whom we have fellowship, the one who "speaks to the Father in our defense," and the one who is our "atoning sacrifice."

Coming to know Jesus involved developing an intimate relationship with him. The Greek word translated by the Eng;lish words "to know" is the same word used for a husband to know his wife intimately. Certainly John is not suggesting any kind of sexual connotation, but "to know" Jesus involves becoming one with him spiritually as a man becomes one with his wife physically. At this point, John presents Jesus as the one whom we are to obey. Those who had gone out from them, the false teachers, could admit to none of these characteristics, or qualities.

2:3 We know that we have come to know him if we obey his commands.

Does it seem incidental that John uses the word from which "Gnostic" comes to indicate that "We know"? We know that we know him if we are obedient to his commands. John uses the perfect indicative to express "We have come to know him." This expression was a challenge to the Gnostics to reckon with the implications of their false teachings. Their teachings make it impossible for their followers to accept a central foundation principle of Christianity; namely, the incarnation of Jesus. The Greek idea of knowledge was that it was an activity of the mind; but the Gnostics believed this special knowledge (gnw'si", gnôsis, "knowledge") that they possessed was "a gift of God to man. It comes by revelation. The early church believed that that revelation began with Jesus and was handed down through the apostles and inspired teachers."

So far in this epistle, John has testified to his own witness of Jesus' humanity (see 1:1-4). Now he is saying that we not only must believe in his humanity because there were witnesses to both his divine as well as his human existence, but we must also obey his commands. John suggests that Jesus added another dimension to this obedience, which is recorded in the Gospel account: "Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me" (John 14:21). And, again, "If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. He who does not love me will not obey my teaching" (John 14:23-24). John asserts in this epistle that "if anyone obeys his word, God's love is truly made complete in him" (v. 5).

2:4 The man who says, "I know him," but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

This is a very strong indictment. Not only is such a person a liar, but the truth is not in him. This statement answers a question that many Christians have: "How can I know that I am a Christian?" John says that we come to know him when we obey his commands. John's readers in the first century and we in this present century can know of a surety that we are children of God: if we have obeyed Jesus' commands, then "God's love is truly made complete in" us (v. 5).

2:5 But if anyone obeys his word, God's love is truly made complete in him. This is how we know we are in him:

The Gnostics held that they had to have had some supernatural outpouring of gnôsis ("knowledge") from God. The early Christians to whom John wrote had not experienced this outpouring, and they must have wondered what their relationship to God was. John states here that God's love is truly made complete in him. In the next short section, we will discuss more in detail this "love of God" which John identifies as "a new command."

2:6 Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did.

John has already stated that to have fellowship with God, we must walk in the light and Jesus is the light. One of the characteristics of John's writing style is that he often makes one point and then he states the concept in a negative form. For example, we come to know him if we obey his commandments; if we do not obey them, we are liars. Or, "God is light" and in him is no darkness. John uses some of the same analogies that Paul used. John sees our being "in him" and living "in him" as the same thing. So if we live in him , we must walk as Jesus walked. Jesus left an example that we should walk "in his steps" (see 1 Pet 2:21). Again, John may be striking at the gnostic docetic philosophy (the notion that Jesus only seemed to be human) when he refers to walking "as Jesus walked." Walking as Jesus walked, however, does not refer to some ritualistic religion; it is more than simply living a "form of religion"; it means truly walking an unselfish, God-centered life in all we do. Jesus was not interested in mere ritual and form; he was interested in our lives being God-like in all we do.

E. A NEW COMMANDMENT (2:7-8)

⁷ Dear friends, I am not writing you a new command but an old one, which you have had since the beginning. This old command is the message you have heard. ⁸ Yet I am writing you a new command; its truth is seen in him and you, because the darkness is passing and the true light is already shining.

This discussion of the "new command" and the "old command" is, in reality, a continuation of the previous paragraph; however, we are discussing it here as a new paragraph.

2:7 Dear friends,

John begins this discussion by referring to these Christians as ajdelfoiv ( adelphoi , "brothers"). This word has been translated variously as "dear friends" (NIV), "brethren" (KJV), and "beloved" (RSV), to list a few. Literally the word is "brothers" or "brethren." Some of these other renditions are undoubtedly used to show the very close relationship John sustained with them, and I think with good intent. Certainly no harm is done to the language by showing this friendship relation. However, we should keep in mind that John was using language that indicated a family relationship, with God as Father.

I am not writing you a new command but an old one, which you have had since the beginning.

This is both a new command and an old command. John may be indirectly referring to a statement made by Jesus as recorded in his Gospel. "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another" (John 13:34-35). Notice here that John has switched from the plural [commands, v. 3] to the singular [command]. In the light of John 13:34-35. it is easy to conclude that all of the commandments are summed up in one, namely, "to love one another." Jesus designated love as the identification mark of his disciples. There is no other command or practice anywhere else in Holy Scripture that so succinctly sums up the identification of Jesus' disciples.

It was a "new" command when Jesus first gave it. Love from Jesus' perspective was summarized in the word ajgavph (agapç, "love"). There are several Greek words that can be translated by our English word "love," but this use of love is a stronger form of love. It was rarely used in pagan or secular sources. Jesus uses the imperative mood (ajgapa'te, agapate ). But the force of John's use of this imperative is that it is a strong "recommendation" or order to do so. If we want to obey the "new" command, we are expected to love one another. Some of the words used in the New Testament for "love" are more emotional in quality than agapç is. See the discussion of agapç and fivlo" (philos ) in the next paragraph. To love one another is to expect or desire that they be treated well.

This old command is the message you have heard.

But why does John refer to a new commandment, then says it is an old commandment? This command is the message you have heard . John calls this an old commandment because these Christians had known it "from the beginning." Beginning does not refer to the beginning of time, but the beginning of the gospel age, or at least the beginning of their acquaintance with the gospel. "Love" (or agapç as opposed to philos ["friendship love"]) had been a part of the message heard from the beginning (v. 5). So, it was an old message to those who had heard it, but a new message to those who had not heard it before. When Jesus told his disciples of the "new command," it really was a new one. The word agapç had not been used in the same way or with the same meaning Jesus place upon it. It was a new message. It suggests a type of love than can be commanded. The other words for "love" connote a more emotional type of feeling. The new message was one of an unselfish, caring love, a love that was concerned for the well-being of the other person. Some commentators do not attach any connection to Jesus' statement in John 13:34, but I am convinced that there is a connection from the fact that John wrote both statements and also from the fact that this is the only sense in which I can understand the "new" and the "old" commandment about loving one's brother.

2:8 Yet I am writing you a new command; its truth is seen in him and you,

The Law of Moses had taught that one should love one's neighbor as oneself. Jesus' love went even farther than this. Jesus told them to love "even as I have loved you" (John 13:34). This "new" love, agapç, was not necessarily a love that responded to others' love (this was implied by philos , a brotherly love or a reciprocal love).

because the darkness is passing and the true light is already shining.

Here in verse 8, John applies all of this to those false teachers. He is identifying love, the new love, as the true light . . . already shining. If Jesus is the light, and John has already argued that he is, then to love as Jesus loved would be to shine in the lives of others with the light of Jesus' love. Therefore, if one did not love, the darkness was taking over. The darkness (a strong element of the Gnostics' teaching) is passing away among those who love as Jesus loved. Obeying the commands of Jesus will assure us that we are "in the light" (see v. 7).

F. IN THE LIGHT OR IN THE DARKNESS (2:9-11)

⁹ Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates his brother is still in the darkness. ¹⁰ Whoever loves his brother lives in the light, and there is nothing in him to make him stumble. ¹¹ But whoever hates his brother is in the darkness and walks around in the darkness; he does not know where he is going, because the darkness has blinded him.

^a 10 Or it

The Gnostics saw darkness as being related to the evil god, or the god who created matter. Darkness, therefore, was to be avoided, they believed. They believed that the "light" represented by the good god, whom incidentally they regarded as the father of Jesus Christ, was to be looked for. In these two verses, John is facing the real meaning of light: it involves loving one's brother. He is not confining love to this, for if one has love for the Father, he will also love his brother (see 4:20).

The expression "the love of God" has at least three possible meanings. It can refer to the love that God has for man; or man's love for God; or, God's kind of love. These three points of view are discussed in some detail by Marshall. It is not likely that John made such a line of distinction as this, but he probably saw all of these three meanings intertwining throughout the whole concept of love. Notice in the previous paragraph (see v. 5) that if anyone obeys the word of God, "God's love is truly made complete in him." Love that is complete is love that has matured or reached its ultimate goal. "Made complete" is a translation of teteleivwtai (teteleiôtai, "has been perfected"). This is a perfect tense, passive voice of its verb form. It signifies that it has been perfected (completed action) from a force outside of itself. The word suggests that the perfection has come from no act of its own. Obviously, the one who has been acting is Jesus Christ. We need to remember that love, or any other characteristic of humanity, is never completely perfect until it has been "made perfect" by the cross of Jesus.

Love is the very essence of God. Later on in this epistle (4:16) we are told that "God is love." God's love surely showed an unselfish concern for all the world in that he gave his only Son for our salvation. We must recognize that if God's love is ever demonstrated in our lives, we will need to demonstrate an unselfish concern for God and his will. In our everyday language, we think and speak of "perfection" or "perfect" as that without error or flaw. The Greek word for perfect is tevleio" ( teleios , "complete, mature, perfect") and we must make God's love perfect in us by walking as Jesus walked (see vv. 5,6).

2:9 Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates his brother is still in the darkness.

Living in the light has no place for hatred. Love can abide only in a life lived in the light. If we claim that we love our brother, but we are living in the darkness - that is, out of fellowship with Christ who is the Light - we lie and do not have the truth. John's concept of love is different from what ours often is. Marshall makes this distinction: "We would say that there are persons whom we do not love, but this is not the same thing as hating them. . . . Our attitude is a neutral one. . . . But John will have none of this. His concept of love is caring for the needs of others, even to the point of self-sacrifice. If I am unwilling to to do that for somebody in need, I love myself more than him. . . ."

2:10 Whoever loves his brother lives in the light, and there is nothing in him to make him stumble.

Here is another of John's stylistic device of stating a fact and then giving the opposite. In verse 9, John expresses the negative idea of hating a brother and remaining in darkness; here, whoever loves his brother is in the light. Failing to live in the light places one in the darkness and here people stumble. What a beautiful analogy: how many of us have tried to walk in the darkness of night and have stumbled? The one who "lives in the light" has no reason to stumble for the light shows him the way. The same is true of the Christian. If we walk in the light, we can see by the direction from Jesus how to walk without stumbling.

2:11 But whoever hates his brother is in the darkness and walks around in the darkness; he does not know where he is going, because the darkness has blinded him.

Again, John uses the opposite to emphasize the role of "Light" and "Darkness." John uses four verbs here in this passage: " hates his brother," " walks around in darkness," "does not know where he is going," and "darkness has blinded him." The first three are in the active voice, indicating that the subject is doing the acting." The fourth verb is in the passive voice, indicating that the subject is acted upon. This is significant in our understanding of how we behave. Lenski discusses the individual who walks in darkness as "one of the haters who has turned heretic and hates the brethren that are true to the Word and refuse to give it up at his bending. He is bent on being a skandalon, on dragging others into the night of spiritual death, into the same night in which he is, in which he walks, which has made his own eyes blind." The word skavndalon ( skandalon , "a snare, a stumbling-block") is used in verse 10 of one who would make others stumble. John is definitely referring to those who have left the body of believers and have become gnostic heretics.

To "hate a brother," "walk in darkness," and "fail to know" are all the fault of the person. We must actively conduct our lives so that we are living in Christ. One who is walking in the dark is the same as a blind person. This was a strong statement to be making to those false teachers who did not have the proper understanding and appreciation of Jesus, but who thought they were the bearers of light! John is not suggesting in these verses that the Christians he is addressing are blind or not obedient. He is referring to those who are stirring up the hearts and minds of those Christians. He is referring to the Gnostics!

G. JOHN'S REASONS FOR WRITING (2:12-14)

I write to you, dear children,

because your sins have been forgiven on account of his name .

I write to you, fathers,

because you have known him who is from beginning.

I write to you, young men,

because you have overcome the evil one.

I write to you, dear children,

because you have known the Father.

I write to you, fathers,

because you have known him who is from the beginning.

I write to you, young men,

because you are strong,

and the word of God lives in you,

and you have overcome the evil one .

This is a rather unusual section of 1 John. John addresses several groups of people on why he has written to them. "I write to you" occurs six times here and five times throughout the rest of the book: 1:4 (with "we"); 2:1,8,26; and 5:13. He uses the same expression in a negative form at least twice. Whether he is attempting to establish his credibility by using this expression or whether there is another reason for this sentence construction, there is wide opinion. Another strange sentence structure is the use of the present tense for "I write" in the first statement (vv. 12-13) and the aorist for "I wrote" in the second sentence (v. 14).

In these six references to "dear children," "fathers," "young men," and by implication the opposite sex must be included, John is using endearing words to show his love for them. All of these terms are endearing terms. John evidently wants his readers to know the reason for his writing, for he mentions it more than a dozen times in the epistle. It was important for those Christians to realize the solemnity and seriousness of the heretical movement beginning among them. It is interesting to note that John addresses three groups of people, as noted above, and he addresses each of them twice. "Dear children" are admonished in verses 12 and 13; all three groups are addressed in verse 13; and "fathers" and "young men" are addressed in verse 14. Why he has selected these three groups we do not know. Stott suggests that Augustine and other Latin commentators favored "the view . . . that they represent three different stages of spiritual pilgrimage: the little children are those newborn in Christ; the young men are more developed Christians, strong and victorious in spiritual warfare; while the fathers possess the depth and stability of ripe Christian experience" (italics added).

2:12 I write to you, dear children, because your sins have been forgiven on account of his name.

In the first of these six statements, John says your sins have been forgiven on account of his name . John strikes another strong blow at his opponents. In the first place, he asserts that they have sins, or else how could they be forgiven of them (see vv. 8-10)? In the second place, this was accomplished on account of "his name." This strikes at the gnostic belief that Jesus only seemed to be human, for it is implied that Jesus' sacrifice had something to do with the forgiveness.

2:13 I write to you, fathers, because you have known him who is from the beginning.

Because they are identical statements, we are discussing verse 13a and 14a together. Why John has both of these identical statements is not known. See the comment at the end of the section of Scripture. Above we noted that the chronological age of the "little children" was not intended. If chronological age is intended, then we are at a loss to know why he uses teknia in one reference and paidia in the other one. By the same logic, the expression "fathers" referred not to chronological age, but to experience in knowing the Lord, or spiritual maturity. They have known him from the beginning. It seems safe to assume that these "fathers" he is addressing may have actually known Jesus, or at least they were personally aware of him in some way. These fathers were probably the "spiritual" fathers rather than physical fathers. Stott suggests that they may "have progressed into a deep communion with God." A continuity of the message of Jesus must be very important, for in both of these references to the "fathers," he gives the same admonition, because you have known him who is from the beginning (verses 13b and 14).

I write to you, young men, because you have overcome the evil one.

Again, John opposes the Gnostics' concept that Christians do not sin (see comments on 1:8-2:2). There may be an implied compliment that John is giving the "young men" who have had the ability to "overcome the evil one." The language here is such that John recognizes that these "young men" have conquered, or overcome, the evil one.

I write to you, dear children, because you have known the Father.

This third part of verse 3 is the second statement to the "dear children." There are at least two differences from the previous statement in verse 12. First of all, a different word is used in the Greek to reference the children. It is paidiva ( paidia ), plural of the noun paidivon ( paidion , (little child"). This is a diminutive form of expression and does refer to "infants" or "little children." Is John referring to the same "little children" of verse 12? It should be noted that this time there is a different "because" statement. The first statement was written "because your sins have been forgiven." This present statement was written because you have known the Father. In a sense, they are saying the same thing because when one comes to the Father, his sins are forgiven. Obedience to the commands (or commandments) of God will bring about forgiveness.

2:14 I write to you, fathers, because you have known him who is from the beginning. I write to you, young men, because you are strong, and the word of God lives in you, and you have overcome the evil one.

As we noted above, the first line is an identical repetition of verse 13a. Some commentators agree that the "young men" were a group of Christians who were younger, less mature than the "fathers," yet they were dedicated, energetic Christians who nevertheless would be susceptible to false teaching. Hence, John felt the need to warn them of the dangers they faced. They were Christians in whom the Word of God dwells which has helped them to withstand the "evil one." Perhaps John is commending these "young men" for their strength and ability to withstand evil teaching.

Some commentators suggest that John is using the "little children" expression to refer to all of the Christians and that there are, in reality, only two groups he is referring to: the "young men" and "fathers." There appears to be no definitive answer to this triple pattern of groups in the church, nor a compelling explanation of why they are given twice. There is a wide range of opinions on the nature and purpose of the six statements.

H. CHRISTIANS AND THE WORLD(2:15-17)

¹⁵ Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. ¹⁶ For everything in the world - the cravings of sinful man, the lust of his eyes and the boasting of what he has and does - comes not from the Father but from the world. ¹⁷ The world and its desires pass away, but the man who does the will of God lives forever.

The word "world" (kovsmo", kosmos ) is used at least 20 times in this epistle: 2:2,15,16,17; 3:1; 4:1,3,4,5,9,14,17; 5:4,5,19. It is used to mean different things. Marshall notes that "It ['world'] can refer in quite a neutral way to the created universe which God made to be 'very good' (Gen. 1:31). But in the writings of John 'world' signifies more usually mankind organized in rebellion against God, so that the word carries a negative sense. It is under the control of the evil one. . . ."

2:15 Do not love the world or anything in the world.

Much of the world in which John lived saw the world in terms of a conflict of forces. The Gnostics, for example, saw the world from the point of view of two gods: the god of the Old Testament, the creator of good and evil, the Demiurge; and the god of the New Testament, a loving, caring God, the father of Jesus Christ. The world was often viewed as an enemy to good and right. Peter, in his first epistle, reminded his audience that we are "strangers in the world" (1 Pet 1:1). He also wrote "I urge you, as aliens and strangers in the world, to abstain from sinful desires, which war against your soul" (1 Pet 2:11). Paul also reminds us that we are not a part of the world (Eph 2:11-12). So, it is not strange that John would warn his readers do not love the world .

This admonition should not be interpreted as saying that we should hate the physical world, for it is God's creation. This admonition by John is not recommending that Christians should separate themselves totally from the world. Jesus told his Father that he did not want the disciples to leave the world, "but that you protect them from the evil one. They are not of the world, even as I am not of it" (John 17:15-16). We are not to become attached to the world in the sense that we do not want to join Jesus in the place he is preparing for us (see John 14:1ff.). This world is not our final home, but it is only the place where we prepare for the home in heaven.

If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.

Again, John is not urging that we hate this world. We must learn to "be content whatever the circumstances" and learn "the secret of being content in any and every situation" (Phil 4:11-12). What John is recommending is that we not participate in the worldly things and become tied to the world. For, if we do this, the Father is not in us.

2:16 For everything in the world - the cravings of sinful man, the lust of his eyes and the boasting of what he has and does - comes not from the Father but from the world.

Here, John more specifically defines what he means by loving the world. There are three types of temptation that he delineates: "lust of the flesh," or "the cravings of sinful man," "the lust of his eyes," and "the pride of life," or "the boasting of what he has and does." Humankind has always been much the same. The temptations of our present day, or of John's day, are not much different from those temptations in the Garden of Eden. God had told them not to touch the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. But, when Satan tempted Eve, and ultimately Adam, Scripture says "When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food [lust of the flesh], and pleasing to the eye [lust of the eye], and also desirable for gaining wisdom [pride of life], she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate it" (Gen 3:6). We are not saying that because something is good to eat or beautiful to look at or will cause us pleasure, that it is always wrong, but in this case it is true because God had specifically commanded that they not eat of it.

Again, look at the temptation of Jesus. Satan presented three temptations to Jesus. He appealed to his fleshly desires. Jesus was fasting, but Satan told him to turn stones into bread. Satan took Jesus "to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple" and tempted him to "throw [himself] down" and God would save him. Jesus responded with, "Do not put the Lord your God to the test." And, third, Satan "took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor." Implied is the idea, "Look how all these people will see you and revere you." Satan said, "If you will bow down and worship me, I will give you all these kingdoms," but Jesus ordered Satan to go away; he would worship only God (see Matthew 4:1-10). Isn't it interesting that in the Garden of Eden and at the wilderness of Jesus' temptation, sin presented itself in three types of temptation, and now John warns against the same ones? He warned his readers of lust of the flesh, lust of the eye, and pride of life.

2:17 The world and its desires pass away, but the man who does the will of God lives forever.

There is good reason for us to avoid the world and all of its allurements: the new age, the Christian age, has come. All that does not come from the will of God will eventually be doomed. John clearly says, the world and its desires pass away. Only one group of people will remain: those who do the will of God. They will live forever. Those who were refusing to accept the full message of God should have felt the strength of John's argument. For that day, as well as for our own day, humanity must obey the commands of God's choice, not its own. In our age of wanting to make our own decisions, we must carefully follow what God wants rather than what we want.

I. WARNINGS AGAINST ANTICHRISTS (2:18-27)

¹⁸ Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we now it is the last hour. ¹⁹ They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.

²⁰ But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and all of you know the truth. ^{a 21} I do not write to you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know it and because no lie comes from the truth. ²² Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist - he denies the Father and the Son. ²³ No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also.

²⁴ See that what you have heard from the beginning remains in you. If it does, you also will remain in the Son and in the Father. ²⁵ And this is what he promised us - even eternal life.

²⁶ I am writing these things to you about those who are trying to lead you astray. ²⁷ As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit - just as it has taught you, remain in him.

^a 20 Some manuscripts and you know all things

2:18 Dear children,

John has alluded to the false teachers earlier in this epistle, but this is the most biting reference to them yet. There is an urgency to this message. John begins this discussion with his loving statement "my little children" ( paidia ). It is obvious that this is a term of endearment, for he has already addressed the "young men" and "fathers." The message here appears to be specially important to John by the use of this diminutive form of pai'" ( pais , child).

this is the last hour;

Some commentators hold that John is teaching that the "old age" is about to pass away and that Jesus will be returning shortly. It is true that John states that it is the "last hour" or the last age. Several references are made to the "last times" in various places in the New Testament. Peter declared, referring to the astounding presence of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost, that "this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel: ' In the last days [emphasis mine] God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people'" (Acts 2:16-17). Paul uses the same kind of language in 1 Timothy 4:1, "The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith." (See also Isa 2:2; Dan 12:9; Micah 4:1; 2 Tim 2:17; and 2 Pet 3:3.) All of these references are to the fact that Jesus brought a new age, as opposed to the age marked by the Law of Moses. This is indeed the last time, and at the end of these days, Jesus will return, but we know neither the day nor the hour when he will come; neither did John.

and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour.

The term "antichrist" is not found in early Christian times outside of Christian circles. Although the concept of an antichrist was spoken of in other writings, the word ajnticrivsto" ( antichristos , "antichrist," i.e. one standing in opposition or competition to Christ) is found only in John's epistles in 1 John 2:18,22; 4:3; 2 John 7. There were many early Christians who were looking for the "antichrist." Such enemies of Christ had been predicted, though not using this word, by Paul and others. The presence of these "antichrists" of John's day was regarded as proof of their existence; hence, he writes This is how we know it is the last hour, namely, by their appearance. It must be the last days. The absence of the definite article before "last hour" in the Greek text is assumed by some commentators to mean that the presence of these false teachers is "last hour kind of behavior." Perhaps John is saying that this is "a signal or sign of the last hour." Earlier, it was stated that this was not necessarily a declaration of the time of the Second Coming or parousia (parousiva, "coming or second coming of Jesus"). As we noted earlier, Jesus said no one knows the day or hour of his coming, not even he himself. It is true, however, that many "antichrists," or adversaries of the Christ, were appearing by the end of the first century when this epistle was written. John, this apostle of love but who was described by Christ earlier as a "son of thunder," is speaking very harshly of these enemies of Jesus who are declaring that his earthly existence was only a figment of their imagination or only seemed to take place. Jesus had warned that "false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive the elect - if that were possible. See, I have told you ahead of time" (Matthew 24:24-25).

2:19 They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.

Although John has not yet specifically identified who these false teachers are, he does indicate that they had been with them. It would appear that these who went out from us had at one time been Christians, but they may have not been deeply converted. At what point these individuals turned their backs on the church, we do not know. The gnostic movement certainly began during or before the first century. The apostle Paul warns of departures from the truth: "The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron" (1 Tim 4:1). He then delineates some of the false teachings they promoted, some of which were clearly practiced by some of the Gnostics of the first and second centuries.

John seems willing to separate these faithful Christians from those who went away. He says that their going away showed that none of them belong to us . There comes a time when false teaching begins to be promoted that church leaders, specifically the elders, need to "mark" those heresy promoters and not allow them to bring division in the body.

2:20 But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and all of you know the truth.

John turns his attention away from "those who went away" to those who are still among the faithful. Those faithful "children" have been protected from the evil one. They have an anointing from the Holy One . The word "anointing" is the word crivsma ( chrisma ). It is highly possible that John is making a play on words. "Christ" is a translation of cristov" ( christos , "Christ," or "the anointed one"). The first four letters (or, in English, the first five) are the same in both words. But, at any rate, we have an anointing from Christ, or the Holy Spirit. Whichever he means here, it is a divine anointing from the Godhead.

2:21 I do not write to you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know it and because no lie comes from the truth.

The anointing has made the true believers to know the truth. The anointing comes from the truth. Therefore, those who have remained faithful to the "anointing" have the truth and are not liars. I recommend that the reader look at John 14, 15, and 16, where Jesus tells the apostles that he will send to them the Holy Spirit. The anointing of the apostles with the Holy Spirit cannot be ignored, for it is in their receiving of the Holy Spirit that God and his Son should be revealed to us.

2:22 Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist - he denies the Father and the Son.

Who is the liar? John asks. The Gnostics believed that they had a secret revelation or knowledge from God. It was a special knowledge for their own group which made them some sort of a special class of individuals - a "notch above" normal Christians. John answers his own question by saying the liar is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ . This is a description of the docetic Gnostic. There is no room for fellowship between God and heretics. By their own acceptance of "the lie," they have severed their fellowship with God. Satan is the liar; the Gnostic who is a follower of Satan is the liar. This is the force of John's charge. Such a man is the antichrist - he denies the Father and the Son. This is the first time that John actually identifies who is the antichrist, the adversary, of Christ. He is the one who denies the humanity of Jesus. This charge is levelled directly at the docetic element of Gnosticism.

We cannot be certain of all that the Gnostics taught. It is almost universally accepted that the Gnostics of John's day were greatly influenced by the teachings of Cerinthus. However, it is likely that they did not accept all of Cerinthus's teachings. Cerinthus believed and taught the Adoption concept of Jesus' Sonship. In other words, Cerinthus believed that at some time, probably at his baptism, he was adopted by God, as we indicated earlier. We do not have any indication in John's epistle that the Gnostics of his time accepted this.

2:23 No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also.

The real gravity of the gnostic theology is seen in this verse. Not only does the docetic teaching that Jesus was not a physical reality, that is, Jesus only seemed to be human, make the believer in Docetism a liar, but it also makes him deny both the Father and the Son. Confession of the Son seems to be a requirement of possessing or "having" the Father. In other words, "you can't have one without the other." These heretics could not have the Father without accepting Jesus as his Son.

2:24 See that what you have heard from the beginning remains in you. If it does, you also will remain in the Son and in the Father.

In such a time of spiritual frustration, it is important for these first century Christians to have an anchor. John urges them to remain in the things which they have heard from the beginning: the pure gospel of Jesus Christ. Again, as in previous places, the beginning refers to the beginning of the Christian age, or at least their initial confrontation with the gospel. We, in the modern world, ought to be faithful to what was taught in the beginning rather than chase after new fads and innovations of religious practice. John is urging his readers to cling to the original Christian message. He promises that if they do, they will remain in the Son and in the Father .

2:25 And this is what he promised us - even eternal life.

There is a reward for those who remain faithful, John promises. It is not so evident in this reference as it is later in the epistle, but this eternal life is not a "there and then" situation, but it is a "here and now" promise. John is very clear on the fact that our eternal life begins in this life , and we do not have to wait until later for it to begin. See 1 John 5:12 as an example of what John was revealing. Eternal life is in the present tense. On the other hand, John is not saying that there is an eternal security once one has been born again: it is possible for us to lose the eternal life by not remaining in Jesus.

2:26 I am writing these things to you about those who are trying to lead you astray.

Here is another of the "I am writing. . ." statements. We have noted that this expression occurs at least eleven times in the epistle. This time, the purpose that he is writing to them about is those who are trying to lead you astray . This short statement gives us an important glance into the activities of the heretics: they were evangelistic in their efforts. Not only were they holding these views themselves, but they were evidently active in their proselyting activities. They were seeking to evangelize recruits from the believers. John is writing about this; he is warning them of their tactics. Their aim was "to lead you astray."

2:27 As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit - just as it has taught you, remain in him.

John wants them to know that he is not overly concerned about them, just being cautious. First, he has warned them about gnostic heresy (v. 26); second, they (at least, some of them) have known the Lord from the beginning; third, they have received an anointing from Jesus and from the Father.

III. GOD'S LOVE FOR US/OUR LOVE

FOR ONE ANOTHER (2:28-3:24)

A. CHILDREN OF GOD (2:28-29)

²⁸ And now, dear children, continue in him, so that when he appears we may be confident and unashamed before him at his coming.

²⁹ If you know that he is righteous, you know that everyone who does what is right has been born of him.

At this point, John makes a transition from the polemic approach to a more exhortative and practical approach. He temporarily ends the warnings of the Gnostics and their false teaching and begins a more loving, relational message. What is our relationship to God? How does the fact that we are children of God affect our everyday living? How will the recognition that we are the children of God affect our relationship with each other and with the concept of right and wrong? It is important for us to realize that God is a loving, caring God rather than a despotic, and punitive God. So, these two verses and the first section of the third chapter are an explanation of who we are and how we relate to God.

2:28 And now, dear children, continue in him,

The term, And now , is undoubtedly used to indicate that he is beginning a new topic. John opens this new topic by talking about the importance of continuity in Christ Jesus. The NIV translates this continue in him . . . . Others have translated it "And now, dear children, abide in him. . . ." The Greek for the last three words is mevnete ejn ajutw/' ( menete en autô, "abide in him"). The NIV translators were probably wanting to show not only a one-time abiding, but a continuous abiding. The use of the word "abide" seems to me to be a stronger relationship to Jesus or the Father. And the use of the present, active, indicative verb form actually shows a continuous abiding, not a one-time abiding. Earlier, John has shown that those who "know God," who "have God," and those in whom God abides are those in whom God's word abides. Furthermore, he has told us that "this is what he promised us - even eternal life" (2:25).

so that when he appears we may be confident and unashamed before him at his coming.

John reminds his readers of the return of Jesus. We must be prepared with the indwelling of Jesus, or his abiding in us. We do not want to "shrink from shame at his coming." If Jesus is abiding in us, or if we continue in him, we will have no reason to be ashamed at his coming. We will be in a continuing fellowship with him. "Confidence" is often translated as "boldness" in some translations. In this context, John's statement later on in the epistle, "there is no fear in love," takes on a special meaning (see 4:18). John wants us to be prepared so that we will be unashamed , or that we will not be made to be ashamed when he comes. We should strive to live in such a manner that we can stand before him with boldness. In Jesus' first coming, he came to be our Savior and he died on the cross to bring that about. In his second coming, he will be our judge, and we need to be prepared for that. Earlier, we discussed the fanerwqh' (phanerôthç) of Jesus as compared with the parousiva ( parousia ). Actually these two words complement each other. The manifestation of Jesus (phanerôthç) will take place when he comes again. This is the time when John hopes that his readers will not be made ashamed because they will have walked as Jesus walked.

2:29 If you know that he is righteous, you know that everyone who does what is right has been born of him.

John introduces a new thought not discussed before. That is that we have been born of him . He appears to be changing the "person" in this verse. Nowhere in the New Testament are we told to be "born of Christ." Even Jesus (see John 3:1ff.) did not represent himself as being the source of the new birth. Throughout the New Testament, "born of" refers to God. John states that if you know that he is righteous then you will know that those who do right have "been born of him." He represents "righteousness," not "knowledge" as that which makes us know they have been born again. Is this a subtle jab at the Gnostics? They would have claimed that their "special" knowledge would be the source of being born again, not righteousness. This introduction of the regeneration or being born of him is a very natural transition into the next chapter and our being children of God.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

Lapide: 1Jo 2:1-29

CHAPTER 2

Ver. 1.— My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. At the end of the last chapter it was said that all who were grown up had sinned, either mortally as heathens, or venially as Christians. But he now exhorts them one by one to be most watchful against the sins they committed as heathens, and to abstain as far as they could from venial sins. For though it be impossible to avoid them collectively, yet it is possible to avoid them one by one, especially such as are committed not by surprise, but with previous consideration, and deliberately.

But if any man sin, we have an Advocate. This anticipates the objection, what then will he do, who through human weakness has fallen into some unusual and shameful sin? He answers, he should not despair, or be cast down, because we have Christ as our advocate with our most loving Father, Christ who by presenting His death and sufferings which He underwent for us, will easily obtain our pardon, if we are truly penitent, for God is most merciful, and Christ's merits are infinite. And just as the severity of a wound or disease displays the skill and credit of the physician who cures them, so does the greatness of our sins which He heals, and in which He is a propitiator, set forth the greatness of Christ's mercy, grace, and redemption. As in the case of the Magdalene and S. Paul. See 1Ti 1:15. Here observe Advocate means one who pleads our cause: in a forensic sense; and He is so—1. By displaying His wounds, and thus silently pleading His own Merits. 2. Many, with great probability, assert that He is ever praying for us orally, being no longer a wayfarer on earth, but as having attained to his rest and claiming our pardon as His right. See Heb 7:25,Heb 9:12; Joh 14:16; Rom 7:3. Beza and others thence contend that the saints are not our advocates, and that we make them superior to Christ, if we regard them as such. But they reason falsely, for we know and profess that Christ is the Son of God, and that the Blessed Virgin and the Saints are immeasurably inferior to Him. But yet they intercede for us through His merits. See S. Irenæus, v. 29;  S. Bernard, xii.; and on the whole question, Bellarmine, de lnvocat. Sanct.

Jesus Christ the righteous. That is, (1.) Innocent and holy, and who by His very sanctity is most loved of the Father, and desirous to be heard of Him. (2.) He who made a full satisfaction for our sins, paying a full ransom for them by His own Blood. He is then our righteous advocate in another sense, as pleading a righteous cause, as those who plead for gain. Whence Cassiodorus says ( Epist. xi. 4.), "If in your zeal for advocacy ye have shone forth with the light of justice." Such an one, then, is a good advocate amongst men, but not with God, since we ask of Him, not justice, but mercy and grace. And His is a tribunal of grace.

Ver. 2. — And ( i.e., because) He is the propitiation (the propitiator) for our sins. For by offering Himself on the Cross as a Victim for sins, He has made satisfaction for them, and reconciled the Father to us. This refers to the mercy-seat, which was above the ark (see Exo 25:17), which represented Christ our Propitiator (see Rom 3:25.). S. Augustine ( de Fide et 0peribus ) reads, "He is the entreater ( exoratio ) for our sins."  S. Cyprian reads deprecatio, John means that Christ is so powerful an advocate, that our case cannot fail in His hands, being Himself, by His very office, our redemption and propitiation, who made a full satisfaction for our sins.

So S. John says (Rev 1:5); and S. Leo ( Serm. xii . de Passione ), "The pouring forth of His righteous Blood for the unrighteous, was so powerful to gain this privilege, so fully sufficient to pay the price, that if the whole body of captives believed in their Redeemer, the bands of tyranny would not retain their hold of a single one . . . For though the death of the Saints was precious in the sight of the Lord, yet it was not the death of any innocent person that was the propitiation of the world. The righteous received crowns, they did not confer them. In the fortitude of the saints were exhibited examples of patience, not gifts of righteousness. They each died their own several deaths, and none of them dying discharged any other's debt than his own, since the Lord Jesus Christ stood forth alone among the sons of men, in whom all are crucified, all die, all are buried, and all moreover will be raised again." For this cause S. Augustine and other saints who had sinned betook themselves to the wounds of Christ, and dwelt therein as in a refuge. See note on Zech. xiii. As S. Ambrose ( pref. in Ps. xxxv.) says, "The Blood of Christ is fine gold, plenteous to redeem, and flowing forth to wash away every sin."

And not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. Not for Jews only but for Gentiles, to whom Christ ordered the Gospel to be preached. Again, Christ is offered in the Sacrifice of the Mass for all men, excepting those who are excommunicated.

And hereby do we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. We know Him by probability and conjecturally. But our knowledge must be practised: it must show itself in love and affection, and in outward acts. And we shall in this way secure Him as our Advocate. S. Augustine says ( De Fide et 0per. cap. xii), "Let not our mind be so deceived as to think that it knows God if it confess Him with a dead faith, that is, without works." So David says, Psa 103:18, "To think upon His commandments to do them." See his dying advice to Solomon, "Know thou the God of thy fathers," that is believe, reverence, love, and obey Him. See also Hos 6:6, For he who does not observe the law of God assuredly does not know it, because he does not practically value or ponder as he ought on His boundless majesty, goodness, power, wisdom, and righteousness, for else he would love, reverence, and obey Him with his whole heart. For, as Bede says, "He who loves not God, shows that he knows not His loveliness, and he has not learned to taste and see how gracious and sweet He is, if he does not labour continually to do those things which are pleasing in His sight." See chap. iv. 7, 8.

Catharinus wrongly infers that the righteous can know for certain that they are righteous and in God's favour. But although they may have grace and the love of God in their hearts, yet they do not see them, and though they outwardly observe the commandments of God, yet they know not whether they observe them from love of Him, and as He commanded. And though they feel that they love God, yet they know not whether this love is what it should be, and simply for God's sake. ( See Conc. Indent. sess. vi . cap. 9; Bellarmine , de Justif. iii . 1 seq.)

Ver. 4.— He that saith he knoweth Him, that is, with true and saving knowledge, such as leads to eternal life, and keepeth not His commandments is a liar. As the Apostle said (Rom 1:21) of the philosophers who knew God, but only in a speculative and barren way, "When they knew God, they glorified Him not as God."

Ver. 5.— But whoso keepeth His word, in him verily is the love of God perfected. This confirms the previous statement, by way of antithesis. The word is spoken of in the singular number, because the law of love comprehends all others, just as a root implies the leaves and fruit, and the whole tree.

Perfect love is that which fulfils that command, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart," &c. (Mat 22:37.) For he who observes the commands of God loves God with all his heart, though he may sin venially, which is a necessary evil in this life of corruption. But in this perfectness of Christian charity and life there are various grades. The first is so to love God with all the heart as never to offend Him mortally. 2. Never deliberately to offend Him venially, even for the sake of the whole world. 3. To renounce, for the love of God, the love of every creature, and to devote thyself entirely to His service as "religious" do. See, too, Rom. viii. 35. 4. Not to think, wish, or love anything save God, or for His sake. Origen ( Præf. in Evan. S. Joan ) says , "He who is perfect, no longer lives himself, but Christ lives in him;" and S. Augustine ( Serm. xxxix . de temp. [ nunc cccl]) says, "As covetousness is the root of all evil, so is love the root of all good. The love of God and our neighbour fills up the whole length and breadth of the sacred word." He then adds, "Without it a rich man is poor, with it a poor man is rich. It gives patience in adversity, moderation in prosperity, endurance in hard sufferings, and so forth." And S. Bernard writes thus to the brethren ( de Monte Dei, xix.): "Perfection, though not of the same kind, is required of you all. As one star differs from another star in glory, so does cell from cell,*in the beginners, the progressing, and the perfect The first state may be called the animal, the next the rational, the last the spiritual, the first relating to the body, the second to the soul, the third finding its rest in God alone. Each, however, has its own rate of progress and measure of perfection. The beginning consists in perfect obedience in the animal life, its progress in bringing the body into subjection, its perfection in turning the practice of good into delight in it. And so too, in the rational life, the perfection of which is the spiritual life, and the perfection of the spiritual life is to be changed into the same image from glory to glory, as by the Spirit of the Lord." And S. Maximus says ( De Charitate Cent. iii. 97), "That soul is perfect whose whole powers turn only towards God." See also Centur. iv. 17; and S. Francis ( in 0pusc. decem perfect—considered to be spurious: see Cave) says, "A Christian's perfection is to root out from his heart all worldly affections, and to find no root, or resting-place, save in Him who made it. And again, to have such patience as to love him the more who has done or said any wrong of him. For as God of His bounty conferred on him all his blessings, so should he believe that He secretly pledges Himself to send on him every kind of evil, in order to show a sinner his sins, and thus lightly punish them once in this present life, that He may not scourge them more severely for ever. He should therefore love him who has done or spoken any evil against him, as being the messenger of God to him for good," &c.

Hereby know we that we are in Him.  S. Augustine here adds, ' If we be perfected in Him,' but nearly all MSS. omit these words. The meaning is, we know that we are in Him if we keep His commandments. This is the effect and sign of our cleaving to Him. Moreover, it is by love that we abide in God, as the thing loved is in the lover. For the soul is more in that which it loves, than in that which it animates. And God in return loves those who love Him, dwells in them, cares for, directs and protects them. Augustine says, that we who love Christ are in Christ, as the members in the body. See Joh 15:23. The soul then of one who loves God is a kind of temple, in which all the three Persons abide. And by abiding S. John means intimate union, permanent resting, continual presence, friendly converse, and all other offices of true friendship.

Ver. 6.— He that saith he abide in Him ought himself also so to walk, even as He walked. By advancing in virtue, especially in charity, and exhibiting its works more and more every day, as Christ "increased in wisdom and stature." "The true righteousness of the perfect," says S. Leo ( Serm. ii. de Quadr.), "is for them never to presume that they are perfect, lest by stopping short when their journey is not yet done, they should incur the risk of failing." See Eph. v. 1. S. Prosper ( de vit. contempl. lib. 11) beautifully says, "What is walking as He walked, except the despising all the good things which He despised, not to fear the sufferings He endured, to teach what He taught, to hope for what He promised, to confer kindnesses on the ungrateful, not to requite to evil-wishers according to their deserts, to pray for our enemies, to pity the perverse, patiently to bear with the crafty and proud, and, as the Apostle says, to die to the flesh that we may live to Christ?" &c.

Whence Gregory Nyssen defines Christianity to be an imitation of the Divine nature, &c. S. Augustine ( de Vera Relig. cap. xv.) tells us that the Word was made flesh, to teach us the way of life not by force but by example, in ministering to the poor, in refusing to be a king, in submitting to every kind of injury, &c. In fact, His whole life, in the nature He deigned to assume, was a moral discipline. S. Cyprian ( de Zelo et Livore ), "If parents delight in having children who are like themselves, much more does God rejoice when a man is spiritually born; and again, as we have borne the image of the earthly, let us also bear the image of the heavenly. But we cannot do this unless we exhibit a resemblance to Christ; for this is to change our old self, and to begin a new life, and that thus the Divine truth may shine forth in thee, as He Himself promised, 'Those that honour Me, I will honour.'"

My beloved, I write a new commandment unto you. This commandment of loving God and our neighbour was not new, for it was given to the Jews, and before that to Adam and all men by the Law of Nature, which was in the mind of God from all eternity. This, was an answer to the objection made to the Apostle's teaching, that it was new and unheard of. It was again an old commandment as having been taught Christians from their very baptism.

Again, a new commandment I write unto you. It was new, as being a new enforcing of an old commandment, which had been forgotten by long disuse. (See Joh 13:33.) And it was enforced by Christ on the new principle of love, and also more fully explained (Matt v. 38; Joh 14:15-16). It was new on various grounds—1. Because of the new efficient cause, viz. Christ, who enforced it more stringently upon us. And again, by reason of the new source of charity and grace, viz., the Holy Spirit poured forth at Pentecost. The false interpretations of the Jews were thus put aside, and a new law, and new obligations and duties, imposed on Christians. See Mat 5:43.

2. It was a new law; by reason of a new material cause, viz., the new and enlarged body of Christians, who were before in the darkness of unbelief and hatred, but who were now bound by it to love God and their neighbour.

3. There was a new formal cause, namely, the Incarnation, and the union of all Christians in Christ. For in Christ there is an union, not with Christ only, but with all Christians in Him, an union by nature, by grace, and by the sacraments (especially by the Holy Eucharist), which is the foundation of a greater and singular obligation to a stricter love of God, of Christ, and of all Christians. And this is a pure, perfect love, in so much as Christ is far above, and more perfect than other men. Moreover, by Christ's Incarnation we owe greater love, not only to Christ, but also to the whole Trinity, by reason of our closer union, and also of the new and very great blessings conferred on us thereby. For by the Incarnation we have a new relation and union to the Holy Trinity, and also between ourselves, and a new cause and formal reason for love. For by the Incarnation Christ has became our kinsman and brother, so that we ought mutually to love each other, as brethren and members of the one body of Christ. So Toletus and F. Lucas on John 13.

4. It is new, with regard to the example Christ has set us. He poured forth His blood out of pure love. And such indeed was the love of the Blessed Virgin, and the early Christians. We are taught to do according to the pattern shewed us in the Mount. Christ says, "As I have loved you"—words which have caused much matter for shame, and also much matter for exaggeration. For consider what arguments for love Christ furnished at every moment, by His birth, His labour, His preaching, His suffering, His dying, and thus thou wilt see how little is the love of all men. As S. John the Almoner, Bishop of Alexandria, used to say when one praised his liberality to the poor: "My brother, I have not yet shed my life for thee, as the Lord commanded me."

We are therefore taught by Christ not merely to love our neighbour as ourselves, but even more than ourselves. For Christ died for us though we were His enemies, teaching us to do the same. This was an unheard-of love both among the Jews and the world at large. So S. Cyril, in John xiii., S. Chrysostom, Theophylact, Rupertus. Arias [Montanus] says, that our love should be most fervent, and abounding in kind offices, even towards our enemies, and ready to shed our, blood for the good of our brethren, as Christ did. So Cajetan, Gagneius, S. Major, and others.

5. In regard of the new end Christ set before us, He wished to make us heavenly men, and not earthly. And he wished us to renew our love by frequent communions, sermons, meditations, &c. S. John in his old age used frequently to repeat and inculcate these words.  S. Bernard ( Serm. v. in Cæna. Dom.): "It is a new commandment because it makes all things new, putting off the old man and putting on the new, and by daily admitting to heaven mankind who were banished from paradise." " Is it not a new commandment," says S. Augustine, "because this commandment renews those who obey it, and thus makes us new men, heirs of the New Testament, singers of the new song, making and gathering into one a new people?"  S. Gregory ( Hom. xxxii . in Evang.) says, "Our Lord and Redeemer came as a new man into the world, giving us new precepts. For since our old life was brought up in sin, He set up in opposition to it newness of life," charity as opposed to concupiscence, and the love of God and our neighbour against our self-love.

6. Maldonatus understands by 'new' something excellent and pre-eminent. And others again by 'new' understand a commandment never given before, as men were called 'new' who were newly made: and 'new' also because Christ wished His disciples to observe it 'anew,' as being the last He gave them. As F. Lucas explains it, "I have reserved this commandment to you, in order that ye may keep it more firmly in your memory. For I wish specially to commend it to you, being such a command as no one ever yet gave his disciples, being a gentle and loving command. It was 'new' then, as newly enjoined by Christ in His Last Supper, and as being a command peculiar to Christ, and being in a singular manner commanded by Him." (See. S. Basil, de Bapt. cap. ult.)

7. It was 'new' with respect to its effects, the heroic deeds of S. Paul and the other Apostles, their new and unheard-of labours and persecutions, and the new alacrity and ardour with which they subdued the world to Christ. A love which led Paul to wish himself accursed for the sake of his brethren, which caused Paulinus to sell himself into slavery for the sake of ransoming the son of a widow—a love which led S. Dominick, S. Francis, S. Ignatius and others to devote themselves to the salvation of souls, and led the blessed Jacoponus to pray that he might suffer all the sufferings of all the lost, that he might save them all, if it were God's will.

8. It was a 'new' commandment as specially pertaining to the New Testament, and distinguishing it from the Old. See Joh 13:35; Son 2:4, Son 8:6.

Such was the love of the early Christians. See Act 4:32. "See how these Christians love one another, and are ready to die for each other," was remarked by the heathen. Tertullian says why they called each other brethren, as acknowledging one God as their father, having drunk of the one Spirit of holiness, as having come from the same womb of ignorance to the same Light of Truth, &c.

Which thing is true in Him and in you. Namely, this law of love, as springing from the Law of Nature, and it is not only the most ancient command, but is true also in you, because ye have embraced it together with your new life in Christ. But some refer this to Christ, which is far better. For though He is not expressly mentioned, yet He was mentioned above (ver 1-4). But S. John's heart was so full of Christ, that when he says 'Him,' he does not mean any one else, but Christ, as was the case also with the Magdalene (Joh 20:15).  S. Jerome ( contra Jovin, lib. 11) accordingly reads, "which is most true both in Christ and in you." Some explain it thus, "This law of charity is that which makes you to be as truly in Christ as ye are in yourselves." 2d. We may explain it thus (and it is the best meaning), "As Christ loves Christians in the highest degree as members of His Body, so should we devote ourselves entirely to the love of Him and our fellow-Christians."

Because the darkness (of ignorance, lust, and sin, as well as of the shadows, the terrors and ceremonies of the Old Testament) is past, and the true Light now shineth, the light of faith, grace, love, and of all holiness. See Rom 13:12; Eph 5:6. This is called the 'true,' i.e. the perfect, full, Divine Light. See John i. 9. Christ calls Himself the true vine (John xv. 1) and the true head, i.e. fully satisfying (John vi. 55). As a symbol of this, Christ was incarnate at the Vernal Equinox, and was born at the Winter Solstice, when the days are beginning to increase. See S. Augustine, Serm. xxii. de temp. [not S. Augustine.]

Ver. 9. — He that saith he is in the Light (of the Gospel, Faith, and Charity) and hateth his brother, is in darkness, in ignorance of his sins, anger, hatred, lust, &c. And by these he is so blinded as not to see the great evil of hatred, how odious to God, who is the light of Charity, what destruction it causes, what torments of hell it brings with it. "He is blinded with his wickedness," says S. Chrysostom ( de Erudit. discipl.): "he goes ignorantly into hell-fire, and is hurled headlong into punishments." See Exo 11:16. And S. Cyprian ( de zelo et livore ) says: "If thou hast begun to be a man of light, do the things of Christ, for He is our Light and day. Why rushest thou into the darkness of anger? Why wrappest thou thyself in a mist of envy? Why dost thou extinguish with the darkness of envy every spark of peace and charity? Why dost thou go back to the devil, whom thou hast renounced? Why hast thou become like Cain? Cain? He is in the darkness of hell, because he is tending towards it." S. Basil says, "As he who has charity has God within him, so he that has hatred and anger has a devil within him," &c.; and S. Chrysostom calls anger a self-chosen ( voluntarium ) devil. In an angry man you may see all the furies of hell. As Seneca says ( lib. ii . de Ira ).

Even until now. For though baptism be an enlightenment, yet it cannot dispel the darkness of hatred, if it be voluntary, or come on after baptism. (See S. Augustine, Bede, and Hugo.)

Ver. 10. — He that loveth his brother abideth in the light (of faith and love: this is an antithesis to the former verse), and there is no occasion for stumbling in him.  S. Jerome (in Matt. xxv.) explains the words πζόστομμα and σκάνδαλον. This may be taken to have either an active or a passive meaning, the giving of offence, or the taking of offence. See 1Co 13:4; Pro 15:19; Psa 119:165. One who loves neither gives offence, nor takes it: "If my brother offends me," they would say, "shall I abandon charity? Far from it. I will overcome evil with good, I will follow Christ, I will show him how I love the brethren, how I love God. I will not fight against my brother who has wronged me. I will rather fight against his disease of mind, and drown his anger and ill-will with floods of charity."  S. Augustine says ( in loc.), "Who are they who either take or make offence? They who are offended at Christ or the Church. They who are offended in Christ are burnt as by the sun, they who are offended in the Church are burnt as by the moon. But the Psalm says (Psa 122:6), 'the sun shall not burn thee by day, nor the moon by night,' that is, if thou holdest fast by charity thou wilt suffer no offence either in Christ or the Church, and thou wilt forsake neither Christ nor the Church." A passage is here added from a sermon once supposed to be S. Augustine's, but subsequently regarded as spurious, as is also another sermon quoted just afterwards, showing who are true and who are false friends, and that those who seem to be our enemies are in truth our best friends, and to be regarded as such. And S. Basil ( Reg. brev. clxxvi.) says the same.

Ver. 11.— But he that hateth his brother is in darkness. For, as Œcumenius says, "He cannot be in the light of Christ, who hateth him for whom Christ died."

And knoweth not whither he goeth. "For (as says S. Cyprian, de Zelo ) he goes down to hell, ignorantly and blindly, and withdrawn from the light of Christ, who says, 'I am the Light of the world.'" "Hatred," says the author of Imperf. Homily xiii. [on S. Matt.] "is the spirit of darkness, and wherever it settles it defiles the purity of holiness;" and adds, "The world is so full of offences, that if we wish to love our friends only, we shall not find anything to love." See Pro 4:19; Zep 1:17;  and Isa 59:10. For in truth nothing so blinds our reason as hatred. "There is no difference between anger and madness," says S. Chrysostom on S. John ( Hom. xlvii.)

And anger is so blind as not to see its own blindness. Seneca adduces the case of Harpasto, his wife's handmaid ( Ep. li.), who did not understand that she was blind, adding, "No one admits that he is covetous, or ambitious, or angry. I have not settled on my course of life (he says), it is our youth that causes it. But why do we deceive ourselves? The evil is not without us, but within us, and therefore we find it hard to regain our health, because we know not that we are ill." Democritus blinded himself by looking at the sun, in order that he might not see the happiness of the wicked. And in like manner do the envious and malicious blind themselves.

Ver. 12.— I write unto you, little children. Commending what he had said to the several grades whom he addressed. He places them in three classes according to their respective ages. He congratulates them on the gift of the Gospel which they had received, and exhorts them to persevere and make progress therein. The children represent beginners or neophytes; young men, those who are advancing; the old men, those who are perfect. And he thus suggests that Christians should advance in virtue, as they advance in years. Clemens, Œcumenius, and others take this view, though S. Augustine holds that these three terms apply equally to all classes; that they are called children as having been new-born in baptism, fathers as acknowledging Christ as their Father and the Ancient of Days, and youths because they are strong. But the first meaning seems the simplest. Because your sins, into which ye are likely to fall, are forgiven you, in baptism, for His Name's sake, i.e., for Christ's sake, or else by our calling on Christ's Name, or else by the authority and power of Christ. For by this are sins remitted through His grace and merits.

Morally. S. John here teaches that great care must be taken in training children. (He here gives as an instance the case of the youth whom he entrusted to a Bishop.) For the whole regulation of our life depends on our childhood's training. S. Ignatius accordingly founded schools for such training. See Rebadeneira in his life ( lib. iii . cap. 24), where he quotes many Fathers, Councils, and Philosophers.

Mystically. S. Augustine ( de Vera Relig. cap. 26) describes the seven ages of a righteous man. He first drinks in the lessons and examples of history—next he forgets things of earth, and reaches after things divine, and strives after the highest and unchanging rule of life, by the steps of wisdom—next he proceeds more boldly, wedding his carnal appetite to the strength of reason, and rejoicing within with a kind of conjugal joy, when the soul is united to the mind, and is so covered with the veil of modesty as no longer to be compelled to live rightly, but even not to delight in sin, though all might allow it. And fourthly, he acts thus in a more bold and orderly manner, shining forth into the perfect man, and becoming more capable of bearing all the persecutions and tempests of this world and even breaking their force. Fifthly, to be calm and tranquil, in every respect enjoying to the full the highest and ineffable wisdom; and sixthly, a thorough turning to the life eternal, and a complete obliviousness to this temporal life, and a passing on to the perfect image and likeness of God. The seventh age is that of eternal rest, which is not distinguished by any different stages of growth.

Ver 13.— I write unto you, fathers, because ye have known Him who is from the beginning. Fathers, we know, are proud of their experience; and therefore he fitly congratulates them on having known the Ancient of Days, who is from eternity. For, as S. Augustine says, "Christ is new in the flesh, but ancient in His Godhead." He adds, "Remember, ye who are fathers, if ye forget Him who is from the beginning, ye have lost your fatherhood."

I write unto you, young men, because ye have overcome the wicked one. He passes to that stage of life which rejoices in its strength, and is full of concupiscence. He congratulates them for having overcome the wicked one, for he is speaking to Christian young people living in a Christian way, as S. Agnes, S. Lucy, S. Agatha, and many others, or that young man of whom S. Jerome speaks (in the life of Paul the first hermit), who when tempted by a harlot to sin, bit off his tongue, and spat it in her face, and thus by the intensity of the pain overcame the feeling of lust. This strength and this victory was Prompted by Christ. See 1Co 15:57. And S. Augustine ( in. loc.) says, "If the wicked one is overcome by the young men, He is fighting with us. He fights, but he does not overcome. Is it because we are strong, or because He is strong in us, who in the hands of His persecutors was found weak? He hath made us strong who resisted not His persecutors, for He was crucified in weakness, but liveth by the power of God." (2Co 13:4.)

Ver. 14.— I write unto You, children. He here comes round and says the same thing in other words, to enforce it the more, calling them τεκνία in the first instance, and παιδία here.

Because ye have known the Father, by the words of the Creed.

Morally, Catherinus beautifully says, "The life of beginners is to be, in a sense, under Him, who by cherishing us in His paternal embraces and allurements, keeps away from us for a while sharper temptations. But He afterwards hands us over to the Son, for our growth and fuller instruction, and at last to the Holy Spirit to be strengthened and perfected."

Here in some MSS. the exhortation to fathers is repeated. F. Lucas notices its omission in the Complut. Polyglot and in the Vulgate, and asks why it is omitted. Is it because a single admonition was enough for the aged?

I write to you, young men, because ye are strong, and have overcome the wicked one. Him who is the chief and head of all malignity. "Consider," says S. Augustine ( in. loc.), "that ye are young, fight that ye may overcome again and again, overcome that ye may be crowned. Be lowly, that ye fall not in the fight." And again, "This is a great commendation of grace, that it instructs the hearts of the humble, but stops the mouths of the proud."

And the word of God abideth in you. Ye keep that word which we and our fellows have preached. Others understand it of the Uncreate and Eternal Word. Ye have remained stedfast in the faith, and have thus overcome the wicked one. As Œcumenius says, "In promising youths and young men (strong as they may be and needing to be trained for war) the glory of victory, he shows that they require to be addressed in noble and warlike terms." And S. Prosper ( Epist. ad Demetriad in S. Ambrose Ep. iv. 33) says, "Our will is aided by the operation of the Spirit, but is not done away with. The effect of grace is this, that our will, corrupted as it is by sin, beside itself with vanities, surrounded by corruptions, entangled with difficulties, should not remain in this feeble state, but should be cured and regain its strength by the aid of the All-compassionate Physician." And again, "The crafty tempter is ever on the watch, that, as our devotion increases, pride should steal in, and a man should glory in himself, rather than in God, for the good that is in him. The Apostle tells us to work out our salvation with fear and trembling. And accordingly the more we advance in holiness, the greater reason we have for fear and trembling, lest the mind, conscious of its progress, should be hurried into excess of pride, and thus become defiled by vanity, while it seems to itself to be resplendent in virtue."

Ver. 15 . — Love not the world. "There are two loves," says S. Augustine ( in. loc.), "the love of God and the love of the world. If the love of the world occupy the heart, there is no room for the love of God to enter. Let the love of the world retire, let the love of God enter in; let the better have its own place. Thou lovedst the world: love it no more. When thou hast drained out the love of the world from thy heart, thou shalt drink in love divine, and then shall charity begin to dwell in thee, from whence nothing evil can proceed." "It is," he proceeds, "as clearing a field before planting fresh trees."

The Abbot Isaias ( de Pænit. Orat. xxi.) answered the question, "What is the world?" in this way. "It is a fatal rushing into sin—doing what is contrary to nature—fulfilling the desires of the flesh—thinking we shall live here for ever, the caring more for the body than for the soul—glorying in things which perish." As the Apostle John says, "Love not the world," &c. As S. Augustine says, "In this vale of misery thou shouldst not possess anything so beautiful, or so delightful, as to fully occupy your mind. Shun the world, if thou wishest not to be worldly. If thou art not worldly, the world delighteth thee not. Avoid the creatures if thou desirest to have the Creator. Let every creature be vile in thy sight, that the Creator may be sweet in thy heart"

If any one love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. See Jam 4:4. "We must not give half our heart to God, and half to the world." As S. Leo says ( Serm. v. de Jejun. 7 Mensis ): "There are two loves . . . for the rational soul loves either God or the world. There can be no excess in the love of God. But in the love of the world all things are hurtful. And therefore we must firmly cleave to eternal goods, but use worldly goods only by the way, and since we are pilgrims, and hastening to return to our country, we must use the good things of this world as food for our journey through it, and not as an allurement to abide in it."

Ver. 16. — For all that is in the world is the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eye, and the pride of life. You will say that these properly are not in the world, but in the souls of men who desire them. But I answer, the word world is used in a threefold sense.

1. For men of the world, see John i. 10, xvi. 18; and S. Augustine on Ps. lv., "the wicked and ungodly in the world," in which sense S. John uses it in his Gospel.

2. It means this created world, in which, as being inanimate, there is not, properly speaking, any concupiscence. But these are provocatives of concupiscence. For everything we see affects our senses and lures us on to love it.

3. It signifies a worldly life, consisting in the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life. It is the whole body of sin consisting of these several parts or members. As S. Antony of Padua said, "The earth is avarice, water is luxury, the air is inconstancy, fire is pride." These three kinds of concupiscence are embraced in the general term concupiscence. As is added, "It is not of the Father but of the world."

The world can be taken in all these senses, and S. John first takes up one and then another.

But the second of these meanings is most to the point. And S. John wishes to withdraw the minds of the faithful from all objects of desire which the world contains (for they are the roots of every evil), and to fix them on God.

All these worldly things estrange our hearts from the love of God, and relate only to the perishing goods of the world, or rather to the shadows and phantoms of good. Here notice that as the lust of the eyes is avarice, so that which creates the desire is gold, silver, jewels, &c. As S. Augustine says ( Lib. iii . de Symb. cap. i.), "To the lust of the flesh belong the allurements of pleasure; to the lust of the eye, foolish spectacles; to the ambition of the world, the madness of pride." It is called the lust of the eyes, because it provokes the eyes, and through the eyes the fancy and the mind. "The eyes," says S. Augustine in Ps. xli., "are members of the body, the windows of the mind. It is the inner man who sees by their means." The covetous lays up riches, he does not spend them, and his only pleasure is looking at them. An exceeding wretchedness and fatuity. For he might just as well look at the gold, silver, and jewels in the temples, and feed himself on them. Whereas he would feed himself the more with his own wealth, and enjoy it the more, if he expended it on his friends and the poor.

2. As the lust of the flesh is gluttony, so is it wine, delicate and sensual pleasure, which provoke it. It hence appears how vile it is, as being common to the beasts; how little, because it feeds not the mind, but the flesh alone; short-lived, perishing in the very act, and bringing after it foul and filthy diseases. Whence S. Augustine ( de Vera. Relig. cap. lv.) says, "Let us not delight in corrupting or being corrupted by carnal pleasure, lest we should come at last to the more miserable corruption of pain and suffering."

3. As the pride of life is ambition, haughtiness, desire of pre-eminence and glory, so are its provocatives superb dresses, grand houses, attendants, carriages, &c. We speak of being as proud as a peacock, who spreads its wings and struts along. S. Bernard ( on Ps. xi . Serm. vi.) says, "Ambition is a subtle evil, a secret poison, a hidden pest, the contriver of craft, the parent of hypocrisy, the fruit of envy, the source of sin, the fosterer of crime, the destroyer (ærugo ) of virtues, the devourer of sanctity, the blinder of hearts, generating disease from the very remedies, and sickness from that which should heal." S. Basil terms it the "whetstone of wickedness." See S Gregory, Mor. xxxiv. 14, xxxi. 17. These three passions are the threefold sources of all temptations and sin. See S. Augustine, Confess. x. 30. S. Thomas, i. 2, q. lxxv. art. 5. As the Poet says:-

"Ambition, wealth, and foul desires,

 These three as gods the world admires."

Our first parents were tempted by them, and so was our Lord. See S. Augustine, de Vera Relig. cap. xxxviii.

This threefold desire is opposed to the Holy Trinity. Avarice to the Father, who is most liberal in communicating His essence and all His attributes to the Son and the Holy Spirit essentially, but to creatures only by way of participation. The lust of the flesh is opposed to the Son, who was begotten not carnally but spiritually from the mind of the Father, and who hates all carnal impurity. The pride of life is opposed to the Holy Spirit, who is the Spirit of humility and gentleness. Again, it is opposed to the three primary virtues, as lust of the flesh to continence, lust of the eyes to charity and kindness, pride of life to humility. (See S. Bernard, Serm. i . in Octav. Pasch. and de diligendo Deo ).

Which is not of the Father, but is of the world. This refers not merely to the pride of life, but to the threefold lust just spoken of. Moreover, concupiscence or lust comes from the world, from the corruption and vice of those who cleave to the world. Just as the word 'flesh' signifies in Scripture the corruption of the flesh, so in like manner does 'world' signify here the corrupt manners and lust of worldly men.

The reason is that concupiscence arises from a worldly life. Good things become objects of desire, by reason of man's concupiscence. For before the Fall there were no objects for concupiscence, but man's fall caused them to be such. And it is from hence that we derive our concupiscence together with original sin, and accordingly all the things that God gave for the good of man are now become allurements and excitements of concupiscence, when we see after and desire them immoderately. See Wisdom 14:11, 4:12. For the pleasure which arises from desire fascinates the mind, and prevents its seeing the filthiness and the punishment of sin, or the beauty and rewards of virtue. See James i. 14. Œcumenius understands by the 'world' Satan himself—"as Christ said to the Jews, Ye are of your father the devil, that is devoted to worldly pursuits, the seeds of which the devil sows within us"—who accordingly is called the Prince of this world. See Joh 11:31, Joh 14:30, Joh 16:11.

Ver. 17.— And the world passeth away and the lust thereof. See Mat 24:35; 1Co 7:31; 2Pe 3:11. See also Wisdom v. 7; S. Bernard, Epist. cvii ., &c.

As S. Jerome says ( Epist. iii.): "If we were granted the years of Methusalem, yet the previous length would be nothing when it ceased to be, for when the end of life arrives, there will be no difference between the child of ten and the man of a thousand years, except that the old man goes out of life bearing a heavier burden of sin." S. Cyprian ( ad. Demetriad ) shows at great length that the world is growing old: "The labourer is failing in the field, the mariner at sea, the soldier in camp, honesty in the market, justice in the courts, firmness in friendships, skill in arts, discipline in morals, for the sentence has been passed on the world that all things born should die, all things which have grown up should wax old, strong things should become weak, great things become small, and when they are thus weakened and diminished they come to an end." And S. Anselm, in Rom. xii., says, "Be not constant in love for the world, for, since that which thou lovest abideth not, it is in vain for thee to fix thy heart firmly on it, while that which thou lovest is flying away." This is the reason a posteriori ; but the a priori reason is that the world is created from nothing, and therefore tends to become nothing, returning to that from whence it came. But, on the other hand, eternity belongs only to God, He having an uncreated, unchangeable, and eternal nature. Again, the world is not simple, but compounded of various elements; but everything which is so composed is resolved into its own elements or component parts. And the final cause of its being so is that we should turn our thoughts from transient and changing creatures to the Creator, who is unchangeable, and always the same. All creatures silently proclaim this by their changeableness, and our own heart also, as S. Augustine says ( Confess. i. 1), "Thou hast made us, 0 Lord, for Thyself, and our heart is restless till it rests in Thee." S. John adds,

But he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever. Because the soul which doeth the will of God will, on leaving the body, be blessed for ever, and the body will after death rise immortal and glorious. See Psa 119:96, and Joh 5:52. The reason is that love, like the chameleon, conforms the one who loves into the pattern of the thing which he loves, love being an impulse of the mind, and a going out of itself towards the beloved object, whereas understanding and knowledge are, on the contrary, the entering of the thing which is known into the understanding which embraces it. As S. Augustine says, "Every one is like the object he loves. Thou lovest the earth: thou wilt be earthy. Thou lovest God. What shall I say? Wilt thou be God? I dare not say it of myself. Let us hear the scriptures, 'I have said ye are gods, and are all the children of the Most Highest.' If then ye wish to be gods and sons of the Most Highest, love not the world, nor the things that are in the world." The object which is here loved is God, and the will of God which is stable and eternal, and therefore he that loveth it becomes eternal. See Hos. ix. 10, and Sam. i. 8, and note. Dost thou wish to be eternal? love eternal good. Dost thou wish to enjoy for ever the beloved object? Love that which is eternal. For if thou lovest a perishable thing, thou wilt perish together with it. But if thou fixest thy mind on an object which is stable, heavenly, divine, and eternal, thou wilt become the same. This is true wisdom, the wisdom of Saints. Fools then are lovers of the world, who in the place of these love transitory and perishable things, and accordingly they pass away, and in truth perish with them for ever. " 0 ye sons of men, why do ye love vanity and seek after a lie?" (Ps. 4.) Why follow ye after—not real things, but—the empty and fleeting shadows of things? Ye cannot grasp a shadow, nor yet hold fast shadowy wealth and honours. Grant us, Lord, this wisdom, "that among all the changes of the world our hearts may there be fixed where there are true joys."  S. Augustine says beautifully ( in loc.), "Why should not I love that which God made? But what dost thou wish? to love temporal things, and to pass away with them, or not to love the world, and to live for ever with God?" He then compares lovers of the world to a bride who loves the ring her husband has given her, more than she does her husband himself; which is assuredly a spurious love, since he gave it in order that he might be loved in his gift. God gave thee all these things: love Him that made them. He wishes to give thee something more, namely Himself; but if thou lovest these things (though God made them) and neglectest thy Maker, and lovest the world, will it not be regarded as a spurious love?

And Didymus says, "Whosoever despises all things will be above the world. For righteousness endureth for ever, for it is so written." See also Pro 10:25. The old Philosophers had some shadowy notion of this. See Seneca, Ep. lix.

My little children, this is the last hour. The time is now at hand for the coming of Antichrist, as ye have often heard. Many antichrists have already come, which is a sign that the world is waxing old, and that your life in it cannot be long. Tear your mind away from the world, its vain and perishing pleasures, fix it entirely on heavenly and eternal things, and on God Himself (see Rom 13:11). And be also on your strict guard against all heretics and impostors. For this, says Œcumenius and Didymus very properly, leads every one to think about his own end as if his own last hour were at hand, and thus sobriety and purity of living prevail among Christians. See 1Pe 3:14.

By the last hour is meant the last age of the world. See S. Augustine, Ep. lxxx. to Hesychius. It is the last age in regard to the duration of the world and its division into the three parts of the law of Nature, the law of Moses, and the law of grace, after which no other law or state is to be looked for, as the Jews still expect their Messiah. Œcumenius (after S. Chrysostom) adds it may mean the 'worst' age, as we say of a sick man that he is in extremis. And so too Ribera (in Heb. ix. num. cxiii. seq.) says, that it is the time of impostors and heretics. This exposition is most fitting and appropriate. So says the Gloss, Cajetan, Dionysius, and others.

But the word must be taken in a very wide sense. Some wrongly conjecture that as the first, under the law of nature, lasted for 2000 years, and so also the second period under the law, that it will be the same under the Gospel. The early Christians considered that Nero was Antichrist, and S. Cyprian thought that the end of the world was near in his time. See Epist. lib. iv. 6; and so too S. Jerome, de Monog.;  S. Gregory, Epist. iv. 38; and Lactantius, lib. vii . cap. 25. See notes on Rev. 20

The word 'hour' is used indefinitely. The phrase was familiar to S. John, who called the period an 'hour,' because it was very short. But in classic authors it signifies a period of time of any length, a season, e.g., as well as the hour of the day. See Is. xxxviii. 8.

Morally. Hence learn the shortness of life. For if this age of the world is only an hour, what a very small part of it is the life of any one! We are all creatures of an hour. The old have but a part of an hour to live; the young hope for a whole hour, but yet are cut off in its very beginning. As S. Jerome says, "A youth may die soon, an old man cannot live very long."

This word then warns us to be very diligent in employing the time which is allotted us. Suppose a physician or a judge were to tell you to prepare to die—"you will certainly die an hour hence," how anxiously would you clear your conscience, what acts of contrition and charity would you exercise, how would you expend all your goods in good works. Do the same now, for your life is but an hour. Or again, you are afflicted, are sick, are calumniated. Wait a while. It is but for an hour, and after that you pass to a blessed eternity. See 1 Cor. i. 29. Melania, a very wealthy noble lady, persuaded her people, by this text of S. John, to sell all they had, and to go to the Holy Land. For she used frequently to say (as indeed she thought) that the world was about to perish. She went to Jerusalem, and died forty days after, and the Barbarians laid waste the city. This took place under Alaric, A.D. 410.

S. Basil ( in Moral. Reg. lxxx cap. 21) says, "It is the duty of a Christian to watch every day and hour, and to be thus ready for that perfection by which he can please God, as knowing that the Lord will come at an hour he expects not."

Antichrist cometh. See on this the notes on 2Th 2:7.

Even now are there many antichrists. Those who are against Christ and true forerunners of Antichrist, because they impugn equally with the faith, the Church, the sacraments of Christ, nay His very nature and person. As Ebion, Cerinthus, &c., and their followers, of whom S. Paul says " the mystery of iniquity is already working " (2Th 2:7). See note on passage. Rabanus ( apud S. Augustine ) [ vol. vi . append. ] says, "Antichrist has many ministers of his malignity. For every one, layman or canon or monk, who lives not righteously, and violates the authority of his order, and speaks against that which is good, is an antichrist, a minister of Satan." Heretics are antichrists, as S. Hilary called Constantius. See note on 1Pe 3:14.

They went out from us, for they were not of us (either real or pretended) Catholics; and a heretic is one who apostatises from the faith of Christ which he once embraced, and lapses into heresy. See S. Cyprian, Epist. i. 8, and de Unit. Eccl.: "Bitterness cannot co-exist with sweetness, darkness with light, rain with clear weather, strife with peace, barrenness with fertility, drought with gushing water, storm with calm. Let none imagine that good men can forsake the Church; the wind does not sweep away the wheat, nor does the storm throw down a tree which is firmly rooted—the chaff is blown away with the storm, and trees weakly rooted are cast down by the violence of a whirlwind," &c. And S. Jerome says [ Lib. i . in Jerem.], "They go out in order that they may openly worship that which they used to venerate in secret." And S. Augustine ( in loc. ) "Ye will understand, from the Apostle's own exposition, that none can go away but antichrists, but that they who are not contrary to Christ can in no wise go out. For he who is not contrary to Christ abideth in His Body, and is counted a member of it." "They are (he adds afterwards) as evil humours, and just as the body is relieved when they are removed, so is the Church relieved when they go forth, and when the body casts them forth it says, They were not of me, they only weighed on my chest when they were within me."

Whereby we know that it is the last time. For we see the heretics who are his forerunners, just as when we see a king's outrider, we know that he is near, or that the dawn shows that the sun is about to rise. "Many antichrists," as Œcumenius says, "go before the one Antichrist, and prepare for him the way."

They were not of us, for had they been of us, no doubt they would have continued with us. They were not genuine Christians. They had not Christian virtue and constancy boldly to resist all temptations, so that when persecution came on them, they gave up the faith and became apostates, as grass is dried up by the heat of the sun. As was said of Joseph and Azarias (1 Macc. 5:62), that "they were not of the seed of those by whom deliverance was wrought in Israel." As the Romans said of traitors that they were not Romans, or as Saul reviled Jonathan

(1Sa 20:30). As S. Augustine says here, "Temptation proves that they are not of us, for when it comes they fly away as not being sound grain." As he says of Judas ( Tract. 1. on John ), "He did not at that particular time become wicked when he betrayed the Lord. He was a thief even when he followed the Lord, for he followed Him with the body only, and not in heart." And again (in. loc.), "Every one is of his own will either an antichrist, or in Christ; either one of His members, or among the evil humours. He that changeth himself for the better is a member of the Body, but he that abideth in his wickedness is an evil humour, and when he is gone out, they who were oppressed will be relieved."

2. Many explain these words, 'they were not of us,' as referring to the free knowledge and predestination of God. They were not thus predestinated and elected, because it was foreseen that they would fall, for everything future is foreseen by God. This does not refer to election to eternal blessedness.  S. John did not wish to touch on this mystery, especially because so many who have fallen from the faith have in the end returned to it. And on the other hand there are many reprobates who are still in the Church who are not predestined to glory. But S. Augustine ( de bono persever. cap. viii.) understands it of those who are predestined to glory, and of those who (it is foreseen) will perish. Now almost all heresiarchs (excepting only Berengarius), when they have once left the Church, never return to it again, and are consequently foreknown to be reprobates. But we must avoid the error of those who infer from this that the reprobation of God is the cause of their leaving the Church, and subsequent condemnation: a charge which the Semipelagians falsely urged against S. Augustine. He defends himself thus, "They went out voluntarily, they fell voluntarily, and because it was foreseen they would fall, they were not predestinated; but they would have been predestinated, if so be they were to return, and abide in holiness. And in this way predestination is to many a cause of their remaining stedfast, to none is it a cause of their falling." ( Art. xii . in art. sibi falso impositis ).

3. Some explain the words thus, "They were not of us," because, before they openly withdrew from the Church they had secretly withdrawn from it. Heresy is the very height of impiety, and is reached but gradually. See S. Cyprian, Epist. i. 8, and de Unit. Eccl. ; and S. Cyril, Catech. vi .

Catherinus and Melchior Canus take the word 'us' to mean the Apostles. But this is too narrow a meaning. & John speaks of Christians in general. S. John here warns his disciples not to be alarmed if they saw even bishops become apostate (see Act 20:3O). Salmeron thinks that of the hundred and twenty who received the Holy Ghost at the day of Pentecost fourteen became heresiarchs. See, too, S. Vincent of Lerius and Tertullian, de Præscript. ch. i. And at the same time he warns them to work out their own salvation with fear and trembling. See also Rom 11:20.

But that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us. God allowed this to show their inconsistency and want of faith, and to teach the faithful to avoid them. See 1Co 11:19.

Beza has no ground for inferring from this that the faithful could never fall away. It means only that their falling away was a sign that they were not firmly rooted in the faith. S. Augustine says their apostacy was a sign that they were not of the number of the predestinate and elect.

Ver. 20. — But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things, so that it is not necessary to speak at greater length to these antichrists. By the word 'unction' he refers to Antichrist, and also to Christ (the anointed One). See also what Christ Himself says, Joh 16:13.

But what is this 'unction'? (1.) Œcumenius and S. Jerome on Hab 3. and S. Cyril Alex. say 'baptism,' when we are anointed on our head. (2.)  S. Cyril of Jerus. says, 'the sacrament of confirmation,' when we are anointed on our forehead. (3.) Em. Sa. says, 'the profession of Christianity;' others the Christian faith, grace, the gift of wisdom and understanding; others the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. But they all come to the same point, for in these various ways you will learn all the duties and doctrines of Christianity, and to discern and avoid heretics as opposed to Christ. The word unction stands for the ointment or oil, not for the mere transient act of anointing. In the Greek it is χζίσμα. It has reference to the name of Christ, and the sacraments of baptism and confirmation, which used to be given immediately after baptism as its complement and perfection.  S. Cyril accordingly understands it to refer to confirmation, so also does Turrianus, and Bellarmine, de Confim. lib. ii. capp. 5 et 8. For by anointing is here to be understood, not so much sanctifying grace, as the gift of wisdom and understanding. (See S. Gregory, Mor. v. 19 ( al. 20), S. Irenæus iv. 43). For this gift was bestowed at first on baptized persons. Act 2:6, Act 10:46, Act 19:6;

1Cor 14. And it is even now given in baptism (Isa 11:1), though not so abundantly. The word also relates to the royal priesthood, which S. Peter (1Peter2:9) ascribes to all Christians. For as in old time prophets, priests, and kings were anointed to their office, so do Christians when anointed in baptism and confirmation receive grace, to rule themselves as kings; to foresee future good and evil, as prophets; and to present, as priests, the offerings of good works. So that this gift of the, Holy Spirit, conferred by the outward anointing, will teach Christians everything which concerns Christian life and conduct. For these reasons S. John rejoices in the word 'unction,' as representing Christ and His 'love,' of which it is said (Son 1:2), "Thy name is like ointment poured forth;" and S. John was, in consequence of his constant preaching of Christ, thrown about this time into a caldron of boiling oil, but escaped unhurt as having been strengthened by the anointing of Christ. See also Psa 45:8; Isa 61:1; Act 10:38. S. Athanasius ( Epist. ad Serap.) says that this ointment is the Holy Spirit with all His gifts and graces. For in justification is infused not only grace and charity, but the Holy Spirit Himself. See Rom 5:5; Conc. Trid. Sess. vi . cap. 7. And S. Augustine ( in loc.) says, This spiritual anointing is the Holy Spirit Himself, and the outward anointing is the sacrament thereof. So, too, in the "Veni Creator," we read of the 'Anointing Spirit.' The Holy Spirit then, inhabiting, enlightening, and directing the soul, teaches it at the fitting time all things befitting its salvation. S. Clement ( Const. Apost. iii. 17) explains the

Introduction / Outline

Robertson: 1 John (Book Introduction)

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

ABOUT a.d. 85 TO 90

By Way of Introduction

Relation to the Fourth Gospel

There are few scholars who deny that the Epistles of John and the Fourth Gospel are by the same writer. As a matter of fact " in the whole of the First Epistle there is hardly a single thought that is not found in the Gospel" (Schulze). H. J. Holtzmann ( Jahrbuch fur Protestantische Theologie , 1882, P. 128) in a series of articles on the " Problem of the First Epistle of St. John in its Relation to the Gospel" thinks that the similarities are closer than those between Luke’s Gospel and the Acts. Baur argued that this fact was explained by conscious imitation on the part of one or the other, probably by the author of the Epistle. The solution lies either in identity of authorship or in imitation. If there is identity of authorship, Holtzmann argues that the Epistle is earlier, as seems to me to be true, while Brooke holds that the Gospel is the earlier and that the First Epistle represents the more complete ideas of the author. Both Holtzmann and Brooke give a detailed comparison of likenesses between the First Epistle and the Fourth Gospel in vocabulary, syntax, style, ideas. The arguments are not conclusive as to the priority of Epistle or Gospel, but they are as to identity of authorship. One who accepts, as I do, the Johannine authorship of the Fourth Gospel for the reasons given in Volume V of this series, does not feel called upon to prove the Johannine authorship of the three Epistles that pass under the Apostle’s name. Westcott suggests that one compare John 1:1-18 with 1Jo_1:1-4 to see how the same mind deals with the same ideas in different connections. " No theory of conscious imitation can reasonably explain the subtle coincidences and differences in these two short crucial passages."

Gnosticism

The Epistle is not a polemic primarily, but a letter for the edification of the readers in the truth and the life in Christ. And yet the errors of the Gnostics are constantly before John’s mind. The leaders had gone out from among the true Christians, but there was an atmosphere of sympathy that constituted a subtle danger. There are only two passages (1Jo_2:18.; 1Jo_4:1-6) in which the false teachers are specifically denounced, but " this unethical intellectualism" (Robert Law) with its dash of Greek culture and Oriental mysticism and licentiousness gave a curious attraction for many who did not know how to think clearly. John, like Paul in Colossians, Ephesians, and the Pastoral Epistles, foresaw this dire peril to Christianity. In the second century it gave pure Christianity a gigantic struggle. " The great Gnostics were the first Christian philosophers" (Robert Law, The Tests of Life , p. 27) and threatened to undermine the Gospel message by " deifying the devil" (ib., p. 31) along with dethroning Christ. There were two kinds of Gnostics, both agreeing in the essential evil of matter. Both had trouble with the Person of Christ. The Docetic Gnostics denied the actual humanity of Christ, the Cerinthian Gnostics distinguished between the man Jesus and the aeon Christ that came on him at his baptism and left him on the Cross. Some practised asceticism, some licentiousness. John opposes both classes in his Epistles. They claimed superior knowledge ( gnōsis ) and so were called Gnostics ( Gnōstikoi ). Nine times John gives tests for knowing the truth and uses the verb ginōskō (know) each time (1Jo_2:3, 1Jo_2:5; 1Jo_3:16, 1Jo_3:19, 1Jo_3:24; 1Jo_4:2, 1Jo_4:6, 1Jo_4:13; 1Jo_5:2). Some of the leaders he calls antichrists. There are stories about John’s dread of Cerinthus and his unwillingness to be seen in the same public bath with him. The Apostle of love, as he is, is a real son of thunder when Gnosticism shows its head. Westcott thinks that the Fourth Gospel was written to prove the deity of Christ, assuming his humanity, while 1 John was written to prove the humanity of Christ, assuming his deity. Certainly both ideas appear in both books.

Destination

It is not clear to whom the Epistle is addressed. Like the Gospel, the Epistle of John came out of the Asiatic circle with Ephesus as the centre. Augustine has the strange statement that the Epistle was addressed to the Parthians. There are other ingenious conjectures which come to nothing. The Epistle was clearly sent to those familiar with John’s message, possibly to the churches of the Province of Asia (cf. the Seven Churches in Revelation).

The Date

The time seems to be considerably removed from the atmosphere of the Pauline and Petrine Epistles. Jerusalem has been destroyed. If John wrote the Fourth Gospel by a.d. 95, then the First Epistle would come anywhere from a.d. 85 to 95. The tone of the author is that of an old man. His urgent message that the disciples, his " little children," love one another is like another story about the aged John, who, when too feeble to stand, would sit in his chair and preach " Little children, love one another." The Muratorian Fragment accepts the First Epistle and Origen makes full use of it, as does Clement of Alexandria. Irenaeus quotes it by name. Polycarp shows knowledge of it also.

JFB: 1 John (Book Introduction)

AUTHORSHIP.--POLYCARP, the disciple of John [Epistle to the Philippians, 7], quotes 1Jo 4:3. EUSEBIUS [Ecclesiastical History, 3.39] says of PAPIAS, a hearer of John, and a friend of POLYCARP, "He used testimonies from the First Epistle of John." IRENÆUS, according to EUSEBIUS [Ecclesiastical History, 5.8], often quoted this Epistle. So in his work Against Heresies [3.15; 5, 8] he quotes from John by name, 1Jo 2:18, &c.; and in [3.16,7], he quotes 1Jo 4:1-3; 1Jo 5:1, and 2Jo 1:7-8. CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA [Miscellanies, 2.66, p. 464] refers to 1Jo 5:16, as in John's larger Epistle. See other quotations [Miscellanies, 3.32,42; 4.102]. TERTULLIAN [Against Marcion, 5.16] refers to 1Jo 4:1, &c.; [Against Praxeas, 15], to 1Jo 1:1. See his other quotations [Against Praxeas, 28; Against the Gnostics, 12]. CYPRIAN [Epistles, 28 (24)], quotes as John's, 1Jo 2:3-4; and [On the Lord's Prayer, 5] quotes 1Jo 2:15-17; and [On Works and Alms, 3], 1Jo 1:8; and [On the Advantage of Patience, 2] quotes 1Jo 2:6. MURATORI'S Fragment on the Canon of Scripture states, "There are two of John (the Gospel and Epistle?) esteemed Catholic," and quotes 1Jo 1:3. The Peschito Syriac contains it. ORIGEN (in EUSEBIUS [Ecclesiastical History, 6.25]) speaks of the First Epistle as genuine, and "probably the second and third, though all do not recognize the latter two"; on the Gospel of John, [Commentary on John, 13.2], he quotes 1Jo 1:5. DIONYSIUS OF ALEXANDRIA, ORIGEN'S scholar, cites the words of this Epistle as those of the Evangelist John. EUSEBIUS [Ecclesiastical History, 3.24], says, John's first Epistle and Gospel are acknowledged without question by those of the present day, as well as by the ancients. So also JEROME [On Illustrious Men]. The opposition of COSMAS INDICOPLEUSTES, in the sixth century, and that of MARCION because our Epistle was inconsistent with his views, are of no weight against such irrefragable testimony.

The internal evidence is equally strong. Neither the Gospel, nor this Epistle, can be pronounced an imitation; yet both, in style and modes of thought, are evidently of the same mind. The individual notices are not so numerous or obvious as in Paul's writings, as was to be expected in a Catholic Epistle; but such as there are accord with John's position. He implies his apostleship, and perhaps alludes to his Gospel, and the affectionate tie which bound him as an aged pastor to his spiritual "children"; and in 1Jo 2:18-19; 1Jo 4:1-3, he alludes to the false teachers as known to his readers; and in 1Jo 5:21 he warns them against the idols of the surrounding world. It is no objection against its authenticity that the doctrine of the Word, or divine second Person, existing from everlasting, and in due time made flesh, appears in it, as also in the Gospel, as opposed to the heresy of the Docetæ in the second century, who denied that our Lord is come in the flesh, and maintained He came only in outward semblance; for the same doctrine appears in Col 1:15-18; 1Ti 3:16; Heb 1:1-3; and the germs of Docetism, though not fully developed till the second century, were in existence in the first. The Spirit, presciently through John, puts the Church beforehand on its guard against the coming heresy.

TO WHOM ADDRESSED.--AUGUSTINE [The Question of the Gospels, 2.39], says this Epistle was written to the Parthians. BEDE, in a prologue to the seven Catholic Epistles, says that ATHANASIUS attests the same. By the Parthians may be meant the Christians living beyond the Euphrates in the Parthian territory, outside the Roman empire, "the Church at Babylon elected together with (you)," the churches in the Ephesian region, the quarter to which Peter addressed his Epistles (1Pe 5:12). As Peter addressed the flock which John subsequently tended (and in which Paul had formerly ministered), so John, Peter's close companion after the ascension, addresses the flock among whom Peter had been when he wrote. Thus "the elect lady" (2Jo 1:1) answers "to the Church elected together" (1Pe 5:13). See further confirmation of this view in Introduction to Second John. It is not necessarily an objection to this view that John never is known to have personally ministered in the Parthian territory. For neither did Peter personally minister to the churches in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, Bithynia, though he wrote his Epistles to them. Moreover, in John's prolonged life, we cannot dogmatically assert that he did not visit the Parthian Christians, after Peter had ceased to minister to them, on the mere ground of absence of extant testimony to that effect. This is as probable a view as ALFORD'S, that in the passage of AUGUSTINE, "to the Parthians," is to be altered by conjectural emendation; and that the Epistle is addressed to the churches at and around Ephesus, on the ground of the fatherly tone of affectionate address in it, implying his personal ministry among his readers. But his position, as probably the only surviving apostle, accords very well with his addressing, in a Catholic Epistle, a cycle of churches which he may not have specially ministered to in person, with affectionate fatherly counsel, by virtue of his general apostolic superintendence of all the churches.

TIME AND PLACE OF WRITING.--This Epistle seems to have been written subsequently to his Gospel as it assumes the reader's acquaintance with the Gospel facts and Christ's speeches, and also with the special aspect of the incarnate Word, as God manifest in the flesh (1Ti 3:16), set forth more fully in his Gospel. The tone of address, as a father addressing his "little children" (the continually recurring term, 1Jo 2:1, 1Jo 2:12-13, 1Jo 2:18, 1Jo 2:28; 1Jo 3:7, 1Jo 3:18; 1Jo 4:4; 1Jo 5:21), accords with the view that this Epistle was written in John's old age, perhaps about A.D. 90. In 1Jo 2:18, "it is the last time," probably does not refer to any particular event (as the destruction of Jerusalem, which was now many years past) but refers to the nearness of the Lord's coming as proved by the rise of Antichristian teachers, the mark of the last time. It was the Spirit's purpose to keep the Church always expecting Christ as ready to come at any moment. The whole Christian age is the last time in the sense that no other dispensation is to arise till Christ comes. Compare "these last days," Heb 1:2. Ephesus may be conjectured to be the place whence it was written. The controversial allusion to the germs of Gnostic heresy accord with Asia Minor being the place, and the last part of the apostolic age the time, of writing this Epistle.

CONTENTS.--The leading subject of the whole is, fellowship with the Father and the Son (1Jo 1:3). Two principal divisions may be noted: (1) 1Jo. 1:5-2:28: the theme of this portion is stated at the outset, "God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all"; consequently, in order to have fellowship with Him, we must walk in light (1Jo 1:7); connected with which in the confession and subsequent forgiveness of our sins through Christ's propitiation and advocacy, without which forgiveness there could be no light or fellowship with God: a farther step in thus walking in the light is, positively keeping God's commandments, the sum of which is love, as opposed to hatred, the acme of disobedience to God's word: negatively, he exhorts them according to their several stages of spiritual growth, children, fathers, young men, in consonance with their privileges as forgiven, knowing the Father, and having overcome the wicked one, not to love the world, which is incompatible with the indwelling of the love of the Father, and to be on their guard against the Antichristian teachers already in the world, who were not of the Church, but of the world, against whom the true defense is, that his believing readers who have the anointing of God, should continue to abide in the Son and in the Father. (2) The second division (1Jo. 2:29-5:5) discusses the theme with which it opens, He is righteous; consequently (as in the first division), "every one that doeth righteousness is born of Him." Sonship in us involves our purifying ourselves as He is pure, even as we hope to see, and therefore to be made like our Lord when He shall appear; in this second, as in the first division, both a positive and a negative side are presented of "doing righteousness as He is righteous," involving a contrast between the children of God and the children of the devil. Hatred marks the latter; love, the former: this love gives assurance of acceptance with God for ourselves and our prayers, accompanied as they are (1Jo 3:23) with obedience to His great commandment, to "believe on Jesus, and love one another"; the seal (1Jo 3:24) of His dwelling in us and assuring our hearts, is the Spirit which He hath given us. In contrast to this (as in the first division), he warns against false spirits, the notes of which are, denial of Christ, and adherence to the world. Sonship, or birth of God, is then more fully described: its essential feature is unslavish, free love to God, because God first loved us, and gave His Son to die for us, and consequent love to the brethren, grounded on their being sons of God also like ourselves, and so victory over the world; this victory being gained only by the man who believes in Jesus as the Son of God. (3) The conclusion establishes this last central truth, on which rests our fellowship with God, Christ's having come by the water of baptism, the blood of atonement, and the witnessing Spirit, which is truth. As in the opening he rested this cardinal truth on the apostles' witness of the eye, the ear, and the touch, so now at the close he rests it on God's witness, which is accepted by the believer, in contrast with the unbeliever, who makes God a liar. Then follows his closing statement of his reason for writing (1Jo 5:13; compare the corresponding 1Jo 1:4, at the beginning), namely, that believers in Christ the Son of God may know that they have (now already) eternal life (the source of "joy," 1Jo 1:4; compare similarly his object in writing the Gospel, Joh 20:31), and so have confidence as to their prayers being answered (corresponding to 1Jo 3:22 in the second part); for instance, their intercessions for a sinning brother (unless his sin be a sin unto death). He closes with a brief summing up of the instruction of the Epistle, the high dignity, sanctity, and safety from evil of the children of God in contrast to the sinful world, and a warning against idolatry, literal and spiritual: "Keep yourselves from idols."

Though the Epistle is not directly polemical, the occasion which suggested his writing was probably the rise of Antichristian teachers; and, because he knew the spiritual character of the several classes whom he addresses, children, youths, fathers, he feels it necessary to write to confirm them in the faith and joyful fellowship of the Father and Son, and to assure them of the reality of the things they believe, that so they may have the full privileges of believing.

STYLE.--His peculiarity is fondness for aphorism and repetition. His tendency to repeat his own phrase, arises partly from the affectionate, hortatory character of the Epistle; partly, also, from its Hebraistic forms abounding in parallel clauses, as distinguished from the Grecian and more logical style of Paul; also, from his childlike simplicity of spirit, which, full of his one grand theme, repeats, and dwells on it with fond delight and enthusiasm. Moreover as ALFORD well says, the appearance of uniformity is often produced by want of deep enough exegesis to discover the real differences in passages which seem to express the same. Contemplative, rather than argumentative, he dwells more on the general, than on the particular, on the inner, than on the outer, Christian life. Certain fundamental truths he recurs to again and again, at one time enlarging on, and applying them, at another time repeating them in their condensed simplicity. The thoughts do not march onward by successive steps, as in the logical style of Paul, but rather in circle drawn round one central thought which he reiterates, ever reverting to it, and viewing it, now under its positive, now under its negative, aspect. Many terms which in the Gospel are given as Christ's, in the Epistle appear as the favorite expressions of John, naturally adopted from the Lord. Thus the contrasted terms, "flesh" and "spirit," "light" and "darkness," "life" and "death," "abide in Him": fellowship with the Father and Son, and with one another," is a favorite phrase also, not found in the Gospel, but in Acts and Paul's Epistles. In him appears the harmonious union of opposites, adapting him for his high functions in the kingdom of God, contemplative repose of character, and at the same time ardent zeal, combined with burning, all-absorbing love: less adapted for active outward work, such as Paul's, than for spiritual service. He handles Christian verities not as abstract dogmas, but as living realities, personally enjoyed in fellowship with God in Christ, and with the brethren. Simple, and at the same time profound, his writing is in consonance with his spirit, unrhetorical and undialectic, gentle, consolatory, and loving: the reflection of the Spirit of Him on whose breast he lay at the last supper, and whose beloved disciple he was. EWALD in ALFORD, speaking of the "unruffled and heavenly repose" which characterizes this Epistle, says, "It appears to be the tone, not so much of a father talking with his beloved children, as of a glorified saint addressing mankind from a higher world. Never in any writing has the doctrine of heavenly love--a love working in stillness, ever unwearied, never exhausted--so thoroughly approved itself as in this Epistle."

JOHN'S PLACE IN THE BUILDING UP OF THE CHURCH.--As Peter founded and Paul propagated, so John completed the spiritual building. As the Old Testament puts prominently forward the fear of God, so John, the last writer of the New Testament, gives prominence to the love of God. Yet, as the Old Testament is not all limited to presenting the fear of God, but sets forth also His love, so John, as a representative of the New Testament, while breathing so continually the spirit of love, gives also the plainest and most awful warnings against sin, in accordance with his original character as Boanerges, "son of thunder." His mother was Salome, mother of the sons of Zebedee, probably sister to Jesus' mother (compare Joh 19:25, "His mother's sister," with Mat 27:56; Mar 15:40), so that he was cousin to our Lord; to his mother, under God, he may have owed his first serious impressions. Expecting as she did the Messianic kingdom in glory, as appears from her petition (Mat 20:20-23), she doubtless tried to fill his young and ardent mind with the same hope. NEANDER distinguishes three leading tendencies in the development of the Christian doctrine, the Pauline, the Jacobean (between which the Petrine forms an intermediate link), and the Johannean. John, in common with James, was less disposed to the intellectual and dialectic cast of thought which distinguishes Paul. He had not, like the apostle of the Gentiles, been brought to faith and peace through severe conflict; but, like James, had reached his Christian individuality through a quiet development: James, however, had passed through a moulding in Judaism previously, which, under the Spirit, caused him to present Christian truth in connection with the law, in so far as the latter in its spirit, though not letter, is permanent, and not abolished, but established under the Gospel. But John, from the first, had drawn his whole spiritual development from the personal view of Christ, the model man, and from intercourse with Him. Hence, in his writings, everything turns on one simple contrast: divine life in communion with Christ; death in separation from Him, as appears from his characteristic phrases, "life, light, truth; death, darkness, lie." "As James and Peter mark the gradual transition from spiritualized Judaism to the independent development of Christianity, and as Paul represents the independent development of Christianity in opposition to the Jewish standpoint, so the contemplative element of John reconciles the two, and forms the closing point in the training of the apostolic Church" [NEANDER].

JFB: 1 John (Outline)

• THE WRITER'S AUTHORITY AS AN EYEWITNESS TO THE GOSPEL FACTS, HAVING SEEN, HEARD, AND HANDLED HIM WHO WAS FROM THE BEGINNING: HIS OBJECT IN WRITING: HIS MESSAGE. IF WE WOULD HAVE FELLOWSHIP WITH HIM, WE MUST WALK IN LIGHT, AS HE IS LIGHT. (1Jo 1:1-10) Instead of a formal, John adopts a virtual address (compare 1Jo 1:4). To wish joy to the reader was the ancient customary address. The sentence begun in 1Jo 1:1 is broken off by the parenthetic 1Jo 1:2, and is resumed at 1Jo 1:3 with the repetition of some words from 1Jo 1:1.
• THE ADVOCACY OF CHRIST IS OUR ANTIDOTE TO SIN WHILE WALKING IN THE LIGHT; FOR TO KNOW GOD, WE MUST KEEP HIS COMMANDMENTS AND LOVE THE BRETHREN, AND NOT LOVE THE WORLD, NOR GIVE HEED TO ANTICHRISTS, AGAINST WHOM OUR SAFETY IS THROUGH THE INWARD ANOINTING OF GOD TO ABIDE IN GOD: SO AT CHRIST'S COMING WE SHALL NOT BE ASHAMED. (1Jo. 2:1-29) (1Jo 5:18.)
• DISTINGUISHING MARKS OF THE CHILDREN OF GOD AND THE CHILDREN OF THE DEVIL. BROTHERLY LOVE THE ESSENCE OF TRUE RIGHTEOUSNESS. (1Jo. 3:1-24)
• TESTS OF FALSE PROPHETS. LOVE, THE TEST OF BIRTH FROM GOD, AND THE NECESSARY FRUIT OF KNOWING HIS GREAT LOVE IN CHRIST TO US. (1Jo. 4:1-21)
• WHO ARE THE BRETHREN ESPECIALLY TO BE LOVED (1Jo 4:21); OBEDIENCE, THE TEST OF LOVE, EASY THROUGH FAITH, WHICH OVERCOMES THE WORLD. LAST PORTION OF THE EPISTLE. THE SPIRIT'S WITNESS TO THE BELIEVER'S SPIRITUAL LIFE. TRUTHS REPEATED AT THE CLOSE: FAREWELL WARNING. (1Jo. 5:1-21) Reason why our "brother" (1Jo 4:21) is entitled to such love, namely, because he is "born (begotten) of God": so that if we want to show our love to God, we must show it to God's visible representative.

TSK: 1 John 2 (Chapter Introduction)

Overview

1Jo 2:1, He comforts them against the sins of infirmity; 1Jo 2:3, Rightly to know God is to keep his commandments; 1Jo 2:9, to love our brethren; 1Jo 2:15, and not to love the world; 1Jo 2:18, We must beware of seducers; 1Jo 2:20, from whose deceits the godly are safe, preserved by perseverance in faith, and holiness of life.

Poole: 1 John 2 (Chapter Introduction)

JOHN CHAPTER 2

MHCC: 1 John (Book Introduction)

This epistle is a discourse upon the principles of Christianity, in doctrine and practice. The design appears to be, to refute and guard against erroneous and unholy tenets, principles, and practices, especially such as would lower the Godhead of Christ, and the reality and power of his sufferings and death, as an atoning sacrifice; and against the assertion that believers being saved by grace, are not required to obey the commandments. This epistle also stirs up all who profess to know God, to have communion with him, and to believe in him, and that they walk in holiness, not in sin, showing that a mere outward profession is nothing, without the evidence of a holy life and conduct. It also helps forward and excites real Christians to communion with God and the Lord Jesus Christ, to constancy in the true faith, and to purity of life.

MHCC: 1 John 2 (Chapter Introduction)

(1Jo 2:1, 1Jo 2:2) The apostle directs to the atonement of Christ for help against sinful infirmities.

(1Jo 2:3-11) The effects of saving knowledge in producing obedience, and love to the brethren.

(1Jo 2:12-14) Christians addressed as little children, young men, and fathers.

(1Jo 2:15-23) All are cautioned against the love of this world, and against errors.

(1Jo 2:24-29) They are encouraged to stand fast in faith and holiness.

Matthew Henry: 1 John (Book Introduction)

An Exposition, with Practical Observations, of The First Epistle General of John

Though the continued tradition of the church attests that this epistle came from John the apostle, yet we may observe some other evidence that will confirm (or with some perhaps even outweigh) the certainty of that tradition. It should seem that the penman was one of the apostolical college by the sensible palpable assurance he had of the truth of the Mediator's person in his human nature: That which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life, 1Jo 1:1. Here he takes notice of the evidence the Lord gave to Thomas of his resurrection, by calling him to feel the prints of the nails and of the spear, which is recorded by John. And he must have been one of the disciples present when the Lord came on the same day in which he arose from the dead, and showed them his hands and his side, Joh 20:20. But, that we may be assured which apostle this was, there is scarcely a critic or competent judge of diction, or style of argument and spirit, but will adjudge this epistle to the writer of that gospel that bears the name of the apostle John. They wonderfully agree in the titles and characters of the Redeemer: The Word, the Life, the Light; his name was the Word of God. Compare 1Jo 1:1 and 1Jo 5:7 with Joh 1:1 and Rev 19:13. They agree in the commendation of God's love to us (1Jo 3:9; 1Jo 4:7; and 1Jo 5:1; Joh 3:5, Joh 3:6). Lastly (to add no more instances, which may be easily seen in comparing this epistle with that gospel), they agree in the allusion to, or application of, that passage in that gospel which relates (and which alone relates) the issuing of water and blood out of the Redeemer's opened side: This is he that came by water and blood, 1Jo 5:6. Thus the epistle plainly appears to flow from the same pen as that gospel did. Now I know not that the text, or the intrinsic history of any of the gospels, gives us such assurance of its writer or penman as that ascribed to John plainly does. There (viz. Joh 21:24) the sacred historian thus notifies himself: This is the disciple that testifieth of these things and wrote these things; and we know that his testimony is true. Now who is this disciple, but he concerning whom Peter asked, What shall this man do? And concerning whom the Lord answered, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? (Joh 21:22). And who (Joh 21:20) is described by these three characters: - 1. That he is the disciple whom Jesus loved, the Lord's peculiar friend. 2. That he also leaned on his breast at supper. 3. That he said unto him, Lord, who is he that betrayeth thee? As sure then as it is that that disciple was John, so sure may the church be that that gospel and this epistle came from the beloved John.

The epistle is styled general, as being not inscribed to any particular church; it is, as a circular letter (or visitation charge), sent to divers churches (some say of Parthia), in order to confirm them in their stedfast adherence to the Lord Christ, and the sacred doctrines concerning his person and office, against seducers; and to instigate them to adorn that doctrine by love to God and man, and particularly to each other, as being descended from God, united by the same head, and travelling towards the same eternal life.

Matthew Henry: 1 John 2 (Chapter Introduction)

Here the apostle encourages against sins of infirmity (1Jo 2:1, 1Jo 2:2), shows the true knowledge and love of God (1Jo 2:3-6), renews the precept of fraternal love (1Jo 2:7-11), addresses the several ages of Christians (1Jo 2:12-14), warns against worldly love (1Jo 2:15-17), against seducers (1Jo 2:18, 1Jo 2:19), shows the security of true Christians (1Jo 2:20-27), and advises to abide in Christ (1Jo 2:28, 1Jo 2:29).

Barclay: 1 John (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO THE FIRST LETTER OF JOHN

A Personal Letter And Its Background

First John is entitled a letter but it has no opening address nor closing greetings such as the letters of Paul have. And yet no one can read it without feeling its intensely personal character. Beyond all doubt the man who wrote it had in his mindeye a definite situation and a definite group of people. Both the form and the personal character of First John will be explained if we think of it as what someone has called "a loving and anxious sermon" written by a pastor who loved his people and sent out to the various churches over which he had charge.

Any such letter is produced by an actual situation apart from which it cannot be fully understood. If, then, we wish to understand First John we have first of all to try to reconstruct the situation which produced it, remembering that it was written in Ephesus a little after A.D. 100.

The Falling Away

By A.D. 100 certain things had almost inevitably happened within the Church, especially in a place like Ephesus.

(i) Many were now second or even third generation Christians. The thrill of the first days had, to some extent at least, passed away. Wordsworth said of one of the great moments of modern history:

"Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive."

In the first days of Christianity there was a glory and a splendour, but now Christianity had become a thing of habit, "traditional, half-hearted, nominal." Men had grown used to it and something of the wonder was lost. Jesus knew men and he had said: "Most menlove will grow cold" (Mat_24:12 ). John was writing at a time when, for some at least, the first thrill was gone and the flame of devotion had died to a flicker.

(ii) One result was that there were members of the Church who found the standards which Christianity demanded a burden and a weariness. They did not want to be saints in the New Testament sense of the term. The New Testament word for saint is hagios (G40), which is also commonly translated holy. Its basic meaning is different. The Temple was hagios (G39) because it was different from other buildings; the Sabbath was hagios (G40) because it was different from other days; the Jewish nation was hagios (G40) because it was different from other peoples; and the Christian was called to be hagios (G40) because he was called to be different from other men. There was always a distinct cleavage between the Christian and the world. In the Fourth Gospel Jesus says, "If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you" (Joh_15:19 ). "I have given them thy word," said Jesus in his prayer to God, "and the world has hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world" (Joh_17:14 ).

All this involved an ethical demand. It demanded a new standard of moral purity, a new kindness, a new service, a new forgiveness--and it was difficult. And once the first thrill and enthusiasm were gone it became harder and harder to stand out against the world and to refuse to conform to the generally accepted standards and practices of the age.

(iii) It is to be noted that First John shows no signs that the Church to which it was written was being persecuted. The peril, as it has been put, was not persecution but seduction; it came from within. That, too, Jesus had foreseen. "Many false prophets," he said, "will arise, and lead many astray" (Mat_24:11 ). This was a danger of which Paul had warned the leaders of this very Church of Ephesus when he made his farewell address to them. "I know," he said, "that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. And from among your own selves will arise men, speaking perverse things to draw away the disciples after them" (Act_20:29-30 ).

The trouble which First John seeks to combat did not come from men out to destroy the Christian faith but from men who thought they were improving it. It came from men whose aim was to make Christianity intellectually respectable. They knew the intellectual tendencies and currents of the day and felt that the time had come for Christianity to come to terms with secular philosophy and contemporary thought.

The Contemporary Philosophy

What, then, was this contemporary thought and philosophy with which the false prophets and mistaken teachers wished to align the Christian faith? Throughout the Greek world there was a tendency of thought to which the general name of Gnosticism is given. The basic belief of all Gnostic thought was that only spirit was good and matter was essentially evil. The Gnostic, therefore, inevitably despised the world since it was matter. In particular he despised the body which, being matter, was necessarily evil. Imprisoned within this body was the spirit of man. That spirit was a seed of God, who was altogether good. So, then, the aim of life must be to release this heavenly seed imprisoned in the evil of the body. That could be done only by a secret knowledge and elaborate ritual which only the true Gnostic could supply. Here was a tendency of thought which was written deep into Greek thinking--and which has not even vet ceased to exist. Its basis is the conviction that all matter is evil and spirit alone is good, and that the one real aim in life is to liberate manspirit from the vile prison-house of the body.

The False Teachers

With that in our minds let us turn to First John and gather the evidence as to who these false teachers were and what they taught. They had been within the Church but they had seceded from it. "They went out from us, but they were not of us" (1Jo_2:19 ). They were men of influence for they claimed to be prophets. "Many false prophets have gone out into the world" (1Jo_4:1 ). Although they had left the Church, they still tried to disseminate their teaching within it and to seduce its members from the true faith (1Jo_2:26 ).

The Denial Of Jesusessiahship

At least some of these false teachers denied that Jesus was the Messiah. "Who is a liar," demands John, "but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ?" (1Jo_2:22 ). It is most likely that these false teachers were not Gnostics proper, but Jews. Things had always been difficult for Jewish Christians, but the events of history made them doubly so. It was very difficult for a Jew to come to believe in a crucified Messiah. But suppose he had begun so to believe, his difficulties were by no means finished. The Christians believed that Jesus would return quickly to vindicate his people. Clearly that would be a hope that would be specially dear to the heart of the Jews. Then in A.D. 70 Jerusalem was captured by the Romans, who were so infuriated with the long intransigence and the suicidal resistance of the Jews that they tore the Holy City stone from stone and drew a plough across the midst of it. In view of that, how could any Jew easily accept the hope that Jesus would come and save his people? The Holy City was desolate; the Jews were dispersed throughout the world. In face of that how could it be true that the Messiah had come?

The Denial Of The Incarnation

There was something even more serious than that. There was false teaching which came directly from an attempt from within the Church to bring Christianity into line with Gnosticism. We must remember the Gnostic point of view that spirit alone was good and matter utterly evil. Given that point of view any real incarnation is impossible. That is exactly what centuries later Augustine was to point out. Before he became a Christian, he was skilled in the philosophies of the various schools. In the Confessions (1Jo_6:9 ) he tells us that somewhere in the heathen writers he had read in one form or another nearly all the things which Christianity says; but there was one great Christian saying which he had never found in any pagan author and which no one would ever find, and that saying was: "The Word became flesh and dwelt among us" (Joh_1:14 ). Since the heathen thinkers believed in the essential evil of matter and therefore the essential evil of the body, that was one thing they could never say.

It is clear that the false teachers against whom John was writing in this First Letter denied the reality of the incarnation and of Jesushysical body. "Every spirit," writes John, "which confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God; and every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God" (1Jo_4:2-3 ).

In the early Church this refusal to admit the reality of the incarnation took, broadly speaking, two forms.

(i) In its most radical and wholesale form it was called Docetism, which Goodspeed suggests might be translated Seemism. The Greek verb dokein (G1380) means to seem; and the Docetists taught that Jesus only seemed to have a body. They insisted that he was a purely spiritual being who had nothing but the appearance of having a body. One of the apocryphal books written from this point of view is the Acts of John, which dates from about A.D. 160. In it John is made to say that sometimes when he touched Jesus he seemed to meet with a material body but at other times "the substance was immaterial, as if it did not exist at all," and also that when Jesus walked he never left any footprint upon the ground. The simplest form of Docetism is the complete denial that Jesus ever had a physical body.

(ii) There was a more subtle, and perhaps more dangerous, variant of this theory connected with the name of Cerinthus. In tradition John and Cerinthus were sworn enemies. Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History 4: 14.6) hands down a story which tells how John went to the public bathhouse in Ephesus to bathe. He saw Cerinthus inside and refused even to enter the building. "Let us flee," he said, "lest even the bathhouse fall, because Cerinthus the enemy of truth is within." Cerinthus drew a definite distinction between the human Jesus and the divine Christ. He said that Jesus was a man, born in a perfectly natural way. He lived in special obedience to God, and after his baptism the Christ in the shape of a dove descended upon him, from that power which is above all powers, and then he brought to men news of the Father who had been as yet unknown. Cerinthus did not stop there. He said that at the end of Jesusife, the Christ again withdrew from him so that the Christ never suffered at all. It was the human Jesus who suffered, died and rose again.

This again comes out in the stories of the apocryphal gospels written under the influence of this point of view. In the Gospel of Peter, written about A.D. 130, it is said that Jesus showed no pain upon the Cross and that his cry was: "My power! My power! Why hast thou forsaken me?" It was at that moment that the divine Christ left the human Jesus. The Acts of John go further. They tell how, when the human Jesus was being crucified on Calvary, John was actually talking to the divine Christ in a cave in the hillside and that the Christ said to him, "John, to the multitude down below in Jerusalem I am being crucified, and pierced with lances and with reeds, and gall and vinegar are given me to drink. But I am speaking to you, and listen to what I say.... Nothing, therefore, of the things they will say of me have I suffered" (Acts of John 97).

We may see how widespread this way of thinking was from the Letters of Ignatius. He was writing to a group of Churches in Asia Minor which must have been much the same as that to which First John was written. When Ignatius wrote he was a prisoner and was being conveyed to Rome to be martyred by being flung to the beasts in the arena. He wrote to the Trallians: "Be deaf, therefore. when anyone speaks to you apart from Jesus Christ, who was of the family of David and Mary, who was truly born, both ate and drank, was truly persecuted under Pontius Pilate, was truly crucified and died . . . who also was truly raised from the dead.... But if, as some affirm, who are without God that is, who are unbelievers--his suffering was only a semblance ... why am I a prisoner?" (Ignatius: To the Trallians 9 and 10). To the Christians at Smyrna he wrote: "For he suffered all these things for us that we might attain salvation, and he truly suffered even as he also truly raised himself, not as some unbelievers say that his passion was merely in semblance" (To the Smyrnaeans 2). Polycarp writing to the Philippians used Johnvery words: "For everyone who does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is an anti-Christ" (To the Philippians chapter 7: 1).

This teaching of Cerinthus is also rebuked in First John. John writes of Jesus: "This is he who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ; not with the water only, but with the water and the blood" (1Jo_5:6 ). The point of that verse is that the Gnostic teachers would have agreed that the divine Christ came by water, that is, at the baptism of Jesus; but they would have denied that he came by blood, that is, by the Cross, for they insisted that the divine Christ left the human Jesus before his crucifixion.

The great danger of this heresy is that it comes from what can only be called a mistaken reverence. It is afraid to ascribe to Jesus full humanity. It regards it as irreverent to think that he had a truly physical body. It is a heresy which is by no means dead but is held to this day, usually quite unconsciously, by not a few devout Christians. But it must be remembered, as John so clearly saw, that mansalvation was dependent on the full identification of Jesus Christ with him. As one of the great early fathers unforgettably put it: "He became what we are to make us what he is."

(iii) This Gnostic belief had certain practical consequences in the lives of those who held it.

(a) The Gnostic attitude to matter and to all created things produced a certain attitude to the body and the things of the body. That attitude might take any one of three different forms.

(1) It might take the form of asceticism, with fasting and celibacy and rigid control, even deliberate ill-treatment, of the body. The view that celibacy is better than marriage and that sex is sin go back to Gnostic influence and belief--and this is a view which still lingers on in certain quarters. There is no trace of that view in this letter.

(2) It might take the form of a contention that the body did not matter and that, therefore, its appetites might be gratified without limit. Since the body was in any event evil, it made no difference what a man did with it. There are echoes of this in this letter. John condemns as a liar the man who says that he knows God and vet does not keep Godcommandments; the man who says that he abides in Christ ought to walk as Christ walked (1Jo_1:6 ; 1Jo_2:4-6 ). There were clearly Gnostics in these communities who claimed special knowledge of God but whose conduct was far removed from the demand of the Christian ethic.

In certain quarters this Gnostic belief went even further. The Gnostic was the man who had gnosis (G1108), knowledge. Some held that the real Gnostic must, therefore, know the best as well as the worst and must enter into every experience of life at its highest or at its deepest level, as the case may be. It might almost be said that such men held that it was an obligation to sin. There is a reference to this kind of belief in the letter to Thyatira in the Revelation, where the Risen Christ refers to those who have known "the deep things of Satan" (Rev_2:24 ). And it may well be that John is referring to these people when he insists that "God is light, and in him is no darkness at all" (1Jo_1:5 ). These particular Gnostics would have held that there was in God not only blazing light but deep darkness and that a man must penetrate both. It is easy to see the disastrous consequences of such a belief.

(3) There was a third kind of Gnostic belief. The true Gnostic regarded himself as an altogether spiritual man, as having shed all the material things of life and released his spirit from the bondage of matter. Such Gnostics held that they were so spiritual that they were above and beyond sin and had reached spiritual perfection. It is to them that John refers when he speaks of those who deceive themselves by saying that they have no sin (1Jo_1:8-10 ).

Whichever of these three ways Gnostic belief took, its ethical consequences were perilous in the extreme; and it is clear that its last two were to be found in the society to which John wrote.

(b) Further, this Gnosticism issued in an attitude to men which was the necessary destruction of Christian fellowship. We have seen that the Gnostic aimed at the release of the spirit from the prison house of the evil body by means of an elaborate and esoteric knowledge. Clearly such a knowledge was not for every man. Ordinary people were too involved in the everyday life and work of the world ever to have time for the study and discipline necessary; and, even if they had had such time, many were intellectually incapable of grasping the involved speculations of Gnostic theosophy and philosophy so-called.

This produced an inevitable result. It divided men into two classes those who were capable of a really spiritual life and those who were not. The Gnostics had names for these two classes of men. The ancients commonly divided the being of man into three parts. There was the soma (G4983), the body, the physical part of man. There was the psuche (G5590), which we generally translate soul, but we must have a care for it does not mean what we mean by soul. To the Greeks the psuche (G5590) was the principle of physical life. Everything which had physical life had psuche (G5590). Psuche was that life principle which a man shared with all living creatures. There was the pneuma (G4151), the spirit; and it was the spirit which was possessed only by man and made him kin to God.

The aim of Gnosticism was the release of the pneuma (G4151) from the soma (G4983); but that release could be won only by long and arduous study which only the leisured intellectual could ever undertake. The Gnostics, therefore, divided men into two classes the psuchikoi (G5591), who could never advance beyond the principle of physical life and never attain to anything else than what was to all intents and purposes animal living; and the pneumatikoi (G4152), who were truly spiritual and truly akin to God.

The result was clear. The Gnostics produced a spiritual aristocracy who looked with contempt and even hatred on lesser men. The pneumatikoi (G4152) regarded the psuchikoi (G5591) as contemptible, earthbound creatures who could never know what real religion was. The consequence was obviously the annihilation of Christian fellowship. That is why John insists all over his letter that the true test of Christianity is love for the brethren. If we really are walking in the light we have fellowship with one another (1Jo_1:7 ). He who says he is in the light and hates his brother is in fact in darkness (1Jo_2:9-11 ). The proof that we have passed from dark to light is that we love the brethren (1Jo_3:14-17 ). The marks of Christianity are belief in Christ and love for the brethren (1Jo_3:23 ). God is love and he who does not love does not know God at all (1Jo_4:7-8 ). Because God loved us, we ought to love each other; it is when we love each other that God dwells in us (1Jo_4:10-12 ). The commandment is that he who loves God must love his brother also, and he who says he loves God and at the same time hates his brother is branded as a liar (1Jo_4:20-21 ). The Gnostic, to put it bluntly, would have said that the mark of true religion is contempt for ordinary men; John insists in every chapter that the mark of true religion is love for every man.

Here, then, is a picture of these Gnostic heretics. They talked of being born of God, of walking in the light, of having no sin, of dwelling in God, of knowing God. These were their catch phrases. They had no idea of destroying the Church and the faith; by their way of it they were going to cleanse the Church of dead wood and make Christianity an intellectually respectable philosophy, fit to stand beside the great systems of the day. But the effect of their teaching was to deny the incarnation, to eliminate the Christian ethic and to make fellowship within the Church impossible. It is little wonder that John seeks, with such fervent pastoral devotion, to defend the churches he loved from such an insidious attack from within. This was a threat far more perilous than any heathen persecution; the very existence of the Christian faith was at stake.

The Message Of John

First John is a short letter and we cannot look within it for a systematic exposition of the Christian faith. None the less it will be of the greatest interest to examine the basic underlying beliefs with which John confronts those threatening to be the wreckers of the Christian faith.

The Object Of Writing

Johnobject in writing is two-fold yet one. He writes that the joy of his people may be complete (1Jo_1:4 ), and that they may not sin (1Jo_2:1 ). He sees clearly that, however attractive the wrong way may be, it is not in its nature to bring happiness. To bring them joy and to preserve them from sin is one and the same thing.

The Idea Of God

John has two great things to say about God. God is light and in him there is no darkness at all (1Jo_1:5 ). God is love and that made him love us before we loved him and made him send his son as a remedy for our sins (1Jo_4:7-10 , 1Jo_4:16 ). Johnconviction is that God is self-revealing and self-giving. He is light, and not darkness; he is love, and not hate.

The Idea Of Jesus

Because the main attack of the false teachers was on the person of Christ, this letter, which is concerned to answer them, is specially rich and helpful in what it has to say about him.

(i) Jesus is he who was from the beginning (1Jo_1:1 ; 1Jo_2:14 ). When a man is confronted with Jesus, he is confronted with the eternal.

(ii) Another way of putting this is to say that Jesus is the Son of God and for John it is essential to be convinced of that (1Jo_4:15 ; 1Jo_5:5 ). The relationship of Jesus to God is unique and in him is seen Godever-seeking and ever-forgiving heart.

(iii) Jesus is the Christ, the Messiah (1Jo_2:22 ; 1Jo_5:1 ). That again for him is an essential article of belief. It may seem that here we come into a region of ideas which is much narrower and, in fact, specifically Jewish. But there is something essential here. To say that Jesus is from the beginning and that he is the Son of God is to conserve his connection with eternity; to say that he is the Messiah, is to conserve his connection with history. It is to see his coming as the event towards which Godplan, working itself out in his chosen people, was moving.

(iv) Jesus was most truly and fully man. To deny that Jesus came in the flesh is to be moved by the spirit of Antichrist (1Jo_4:2-3 ). It is Johnwitness that Jesus was so truly man that he himself had known and touched and handled him (1Jo_1:1 , 1Jo_1:3 ). No writer in the New Testament holds with greater intensity the full reality of the incarnation. Not only did he become man, he also suffered for men. It was by water and blood that he came (1Jo_5:6 ); and he laid down his life for men (1Jo_3:16 ).

(v) The coming of Jesus, his incarnation, his life, his death, his resurrection and his ascension all combine to deal with the sin of man. Jesus was without sin (1Jo_3:5 ); and man is essentially a sinner, even though in his arrogance he may claim to be without sin (1Jo_1:8-10 ); and yet the sinless one came to take away the sin of sinning men (1Jo_3:5 ). In regard to mansin Jesus is two things.

(a) He is our advocate with the Father (1Jo_2:1 ). The word is parakletos (G3875). A parakletos is someone who is called in to help. The word could be used of a doctor; it was often used of a witness called in to give evidence in favour of someone on trial or of a defending lawyer called in to defend someone under accusation. Jesus pleads our case with God; he, the sinless one, is the defender of sinning men.

(b) But Jesus is more than that. Twice John calls him the expiation for our sins (1Jo_2:2 ; 1Jo_4:10 ). When a man sins, the relationship which should exist between him and God is broken. An expiatory sacrifice is one which restores that relationship or, rather, a sacrifice in virtue of which that relationship is restored. It is an atoning sacrifice, a sacrifice which once again makes man and God at one. So, then, through what Jesus was and did the relationship between God and man, broken by sin, is restored. Jesus does not only plead the case of the sinner; he sets him at one, with God. The blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us from all sin (1Jo_1:7 ).

(vi) In consequence of all this, through Jesus Christ men who believe have life (1Jo_4:9 ; 1Jo_5:11-12 ). This is true in a double sense. They have life in the sense that they are saved from death; and they have life in the sense that living has ceased to be mere existence and has become life indeed.

(vii) All this may be summed up by saying that Jesus is the Saviour of the world (1Jo_4:14 ). Here we have something which has to be set out in full. "The Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world" (1Jo_4:14 ). We have already talked of Jesus as pleading mencase before God. If we were to leave that without addition, it might be argued that God wished to condemn men and was deflected from his dire purpose by the self-sacrifice of Jesus Christ. But that is not so because for John, as for every writer in the New Testament, the whole initiative was with God. It was he who sent his son to be the Saviour of men.

Within the short compass of this letter the wonder and the glory and the grace of Christ are most fully set out.

The Spirit

In this letter John has less to say about the Spirit; for his highest teaching about him we must turn back to the Fourth Gospel. It may be said that in First John the function of the Spirit is in some sense to be the liaison between God and man. It is he who makes us conscious that there is within us the abiding presence of God through Jesus Christ (1Jo_3:24 ; 1Jo_4:13 ). We may say that it is the Spirit who enables us to grasp the precious fellowship with God which is being offered to us.

The World

The world within which the Christian lives is hostile; it is a world without God. It does not know the Christian, because it did not know Christ (1Jo_3:1 ). It hates the Christian, just as it hated Christ (1Jo_3:13 ). The false teachers are of the world and not of God, and it is because they speak its language that the world is ready to hear them and accept them (1Jo_4:4-5 ). The whole world, says John sweepingly, is in the power of the evil one (1Jo_5:19 ). It is for that reason that the Christian has to overcome it, and his weapon in his struggle with the world is faith (1Jo_5:4 ).

Hostile as the world is, it is doomed. The world and all its desires are passing away (1Jo_2:17 ). That, indeed, is why it is folly to give oneheart to the world; it is on the way to dissolution. Although the Christian lives in a hostile world which is passing away, there is no need for despair and fear. The darkness is past, the true light now shines (1Jo_2:8 ). God in Christ has broken into time; the new age has come. It is not yet fully realized but the consummation is sure.

The Christian lives in an evil and a hostile world, but he possesses that by which he can overcome it and, when the destined end of the world comes, he is safe, because he already possesses that which makes him a member of the new community in the new age.

The Fellowship Of The Church

John does more than move in the high realms of theology; he has certain most practical things to say about the Christian Church and the Christian life. No New Testament writer stresses more consistently or more strenuously the necessity of Christian fellowship. Christians, John was convinced, are not only bound to God, they are also bound to each other. When we walk in the light, we have fellowship with each other (1Jo_1:7 ). The man who claims to walk in the light but hates his brother, is in reality walking in darkness; it is the man who loves his brother who is in the light (1Jo_2:9-11 ). The proof that a man has passed from darkness to light is the fact that he loves his brother. To hate onebrother man is in essence to be a murderer, as Cain was. If any man is able out of his fullness to help his brotherpoverty and does not do so, it is ridiculous for him to claim that the love of God dwells in him. The essence of religion is to believe on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and to love one another (1Jo_3:11-17 , 1Jo_3:23 ). God is love; and, therefore, the man who loves is kin to God. God has loved us, and that is the best reason for loving each other (1Jo_4:7-12 ). If a man says that he loves God and at the same time hates his brother, he is a liar. The command is that he who loves God must love his brother also (1Jo_4:20-21 ).

It was Johnconviction that the only way in which a man can prove that he loves God is by loving his fellow-men; and that that love must be not only a sentimental emotion but a dynamic towards practical help.

The Righteousness Of The Christian

No New Testament writer makes a stronger ethical demand than John, or more strongly condemns a so-called religion which fails to issue in ethical action. God is righteous and the life of every one who knows him must reflect his righteousness (1Jo_2:29 ). Whoever abides in Christ and is born of God, does not sin; whoever does not do right is not of God (1Jo_3:3-10 ); and the characteristic of this righteousness is that it issues in love for the brethren (1Jo_3:10-11 ). We show our love to God and to men by keeping Godcommandments (1Jo_5:2 ). Whoever is born of God does not sin (1Jo_5:18 ).

For John, knowledge of God and obedience to him must ever go hand in hand. It is by keeping his commandments that we prove that we really do know God. The man who says that he knows him and who does not keep his commandments is a liar (1Jo_2:3-5 ).

It is, in fact, this obedience which is the basis of effective prayer. We receive what we ask of God because we keep his commandments and do what is pleasing in his sight (1Jo_3:22 ).

The two marks which characterize genuine Christianity are love of the brethren and obedience to the revealed commandments of God.

The Destination Of The Letter

There are certain baffling problems in regard to the letterdestination. The letter itself gives us no clue as to where it was sent. Tradition strongly connects it with Asia Minor, and especially with Ephesus, where, according to tradition, John lived for many years. But there are certain other odd facts which somehow have to be explained.

Cassiodorus says that the First Letter of John was written Ad Parthos, To the Parthians (compare G3934); and Augustine has a series of ten tractates written on The Epistle of John ad Parthos. One Geneva manuscript still further complicates the matter by entitling the letter Ad Sparthos. There is no such word as Sparthos. There are two possible explanations of this impossible title: (i) Just possibly it is meant for Ad Sparsos, which would mean To the Christians scattered abroad; (ii) In Greek Ad Parthos would be Pros Parthous. Now in the early manuscripts there was no space between the words and they were all written in capital letters so that the title would run PROSPARTHOUS. A scribe writing to dictation could quite easily put that down as PROSSPARTHOUS, especially if he did not know what the title meant. Ad Sparthos can be eliminated as a mere mistake.

But where did To the Parthians come from? There is one possible explanation. Second John does tell us of its destination; it is written to The elect lady,, and her children (2Jo_1:1 ). Let us turn to the end of First Peter. The King James Version has: "The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you" (1Pe_5:13 ). The phrase: "the church that is" is printed in the King James Version in italics which of course, means that it has no equivalent in the Greek which has, in fact, no actual mention of a church at all. This the Revised Standard Version accurately indicates: "She who is at Babylon, who is likewise chosen (elect), sends you greetings." As far as the Greek goes it would be perfectly possible, and indeed natural, to take that as referring not to a Church but to a lad . That is precisely what certain of the scholars in the very early Church did. Now we get the elect lady again in Second John. It was easy to identify the two elect ladies and to assume that Second John was also written to Babylon. The natural title for the inhabitants of Babylon was Parthians and hence we have the explanation of the title.

The process went even further. The Greek for the elect lady is he (G3588) elekte (G1588). We have already seen that the early manuscripts were written all in capital letters; and it would be just possible to take Elekte (G1588) not as an adjective meaning elect but as a proper name, Elekta. This is, in fact, what Clement of Alexandria may have done, for we have information that he said that the Johannine letters were written to a certain Babylonian lady, Elekta by name, and to her children.

It may well be then, that the title Ad Parthos arose from a series of misunderstandings. The elect one in First Peter is quite certainly the church, as the King James Version rightly saw. Moffatt translates: "Your sister church in Babylon, elect like yourselves, salutes you." Further, it is almost certain that in any event Babylon there stands for Rome which the early writers identified with Babylon, the great harlot, drunk with the blood of the saints (compare Rev_17:5 ). The title Ad Parthos has a most interesting history but clearly it arose from an ingenious misunderstanding.

There is one further complication. Clement of Alexandria referred to Johnletters as "written to virgins." On the face of it that is improbable, for it would not be a specially relevant title for them. How, then, could it come about? The Greek would be Pros Parthenous (compare G3933) which closely resembles Pros Parthous (G3934); and, it so happens, John was regularly called Ho Parthenos (G3933), the Virgin, because he never married and because of the purity of his life. This further title must have come from a confusion between Ad Parthos (G3934) and Ho Parthenos (G3933).

This is a case where we may take it that tradition is right and all the ingenious theories mistaken. We may take it that these letters were written in Ephesus and to the surrounding Churches in Asia Minor. When John wrote, it would certainly be to the district where his writ ran, and that was Ephesus and the surrounding territory. He is never mentioned in connection with Babylon.

In Defence Of The Faith

John wrote his great letter to meet a threatening situation and in defence of the faith. The heresies which he attacked are by no means altogether echoes of "old unhappy far off things and battles long ago." They are still beneath the surface and sometimes they even still raise their heads. To study his letter will confirm us in the true faith and enable us to have a defence against that which would seduce us from it.

FURTHER READING

John

J. N. S. Alexander, The Epistles of John (Tch; E)

A. E. Brooke, The Johannine Epistles (ICC; G)

C. H. Dodd, The Johannine Epistles (MC; E)

Abbreviations

ICC: International Critical Commentary

MC: Moffatt Commentary

Tch: Torch Commentary

E: English Text

G: Greek Text

Barclay: 1 John 2 (Chapter Introduction)

A Pastor's Concern (2Jo_2:1-2)

Jesus Christ, The Paraclete (2Jo_2:1-2 Continued)

Jesus Christ, The Propitiation (2Jo_2:1-2 Continued)

The True Knowledge Of God (2Jo_2:3-6)

The Commandment Which Is Old And New (2Jo_2:7-8)

The Defeat Of The Dark (2Jo_2:7-8 Continued)

Love And Hate, And Light And Dark (2Jo_2:9-11)

The Effect Of Love And Hate (2Jo_2:9-11 Continued)

Remembering Who We Are (2Jo_2:12-14)

At Every Stage (2Jo_2:12-14 Continued)

God's Gifts In Christ (2Jo_2:12-14 Continued)

Rivals For The Human Heart (2Jo_2:15-17)

The Life In Which There Is No Future (2Jo_2:15-17 Continued)

The Time Of The Last Hour (2Jo_2:18)

The Antichrist (2Jo_2:18 Continued)

The Battle Of The Mind (2Jo_2:18 Continued)

The Sifting Of The Church (2Jo_2:19-21)

The Master Lie (2Jo_2:22-23)

The Universal Privilege (2Jo_2:24-29)

Abiding In Christ (2Jo_2:24-29 Continued)

Constable: 1 John (Book Introduction)

Introduction

Historical Background

This epistle does not contain the name of its writer, but from its very early history the church believed the Apostle John wrote it. Several ancient writers referred to this book as John's writing.¹ Though modern critics have challenged this view they have not destroyed it.

Neither is there any reference to who the first recipients of this epistle were or where they lived other than that they were Christians (2:12-14, 21; 5:13). They may have been the leaders of churches (2:20, 27). According to early church tradition John ministered in Ephesus, the capital of the Roman province of Asia, for many years after he left Palestine. We know that he knew the churches and Christians in that Roman province well from Revelation 2 and 3. Perhaps his readers lived in that province.

The false teachers and teachings to which he alluded suggest that John wrote about conditions that existed in Asia: Judaism, Gnosticism, Docetism, the teachings of Cerinthus (a prominent Gnostic), and others.² These philosophies extended beyond Asia, but they were present there during John's lifetime.

This is one of the most difficult of all the New Testament books to date. One of the few references in the book that may help us date it is 2:19. If John meant that the false teachers had departed from among the apostles, a date in the 60s seems possible. This would place it about A.D. 60-65, before the Jewish revolts of A.D. 66-70 scattered the Jews from Judea. In this case John may have written from Jerusalem.³ However many conservative scholars believe John wrote this epistle much later. They suggest between about A.D. 85 and 97, when he evidently wrote the Gospel of John (ca. A.D. 85-95) and the Book of Revelation (ca. A.D. 95-96).⁴ I prefer a date in the 90s following the writing of John's Gospel that 1 John seems to assume.⁵ In view of the nature and the conclusion of the Book of Revelation, which seems to be God's final word to humankind, I think John probably composed his Epistles before that book. So a date for 1 John in the early 90s, A.D. 90-95, seems most probable to me.⁶

Since John ministered in and around Ephesus later in his life, that seems to be the most probable place from which he wrote this epistle.⁷

"The writer of 1 John was thus addressing a community, made up of a number of house-churches in and around Ephesus . . ., which was split in three ways. It consisted of the following: (a) Johannine Christians who were committed to the apostolic gospel of Jesus as they had received it; (b) heretically inclined members from a Jewish background; (c) heterodox followers from a Hellenistic (and/or pagan) background. The problems relating to the two heretical' groups, (b) and (c), were primarily theological and (by extension) ethical; although related difficulties concerning eschatology and pneumatology may have been present also (see on 2:18 and 4:1 . . .). . . .

"To complete the picture, it should be noted that the life of the Johannine community was marked by the presence of a fourth group of people: the secessionists. Whereas the members of the first three groups could be found within John's circle, the anti-Christian secessionists had begun to break away from it. These were heretically inclined adherents of the Johannine community. In some cases they may have been genuine, if uninformed, believers. But in other instances they perhaps never properly belonged to John's church (although they thought they did), because they never really belonged to God (see on 1 John 2:18-19; cf. also 2:22-23)."⁸

Message⁹

If I were to boil down the message of this epistle into one sentence it would be this. Fellowship with God is the essence of eternal life.

Both the Gospel of John and the First Epistle of John deal with eternal life. John wrote his Gospel so his readers might believe that Jesus is the Christ, and that believing they might have life through His name (John 20:31). John wrote this epistle to Christians so we might enter into the fullness of the eternal life that we possess (1 John 1:3; John 10:10). However the subject of this letter is not eternal life but fellowship with God. Fellowship with God is the essence of eternal life (1:3-4; John 17:3).

John evidently wrote this epistle about 90-95 A.D. from Ephesus.

This epistle grew out of Jesus' Upper Room Discourse (John 14-17). Similarly James' epistle grew out of Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, and the Book of Revelation grew out of the Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24-25). In the Upper Room Discourse, Jesus explained to the apostles their relationship to God as it would exist after He sent the Holy Spirit to dwell in them (John 14:16-17). John expounded that revelation in this letter.

There are several terms in this epistle that John used as synonyms: fellowship with God, knowing God, and abiding in God. These terms all describe the experience of Christians. They all describe our relationship with God as more or less intimate.

Our relationships with people vary. They are more or less intimate.

Fellowship with God is also a matter of greater or lesser intimacy. When we speak of being "in fellowship" or "out of fellowship," we are oversimplifying our relationship to God.

John's purpose in writing was to motivate his readers to cultivate greater intimacy with God. The greater the intimacy, the greater our "fellowship," the better we "know" God experientially, and the closer we "abide" in Him (cf. John 14:21-24). The greater our intimacy with God the more we will experience the life that is eternal. All Christians possess eternal life, but all do not experience that life as God intended us to enjoy it (John 10:10). Similarly all living human beings have life, but not all live an abundant life.

This letter reveals two things about the life of fellowship.

First, it reveals the resources of this life. There are two resources.

The first is objective. God has provided a pattern for the life of fellowship. The pattern is Jesus Christ. In Christ we have personified two qualities that are characteristics of God that should also characterize us as the children of God.

The first of these is light. Jesus Christ constantly walked in the light of God's holiness (1:5-6; 2:6). He never hid from God. He also conformed to the light of God's will perfectly. He was submissive, sinless, clean, and consecrated.

The second of these resources is love. Jesus also constantly manifested the love of God (4:10). In His attitudes and activities He always demonstrated perfect love. His words and His deeds were a revelation of God's love. Jesus put others before Himself. He was selfless as well as holy.

The second resource of the life of fellowship is subjective. God has not only provided a pattern for the life of fellowship, He has also provided the power. Jesus Christ is not only an external pattern for us to imitate. More helpfully He is an internal power whom God has placed within us who is at work in our lives. With eternal life we get Jesus (5:11-12). With Him come two things.

First, we get light. We see spiritual things that we never saw before (2:20). We see how we ought to walk (2:27). We become sensitive to sin.

Second, we get love. We see the need of other people who are groping in darkness, and we desire to reach out to them in service and to bring them into the light (4:7). As soon as we share God's life we begin to love with God's love. We can quench love, but every person who has eternal life has love in him or her.

To review, this letter reveals two things about the life of fellowship: first the resources of this life, which are an external pattern and internal power. Both of these come from Jesus Christ.

Second, this letter reveals the values of the realization of this life. These are two also.

First, there is value for us. This value is that we realize life as God intended people to live it. We can experience life as God meant it to be when He first made man. We achieve our potential as human beings to the degree to which we walk in fellowship with God (i.e., abide in Him). Our intimacy with God perfects our personalities.

Second, there is also value for God. God enjoys fellowship with man. God's purpose in creation and redemption was to have fellowship with man. God finds in every person who walks with Him in fellowship a person through whom He can manifest Himself, an instrument through whom He can accomplish His purposes. The abiding believer reveals God to those around him or her.

John also called his readers to fulfill our responsibilities in the life of fellowship.

Regarding the light we have two responsibilities.

First, we must obey the light (1:7). That means responding positively to the knowledge of God's will that we gain. We can become callused to the truth. This is a special danger in seminary. Cultivate your relationship with God daily. We all need to keep weeding the gardens of our spiritual lives.

Second, we must seek the light (1:9). We need to forsake the darkness of sin and keep walking in the light. The circle of God's light may move. We may gain new understanding of His will. When that happens, we need to move into that light in obedience.

Regarding love we also have two responsibilities.

First, we must yield to its impulse. We can destroy our capacity to love by not expressing love when God moves us to do so. We can lose our passion for the lost by resisting the Holy Spirit's promptings to reach out in love. We need to be ready to sacrifice rather than to put self first. However if we yield ourselves to the impulse of love to serve others, our love will deepen and intensify. Do not quench the Spirit if He is prompting you to reach out in love.

Second, we must also guard love's purity. We need to watch out for false charity. True love never sacrifices principle. God never loved at the expense of light. Love never justifies sin.

In conclusion, notice two applications of the message of this epistle, one to the individual and one to the church.

First, let me make one application to the individual. We can test whether we are living in fellowship with God easily. Check the light and the love in our lives. Is the light of holiness shining clearly, or are we walking in darkness? Is our love still burning brightly, or has our life deteriorated to the level of only learning? Learning is only one means to the end of living, living in intimate fellowship with God. What do you want people to remember you for, your knowledge or your love?

Second, let me make one application to the church. We need to keep our priorities in line with God's. Intimacy is His goal for us. God desires a few committed disciples rather than a multitude of compromising disciples. A pure church is more important than a large church. Do not draw back from urging people to walk in the light and to walk in love to increase the size of your congregation. Make as broad an appeal as possible without pulling your punches in ministry. I'm referring here to the church's ministry of equipping the saints. In presenting the gospel, we should make as broad an appeal as possible.

Constable: 1 John (Outline)

Outline

I. Introduction: the purpose of the epistle 1:1-4

II. Living in the light 1:5-2:29

A. God as light 1:5-7

B. Conditions for living in the light 1:8-2:29

1. Renouncing sin 1:8-2:2

2. Obeying God 2:3-11

3. Rejecting worldliness 2:12-17

4. Keeping the faith 2:18-29

III. Living as children of God 3:1-5:13

A. God as Father 3:1-3

B. Conditions for living as God's children 3:4-5:13

1. Renouncing sin reaffirmed 3:4-9

2. Obeying God reaffirmed 3:10-24

3. Rejecting worldliness reaffirmed 4:1-6

4. Practicing love 4:7-5:4

5. Keeping the faith reaffirmed 5:5-13

IV. Conclusion: Christian confidence 5:14-21

A. Confidence in action: prayer 5:14-17

B. Certainty of knowledge: assurance 5:18-20

C. A final warning: idolatry 5:21

Another outline that captures the cyclical pattern of John's thought is the following.¹⁰

I. Prologue 1:1-4

II. First cycle 1:5-2:28

A. Righteousness 1:5-2:6

B. Love 2:7-17

C. Belief 2:18-28

III. Second cycle 2:29-4:6

A. Righteousness 2:29-3:10a

B. Love 3:10b-24a

C. Belief 3:24b-4:6

IV. Third cycle 4:7-5:12

A. Love 4:7-21

B. Righteousness 5:1-5

C. Belief 5:6-21

Scholars have struggled to determine the structure of this epistle and have suggested many diverse outlines of the book.¹¹

Constable: 1 John

1 John

Bibliography

Bailey, Mark L., and Thomas L. Constable. The New Testament Explorer. Nashville: Word Publishing Co., 1999.

Baker's Dictionary of Theology, 1960. S.v. "Theophany," by Wick Broomall.

Barclay, William. The Letters of John and Jude. Daily Study Bible series. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: Saint Andrew Press, 1960.

Barker, Glenn W. "1 John." In Hebrews-Revelation. Vol. 12 of The Expositor's Bible Commentary. 12 vols. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein and J. D. Douglas. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981.

Baxter, J. Sidlow. Explore the Book. 6 vols. London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1965.

Baylis, Charles P. "The Meaning of Walking in the Darkness' (1 John 1:6)." Bibliotheca Sacra 149:594 (April-June 1992):214-22.

Blair, J. Allen. The Epistles of John. Neptune, N.J.: Loizeaux Brothers, 1982.

Boice, James Montgomery. The Epistles of John. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1979.

Brindle, Wayne A. "Biblical Evidence for the Imminence of the Rapture." Bibliotheca Sacra 158:630 (April-June 2001):138-51.

Brooke, A. E. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Johannine Epistles. International Critical Commentary series. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1912.

Brown, Raymond. The Epistles of John. Anchor Bible series. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1982.

Bruce, F. F. The Epistles of John. London: Pickering & Inglis Ltd., 1970; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1986.

Calvin, John. The First Epistle of John. Calvin's New Testament Commentaries series. Translated by T. H. L. Parker. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1959-61.

Candlish, Robert S. The First Epistle of John. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, n.d.

Constable, Thomas L. "Analysis of Bible Books--New Testament." Paper submitted for course 686 Analysis of Bible Books--New Testament. Dallas Theological Seminary, January 1968.

_____. Talking to God: What the Bible Teaches about Prayer. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1995.

_____. "What Prayer Will and Will Not Change." In Essays in Honor of J. Dwight Pentecost, pp. 99-113. Edited by Stanley D. Toussaint and Charles H. Dyer. Chicago: Moody Press, 1986.

Cook, W. Robert. "Harmartiological Problems in First John." Bibliotheca Sacra 123:491 (July-September 1966):249-60.

Crain, C. Readings on the First Epistle of John. New York: Loizeaux Brothers, n. d.

Darby, John Nelson. Synopsis of the Books of the Bible. 5 vols. Revised ed. New York: Loizeaux Brothers Publishers, 1942.

Derickson, Gary W. "What Is the Message of 1 John?" Bibliotheca Sacra 150:597 (January-March 1993):89-105.

Dictionary of the Apostolic Church. Edited by James Hastings. 1915 ed. S.v. "John, Epistles of," by A. E. Brooke.

Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by James Hastings. 1910 ed. S.v. "John, Epistles of," by S. D. F. Salmond.

Dillow, Joseph C. The Reign of the Servant Kings. Miami Springs, Fla.: Schoettle Publishing Co., 1992.

Dodd, C. H. The Johanine Epistles. The Moffatt New Testament Commentary series. New York: Harper and Row, 1946.

Findlay, George G. Fellowship in the Life Eternal. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1909.

Gaebelein, Arno C. The Annotated Bible. 4 vols. Reprint ed. Chicago: Moody Press, and New York: Loizeaux Brothers, 1970.

Gaster, Theodor H. The Dead Sea Scriptures. Revised and enlarged edition; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Co., Anchor Books, 1964.

Gillquist, Peter E. Love Is Now. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1970.

Goodman, G. The Epistle of Eternal Life. London: Pickering & Inglis, 1936.

Graystone, Kenneth. The Johanine Epistles. New Century Bible Commentary series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., and London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1984.

A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. By C. G. Wilke. Revised by C. L. Wilibald Grimm. Translated, revised and enlarged by Joseph Henry Thayer, 1889.

Guthrie, Donald. New Testament Introduction. 3 vols. 2nd ed. London: Tyndale Press, 1966.

Harris, W. Hall. "A Theology of John's Writings." In A Biblical Theology of the New Testament, pp. 167-242. Edited by Roy B. Zuck. Chicago: Moody Press, 1994.

Hiebert, D. Edmond. "An Expositional Study of 1 John." Bibliotheca Sacra 145:578 (April-June 1988):197-210; 579 (July-September 1988):329-42; 580 (October-December 1988):420-35; 146:581 (January-March 1989):76-93; 582 (April-June 1989):198-216; 583 (July-September 1989):310-19; 584 (October-December 1989):420-36; 147:585 (January-March 1990):69-88; 586 (April-June 1990):216-30; 587 (July-September 1990):309-28.

_____. An Introduction to the New Testament, Vol. 3: The Non-Pauline Epistles and Revelation. Chicago: Moody Press, 1977.

Hodges, Zane C. "1 John." In The Bible Knowledge Commentary: New Testament, pp. 881-904. Edited by John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1983.

_____. The Epistles of John: Walking in the Light of God's Love. Irving, Tex.: Grace Evangelical Society, 1999.

_____. "Fellowship and Confession in 1 John 1:5-10." Bibliotheca Sacra129:513 (January-March 1972):48-60.

_____. The Gospel Under Siege. Dallas: Redencion Viva, 1981.

_____. "Is God's Truth in You? 1 John 2:4b." Grace Evangelical Society News 5:7 (July 1990):2-3.

Houlden, J. L. A Commentary on the Johanine Epistles. Harper's New Testament Commentaries series. New York: Harper and Row, 1973.

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Edited by James Orr. 1957 ed. S.v. "Gnosticism," by John Rutherford.

_____. S.v. "John, The Epistles of," by R. Law.

King, Guy H. The Fellowship. London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1954.

Kistemaker, Simon J. Exposition of the Epistle of James and the Epistles of John. New Testament Commentary Series. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1986.

Lange, John Peter, ed. Commentary on the Holy Scripture. 12 vols. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1960. Vol 12: James-Revelation, by J. P. Lange, J. J. Van Osterzee, G. T. C. Fronmuller, and Karl Braune. Enlarged and edited by E. R. Craven. Translated by J. Isidor Mombert and Evelina Moore.

Law, Robert. The Tests of Life: A Study of the First Epistle of St. John. Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1909.

Lenski, Richard C. H. The Interpretation of the Epistles of St. Peter, St. John and St. Jude. Reprint ed. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1961.

Lloyd-Jones, Martyn. Fellowship With God: Studies in 1 John. Vol. 1 of Life in Christ series. Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1993.

MacArthur, John F., Jr. Faith Works: The Gospel According to the Apostles. Dallas: Word Publishing, 1993.

_____. The Gospel according to Jesus. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1988.

Malatesta, E. Interiority and Covenant. A Study of einai en and menein en in the First Letter of Saint John. Anchor Bible 69. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1978.

Marshall, I. Howard. The Epistles of John. New International Commentary on the New Testament series. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1984.

McNeile, A. H. An Introduction to the Study of the New Testament. 2nd ed. Revised by C. S. C. Williams. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1965.

Mitchell, John G. An Everlasting Love. Portland: Multnomah Press, 1982.

_____. Fellowship. Portland: Multnomah Press, 1974.

Morgan, G. Campbell. Living Messages of the Books of the Bible. 2 vols. New York: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1912.

Morris, Leon. The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1965.

Pentecost, J. Dwight. The Joy of Fellowship. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1977.

Plummer, Alfred. The Epistles of S. John. Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges series. 1883. Reprint ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1938.

Roberts, J. W. The Letters of John. Living Word Commentary series. Austin, Tex.: R. B. Sweet, 1968.

Robertson, Archibald Thomas. Word Pictures in the New Testatment. 6 vols. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1931.

Ross, A. The Epistles of James and John. New International Commentary series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1954.

Ryrie, Charles C. Biblical Theology of the New Testament. Chicago: Moody Press, 1959.

_____. "The First Epistle of John." In The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, pp. 1463-78. Edited by Charles F. Pfeiffer and Everett F. Harrison. Chicago: Moody Press, 1962.

Smalley, Stephen S. 1, 2, 3 John. Word Biblical Commentary series. Waco: Word Books, 1984.

Spurgeon, Charles H. 12 Sermons on the Second Coming of Christ. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1976.

Stanton, Gerald B. Kept from the Hour. Fourth ed. Miami Springs, Fla.: Schoettle Publishing Co., 1991.

Storms, C. Samuel. Reaching God's Ear. Wheaton: Tyndale House Publishers, 1988.

Stott, John R. W. The Epistles of John. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1964.

Thiessen, Henry Clarence. Introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1962.

Westcott, Brooke Foss. The Epistles of St. John. 1883. Reprint ed. England: Marcham Manor Press, 1966.

Wiersbe, Warren W. Be Real. BE Books series. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1978.

Wilkin, Robert N. "Assurance: That You May Know' (1 John 5:11-13a)." Grace Evangelical Society News 5:12 (December 1990):2, 4.

_____. "Do Born Again People Sin? 1 John 3:9." Grace Evangelical Society News 5:3 (March 1990):2-3.

_____. "Knowing God By Our Works?" Grace Evangelical Society News 3:10 (October-November 1988):3-4.

Copyright 2003 by Thomas L. Constable

Haydock: 1 John (Book Introduction)

THE

FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN,

THE APOSTLE.

INTRODUCTION.

This epistle was always acknowledged for canonical, and written by St. John, the apostle and evangelist. At what time and place, is uncertain. It is sometimes called the Epistle to the Parthians, or Persians. The chief design is to set forth the mystery of Christ's incarnation against Cerinthus, who denied Christ's divinity, and against Basilides, who denied that Christ had a true body; with zealous exhortations to love God and our neighbour. (Witham) --- The vein of divine love and charity towards our neighbour which runs throughout the gospel written by the beloved disciple and evangelist, St. John, is found also in his epistles. He confirms the two principal mysteries of our faith: the mystery of the Trinity, the mystery of the incarnation of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. The sublimity and excellence of the evangelical doctrine he declares: "And this commandment we have from God, that he who loveth God love also his brother;" (Chap. iv. 21.) and again, "For this is the charity of God, that we keep his commandments; and his commandments are not heavy." (Chap. v. 3.) He shews how to distinguish the children of God from those of the devil; marks out those who should be called antichrists; describes the turpitude and gravity of sin. Finally, he shews how the sinner may hope for pardon. It was written, according to Baronius's account, sixty-six years after our Lord's ascension. (Challoner) --- The effect of all is to prove the certainty of the Catholic faith, and to renounce all heretics and schismatics, who entice persons from the true saving faith.

====================

Gill: 1 John (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO 1 JOHN

The author of this epistle was John, the son of Zebedee, the disciple whom Jesus loved: he was the youngest of the apostles, and survived them all. He does not indeed put his name to this epistle, as the Apostles Paul, Peter, James, and Jude do to theirs; and it is easy to observe, that when this disciple, in his writings, had any occasion to speak of himself, it was usually by such a circumlocution, as the disciple whom Jesus loved, or the other disciple, studiously concealing his name: so that his not putting his name to this epistle need not create any scruple about his being the author of it, which everywhere breathes the temper and spirit of this great apostle; and whoever compares this epistle, and the Gospel written by him, together, will easily conclude it to be his, both from the style and subject matter of it: besides, as Eusebius asserts ^a, this epistle was generally received without scruple, both by ancient and modern writers. It is called "general", because it was not written and sent to any particular church, or person, and not because it was for the general use of the churches, for so are all the particular epistles but because it was written to the Christians in general, or to the believing Jews in general wherever they were; for that it was written to the Jews seems evident from 1Jo 2:2. It was called, by some of the ancients, the epistle of John to the Parthians ^b; by whom must be meant not the natives of Parthia but the Jews professing to believe in Christ, who dwelt in that empire. We read of Parthian Jews a the feast of Pentecost, Act 2:9, who at that time might be converted, and, upon their return to their own country, lay the foundation of a Gospel church state there Dr. Lightfoot ^c conjectures from a passage in 3Jo 1:9 that this epistle was written to the Corinthians; but there does not seem to be any sufficient reason for it. As for the time when, and place where, this epistle was written, it is not easy to say: some think it was written at Patmos, whither the apostle was banished in the reign of Domitian, and where he wrote the book of the Revelations; see Rev 1:9; and here some say he wrote his Gospel, and this epistle, and that a little before the destruction of Jerusalem, and which he calls the last time or hour; and that his design in writing it was to exhort the believing Jews, either in Parthia, or scattered about in other countries, to brotherly love, and to warn them against false Christs and false prophets, which were now gone forth into the world to deceive men; see 1Jo 2:18. Others think that it was written by him, when a very old man, after his return from his exile to Ephesus, where he resided during his life, and where he died, and was buried. It is called his "first" epistle general, not that it is the first general epistle, for the other two are written to particular persons, but is the first he wrote, and which is general: the occasion, and manifest design of it, is to promote brotherly love, which he enforces upon the best principles, and with the strongest arguments, taken from the love of God and Christ, from the commandment of Christ, and its being an evidence of regeneration, and the truth and glory of a profession of religion: and also to oppose and stop the growth of licentious principles, and practices, and heretical doctrines. The licentious principles and practices he condemns are these, that believers had no sin in them, or need not be concerned about it, nor about their outward conversation, so be they had but knowledge; and these men boasted of their communion with God, notwithstanding their impieties; and which were the sentiments and practices of the Nicolaitans, Gnostics, and Carpocratians. The heresies he sets himself against, and refutes, are such as regard the doctrine of the Trinity, and the person and office of Christ. There were some who denied a distinction, of persons in the Trinity, and asserted there was but one person; that the Father was not distinct from the Son, nor the Son from the Father; and, by confounding both, tacitly denied there was either, as Simon Magus, and his followers; regard is had to these in 1Jo 2:22 and others, as the unbelieving Jews, denied that Jesus was the Messiah, or that Christ was come in the flesh; these are taken notice of in 1Jo 2:22. Others, that professed to believe in Jesus Christ, denied his proper deity, and asserted he was a mere man, and did not exist before he took flesh, of the virgin, as Ebion and Cerinthus; these are opposed in 1Jo 1:1. And others denied his real humanity, and affirmed that he was a mere phantom; that he only had the appearance of a man, and assumed human nature, and suffered, and died, and rose again in show only, and not in reality; of which sort were the followers of Saturninus and Basilides, and which are confuted in 1Jo 1:1. This epistle is, by Clemens Alexandrinus ^d, called his "greater" or "larger epistle", it being so in comparison of the other two that follow.

Gill: 1 John 2 (Chapter Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO 1 JOHN 2

In this chapter the apostle comforts the saints under a sense of sin; urges them to an observance of the commandments of God, in imitation of Christ, particularly to the new commandment of brotherly love, and gives his reasons for it; dehorts them from the love of the world, and the things of it; cautions them against false teachers and antichrists, and exhorts them to abide in Christ, and persevere in the faith of him. He first declares that the end of his writing was to prevent their sinning; but supposing any should fall into sin through infirmity, he comforts them with the consideration of the advocacy of Christ, and of his being the propitiation for the sins both of Jews and Gentiles, 1Jo 2:1, and whereas some persons might boast of their knowledge of Christ, and neglect his commands, he observes, that the keeping of them is the best evidence of true knowledge, and of the sincerity of their love to God, and of their being in Christ; and that such who show no regard to them are liars, and the truth is not in them; and such that profess to be in Christ and abide in him, ought to walk as they have him for an example, 1Jo 2:3, and instances in a particular commandment, to love one another, which on different accounts is called an old and a new commandment, and which has been verified both in Christ and his people; for which a reason is given in the latter, the darkness being past, and the true light shining, 1Jo 2:7, upon which some propositions are founded, as that he that professes to be in the light, and hates his brother, is in darkness to this very moment; and that he that loves his brother is evidently in the light, nor will he easily give or take offence; and that he that hates his brother is not only in darkness, but walks in it, being blinded by it, and so knows not whither he is going, 1Jo 2:9, and this commandment of love the apostle writes to the saints, as distinguished into the several classes of fathers, young men, and children; and urges it on them from the consideration of the blessings of grace peculiar to them; as ancient knowledge to fathers, strength and victory to young men, knowledge of the Father, and remission of sins, to children, 1Jo 2:12, and then he dissuades from the love of worldly things, seeing the love of them is not consistent with the love of God; and seeing the things that are in it are vain and sinful, and are not of God, but of the world; and since the world and its lust pass away, when he that does the will of God abides for ever, 1Jo 2:15, he next observes unto them, that there were many antichrists in the world; which was an evidence of its being the last time; and these he describes as schismatics and apostates from the Christian churches, 1Jo 2:18, but as for the saints he writes to, they were of another character, they were truly Christians, having an anointing from the Holy One, by which they knew all things; nor did the apostle write to them as ignorant, but as knowing persons, and able to distinguish between truth and error, 1Jo 2:20, and then he goes on with his description of antichristian liars, showing that they were such who denied Jesus to be the Messiah, and the relation that is between the Father and the Son, 1Jo 2:22, and closes the chapter with an exhortation to perseverance in the doctrine of Christ; since it was what they had heard from the beginning, and since by so doing they would continue in the Father and in the Son, and besides had the promise of eternal life, 1Jo 2:24, and indeed this was the main thing in view in writing to them concerning seducers, to preserve them from them, though indeed this was in a great measure needless, since the anointing they had received abode in them; and taught them all things, and according as they regarded its teaching they would abide in Christ, 1Jo 2:26, to which he exhorts them from the consideration of that boldness and confidence it would give them at his appearance, who they must know is righteous, and so that everyone that doth righteousness is born of him, 1Jo 2:28.

College: 1 John (Book Introduction)

FOREWORD

It has been my pleasure to have been associated with Professor Morris Womack since the middle 1960s when we both accepted positions in the Los Angeles area with what was then Pepperdine College (now University). I have observed his growth as he developed into a distinguished and popular teacher, an accomplished author, diligent scholar, successful minister, and respected bishop of the church. He did these things while he maintained close, loving and productive ties with his family, friendship with his students, and exemplified a servant's attitude to those with whom he came in contact. Having demonstrated himself to be a man whose life in many ways illustrates that love which Christ said would identify his followers, I find it fitting that he should add this commentary on the three epistles of the "Apostle of Love" to his accomplishments.

As one peruses the pages of this work, it will be evident that the author has been able to balance his extensive theological training with his determination that this be a useful and practical work. While he shows mastery of the original language, the historical-cultural setting, the mechanics of biblical interpretation, and a profound acquaintance with the biblical text; he does so with an eye to clear exposition and insightful application of the basic issues portrayed by the Apostle John.

In his commentary on the biblical text, Professor Womack gives special attention to the developing problem of the gnostic heresy. The representatives of this aberrant religious group were dedicated to a view of Christ which in a very real sense robbed him of both his humanity and his divinity. In much the spirit of Athens, their prideful intellect displaced God and relegated to the trash heap of foolishness and naivete those who sought to follow his word. Considering themselves to be above sin, they heralded the virtues of thought and intellectual enterprise while belittling the ignorant folk who believed that following Christ meant obeying his teachings.

Dr. Womack points out that although John said these false teachers were no longer to be considered part of the fellowship (2:19), they considered the church to be their mission field (2:26, 3:7). It therefore is incumbent on church leaders to "mark heresy promoters and not allow them to bring division in the body." It was obviously not the position of the Apostle John that "I'm O.K. and you're O.K." regardless of religious belief. Eusebius claimed that Polycarp, a disciple of John, reported to Irenaeus that on one occasion when the apostle entered the baths at Ephesus and saw the gnostic leader, Cerinthus inside, he immediately left the baths saying, "Let us flee, lest also the baths fall in, since Cerinthus is inside, the enemy of the truth." It is those who obey Christ that by so doing prove that they know him, while those who claim to know him without submitting to his will only prove themselves to be liars (2:3-6).

However, it is especially in this emphasis upon John's insistence that Christians who claim to love God must also love one another that Professor Womack challenges the hypocrisy of a self-centered and legalistic spirit. The refinement of this "son of thunder" into the "Apostle of Love" is presented as both a challenge and a hope for all of us. Jerome reports that when in old age John had to be carried to the place of assembly, he always greeted the church with the words, "little children, love one another." When, perhaps somewhat impatiently, he was asked why he always said the same thing, he responded, "Because this is the Lord's command, and enough is done when this is done."

I am honored to have the opportunity of recommending to you this faithful, and objective aid to your study and understanding of the words of the Holy Spirit as they were revealed through the Apostle John.

Carl Mitchell, Ph.D.

Professor of Bible & Religion

College of Bible & Religion

Harding University

Searcy, Arkansas

I would like to thank John Hunter, Dan Rees, and Saundra Tippett for their creative help. In the writing of 2 and 3 John, C. Michael Moss of Lipscomb University was gracious in allowing the editorial team to use material from a forthcoming book on John's epistles. A special thanks to Steve Cable and Chris DeWelt who have been a source of encouragement in the project.

I appreciate very much the kind words of Dr. Carl Mitchell of Harding University and for his support for the commentary that I have written. He is a friend and loyal brother.

Morris M. Womack

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

INTRODUCTION

John's writings have been my favorite books of the Bible. This does not mean that they are more important than any others, but I like the spirit and tone as well as the content of his writings. They show how one can develop from a "son of thunder," as John was called by Jesus (Mark 3:17) to become the great apostle of love. His teachings on love are the deepest and most precious in the Bible. It was said early in church history (Jerome) that when John would come to the assembly of Christians, he would be carried to the door of the place of meeting where he would pat the Christians on the head, saying, "my little children, love one another."

The greatest memory I have about John comes from my freshman year in college when I began studying Greek. First John was the first place we began reading and translating. I remember it as a simple, clear, and challenging book. It was written in simple, unencumbered Greek, and this impression has stayed with me.

AUTHORSHIP

These three epistles we are studying are referred to as "general epistles." They were not written to specific churches, as were the letters by the apostle Paul. While Jesus was on earth, he selected three of his twelve disciples to be a sort of "inner circle." In his treatise on the life of Jesus, John referred to himself as "the disciple whom Jesus loved" (John 21:7). There are several indications of John's special relation to Jesus. He was one of the select three (Peter, James, and John) with Jesus at the transfiguration. He shared a lonely night in the Garden of Gethsemane prior to Jesus' trial and crucifixion, and he leaned on Jesus' breast and enjoyed a close encounter with Jesus at the last supper.

Some commentators prefer to separate the introductions to 1 John from one for 2 and 3 John. Given their differences, it is understandable to treat them accordingly. We will consider an overview of the three epistles together for this commentary. Traditionally, John the apostle has been accepted as the author of all three books but not without controversy over the centuries. First John is not structured like the typical first century letters and has not been called an epistle in the same light as both 2 and 3 John, which are very typical of early letter form and style. One of the greatest evidences for the books is that all three are found in the earliest Greek manuscripts. Irenaeus attributed authorship to John ( Against Heresies III, 16, 5, and 8).

Internal evidence for the three letters point to the same author as that of the Gospel of John most credibly because of the claim of being an eye witness (1 John 1:1-3). Language, key words, thought, scope and style are similar. A.E. Brooke in his commentary used the comparative work of John's first epistle with his Gospel by Holtzmann who wrote in 1882. The comparison of phrases and terminology provide sufficient evidence to convince the honest seeker of John's authorship of the first epistle. If the commonality of the first epistle with the other two can be shown, the authorship problem is settled on John the apostle. (For example, 1 John 2:7 compares with 2 John 5 and John 13:34-35. Second John 12 compares with 1 John 1:4 and John 15:11; 16:24. The use of "my children" in 3 John compares with 1 John 2:1, etc.)

DATE AND OCCASION

All three letters can be safely dated at the end of the Apostle John's life. If this is accurate, it explains the brevity of 2 and 3 John especially since they would have been written by an old man. We are at a loss to discover from the letters themselves when and from where they were written. John had been exiled to the Isle of Patmos, as is stated in the book of Revelation. Whether John wrote these while he was on the Isle of Patmos, we do now know. It is most commonly thought that John wrote from Ephesus in the last decade (the middle of the 90s) of the first century where John spent his last days.

One reason to handle all three books in one introduction is the fact that they share a common occasion with similar circumstances. Three major problems existed during this time: the spread of persecution by the Roman Empire, the development of false teachings of various kinds in the Christian community, and the rise and growth of Gnosticism. False prophets or false teachers were attacking the church and that prompted the need for an authoritative response (see the section below, Gnosticism, Docetism ). John, as perhaps the last living apostle at the time of writing, could speak with apostolic authority from the Lord. Deceivers and antichrists were calling to the sheep and the Lord sent John to shepherd God's flock. All three situations were faced with the need to strengthen fellowship among the true believers in order to recognize the counterfeit gospel being preached. The heretics were unsettling the firm moorings of the gospel causing some to doubt the first commands of Christ. Were they still loved by God? What is truth? Who are the children of God? Can I have one foot in heaven and also have one on earth? Did Jesus become a man? How could he be divine too? Who is my neighbor and how do I treat him? What if I do not feel saved? What if you have a problem with a "ruling elder?" Diotrephes in 3 John was wanting more authority. It is my view that this could well be the beginning of a striving for power. Ignatius, in the early second century, tells us of a bishop, elders, and deacons in some early churches. The bishop seems to begin to take power within the local church with the elders and deacons working "under" him. These questions challenge the letter writer for solid, inspired answers. John delivers!

Some commentators, such as Lenski and Marshall, have suggested that 2 and 3 John may have been written first and then 1 John. I simply mention this possibility and direct you to these commentators for further discussion.

Why did John write these short letters? First John 1John 5:13 specifically states the author's purpose in writing, "I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life." The theme of 2 John may be expressed in verse 9, "Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son." John summarizes the content of 3 John in verse 11, "Dear friend, do not imitate what is evil but what is good. Anyone who does what is good is from God. Anyone who does what is evil has not seen God." Commentators vary in their opinions as to the epistles' key words and verses, but these will serve as one-verse representatives of their respective themes.

RECIPIENTS

It has been suggested that 1 John was a circular or an encyclical letter much like Paul's letter to the Ephesians. This is partially reasoned from the lack of an addressee. If both of these books were connected to Ephesus, they may have shared a similar tradition. If 2 and 3 John were also encyclical, they were intended to be passed around to various churches and individuals for all to read. All three of John's letters are sent to Christians. Other than that we do not know who they were or where they lived. Area churches in Asia Minor (now Turkey) have been the most commonly proposed recipients. This opinion is based on the place of composition being Ephesus and that strikingly similar heresies are addressed, albeit incipient, in the earlier writings of the apostle Paul. John must have given much tender care and love to many of these churches in his last years around Ephesus. Based on Jesus' charging John to care for Mary at the time of the crucifixion, it is believed that Mary went home with John and spent her life at Ephesus. There is a traditional tomb of Mary in the ancient ruins of Ephesus today. John may have played an actual role in the founding and fostering of the church there.

GNOSTICISM, DOCETISM

What we face today in humanistic and New Age teachings we can identify as merely a refashioning of the old gnostic falsehoods. There is indeed nothing new under the sun! To understand the noxious weeds we fight today, we must turn back the pages of time to expose their beginning roots.

Whatever part John played in the birth and development of the Ephesian congregation, he was certainly involved in protecting them from the encroaching dangers of Gnosticism in the final years of the first century and following. As a witness to all of Jesus' personal ministry, John was quite capable of bearing witness to the historical Jesus and could certainly testify of the dual human/divine nature of Jesus Christ.

The rise and development of Gnosticism had a tremendous impact on the Christian movement. Around the middle of the first century, a monster in the form of Gnosticism arose that threatened the very roots of the Christian religion. The apostle Paul used the term (pseudônymou gnôseôs, "falsely-named knowledge") to identify this threat, Gnosticism (1 Tim 6:20). It presented a new worldview on the relationship between God and humanity which threatened Christianity at the time of its burgeoning growth.

Gnosticism, in my view, was a combination of three major strains of thought: Zoroastrianism, Platonism, and Christianity. Zoroastrianism, the religion of Persia, contributed at least two major elements: dualism (the worship of two gods) and the light-darkness views of Gnosticism (referred to in both John's Gospel and the Epistles of John). The dualism - the presence of two gods (a god of the Old Testament who created all things including evil and materialism and a god of the New Testament for the Gnostics whom they believed was the God of Jesus Christ) was expressed by Zoroastrianism by their two gods - Ahura Mazda (god of light) and Ahura Mainyu (god of darkness). The Jewish nation, having been exposed to the Persian religion during the Babylonian Captivity, were certainly influenced by this ideology.

Platonic and Neoplatonic philosophy contributed to the Gnostic theories through the concept of Plato's "world of ideas," which suggested that nothing exists except in an unseen world of ideas. The gods could not be approached or seen, said the Gnostic. God was at a distance from humankind, the Gnostics argued. In gnostic thought, humans could approach God through a series of "aeons" or "angelic" types of beings.

Some of the elements of Christianity found a welcome home among the Gnostics. The goodness of the God of the New Testament and the importance of knowing about God were some of these elements. The followers of the gnostic religion created a higher level of Christians, the gnostic Christians whom they regarded as the ultimate essence of their spiritual life.

John was not called one of the "sons of thunder" for nothing! Over the course of his lifetime he learned to direct his anger, or euphemistically called "righteous indignation," toward heretical causes aimed at the Christ. One of John's crucial reasons for writing was to answer the attacks by the false teachers faced by the recipients of all three letters.

Christians saw Gnosticism as a threat to the church as early as the last half of the first century. We can find some elements in some of Paul's writings and certainly in John's first epistle. When many biblical critics, especially the critics of the Tübingen school and others in America, began their critical analyses of the New Testament, they generally agreed that many of the New Testament books could not have been written in the first century because they reflected and even opposed the Gnostics, which they argued did not exist until the second century. At that time, many scholars argued that Gnosticism was a second-century phenomenon. I argued in the late 1950s that it originated much earlier. In fact, I wrote that "Until fairly recent times, scholars did not realize the vast span of history that Gnosticsim had. Though it was not called such, it can be traced to pre-Christian times." This claim was questioned by some, but later research by more eminent scholars than I have supported this theory. William F. Albright, eminent paleontologist, had espoused the late authorship of several canonical books of the New Testament. However, near the end of his life he wrote, "all the New Testament books were probably written during the late forties and the early eighties of the first century A.D., possibly even between A.D. 50 and A.D. 75."

The gnostic movement was a prominent influence on first century thought, very strong by the end of the century. That Gnosticism was prominent by the middle of the first century is further evidenced by the presence of the Nag Hammadi Manuscripts, gnostic documents discovered in the late 1940s. They are believed by some to have been nearly as old as the Dead Sea Scrolls. They are gnostic in character and must have been known by many of the period. Gnosticism was a dualistic religion (arguing for the existence of two opposing gods) and taught that Jesus was not really human but that Jesus was probably adopted by God at the time of his baptism (often referred to as the "Adoptionist Theory"). It was a divisive religion and was causing many problems in the early church.

Incipient Gnosticism had been introduced in Colossians and somewhat in Corinthians. John in his letters continues the battle he addressed in his Gospel, the battle most likely directed against "archheretic Cerinthus" and his docetic followers. One of the major concepts of the Christian gnostic movement was that Jesus was not born of human flesh, but that he only seemed to be human, hence the docetic philosophy. John had answered the docetic teaching that Jesus only "seemed" to be in the flesh with his poetic Gospel opening. Later in 19:16-37, he explicitly describes the reality of Jesus' crucifixion.

The opening verses of 1 John clearly answered some of the heresy by giving an eyewitness account of knowing Jesus. As the popular saying goes, "been there, done that." John could say, "I have been there and seen Jesus do that." John also addressed the false belief "we have no sin" because they treated sin with indifference. And, there was no "special knowledge" or "special illumination" to be obtained by a few! Contrary to the false teachings, Jesus did come in the flesh and suffered and rose from the dead to give us life. John and those with him knew Jesus intimately. Jesus, Son of God, Creator of life, appointed John as an apostle with all the rights and authority given by God. Any commands are to come from God and not from man.

STRUCTURE AND STYLE

Alexander Ross organizes the main part of 1 John, apart from the preface and conclusion, under two main points: I. God Is Light (1 John 1:5-2:29), and II. God Is Love (1 John 3:1-5:12). Robert Law outlined 1 John according to cycles of tests for truth and righteous living. Regarding 2 and 3 John, virtually all commentators provide a simple outline for their brief contents.

J.W. Roberts offers a unique analysis of John's letters in relationship to his peculiar style. Among the ones Roberts describes are John's use of "Antithetic Parallelism" (Hebrew device of contrasting two thoughts), "Genuine Antithesis" (or reverse of the same statement, as in 1 John 3:7-10), "Recapitulation" (as in 1 John 3:4a, repeating a word like "sin," "love," or "truth" and discussing it), "Word Parenthesis" ("inclusion of a thought unit between the first and last use of the same word" as in 1 John 5:16), and "Anaphora" (beginning with the same phrase like "If we say").

John's three letters have endeared themselves to the church since they were written in the first century. The original writer and the original audience have a much clearer view of things than we do. Were John's words heeded by his recipients? Obviously some did because the gospel message has continued through the preservation of the letters. As long as they are taught and preached, they will continue to instruct, warn, and encourage their readers. God bless you as you nobly search the Scriptures with the Lord Jesus.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Arndt, William F. and F. Wilbur Gingrich. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature . Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1979.

Barclay, William. The Letters of John . Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976.

Barker, Kenneth, Ed. The NIV Study Bible . Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995.

Brooke, A.E. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Johannine Epistles . The International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1971.

Bruce, F.F. The Epistles of John: Introduction, Exposition and Notes . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970.

Burdick, Donald W. The Epistles of John . Chicago: Moody, 1970.

Burge, G.M. "John, Letters of." Dictionary of the Later New Testament & Its Development , pp. 587-599 . Edited by Ralph P. Martin & Peter H. Davids. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1997.

Dodd, C.H. The Johannine Epistles . New York: Harper & Brothers, 1946.

Fiensy, David. New Testament Introduction . The College Press NIV Commentary. Joplin, MO: College Press, 1994. Revised 1997.

Harrison, Everett F. Introduction to the New Testament . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971.

Law, Robert. The Tests of Life: A Study of the First Epistle of St. John . 3rd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1968.

Lenski, R.C.H. The Interpretation of the Epistles of St. Peter, St. John and St. Jude . Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1996.

Marshall, I. Howard. The Epistles of John . The New International Commentary of the New Testament. Edited by Ned B. Stonehouse, F.F. Bruce and Gordon D. Fee. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978.

McDowell, Edward A. Hebrews-Revelation . The Broadman Bible Commentary. Vol. 12. Nashville: Broadman, 1972.

Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament . 3rd ed. New York: United Bible Societies, 1971.

Roberts, J.W. The Letters of John. The Living Word Commentary. Edited by Everett Ferguson. Vol. 18. 2nd printing. Austin, TX: Sweet, 1969.

Robinson, John A. T. Redating the New Testament . Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976.

Ross, Alexander. Commentary on the Epistles of James and John . The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970.

Schaff, Phillip. History of the Christian Church . 8 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1950.

Smith, David. The Expositor's Greek Testament . Edited by W. Robertson Nicoll. 5 vols. New York: Hodder and Stoughton, 1922.

Smith, J.B. Greek-English Concordance to the New Testament . Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1955.

Staton, Knofel. Thirteen Lessons on First, Second, and Third John . Joplin: College Press, 1980.

Stott, John R.W. The Letters of John: Introduction and Commentary . Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. 1988. Reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995.

Trench, Richard. Synonyms of the New Testament . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953.

Watson, D.F. "Rhetoric, Rhetorical Criticism," Dictionary of the Later New Testament & Its Development , pp. 1041-1051. Edited by Ralph P. Martin & Peter H. Davids. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1997.

Westcott, Brooke Foss. The Epistles of St. John: The Greek Text with Notes and Essays . London: Macmillan, 1883.

Wilkins, M.J. "Pastoral Theology," Dictionary of the Later New Testament & Its Development , pp. 876-882. Edited by Ralph P. Martin & Peter H. Davids. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1997.

Wright, D.F. "Docetism," Dictionary of the Later New Testament & Its Development , pp. 306-309. Edited by Ralph P. Martin & Peter H. Davids. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1997.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

ABBREVIATIONS

DLNT Dictionary of the Later New Testament

KJV King James Version

NEB New English Bible

NIV New International Version

RSV Revised Standard Version

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

College: 1 John (Outline)

OUTLINE

I. THE WORD OF LIFE - 1:1-4

II. LIFE WITH GOD AND THE WORLD - 1:5-2:27

A. The Way of Light and Darkness - 1:5-7

B. Admitting Our Sin - 1:8-10

C. The Atoning Sacrifice - 2:1-2

D. Keeping God's Commandments - 2:3-6

E. A New Commandment - 2:7-8

F. In the Light or in the Darkness - 2:9-11

G. John's Reasons for Writing - 2:12-14

H. Christians and the World - 2:15-17

I. Warnings against Antichrists - 2:18-27

III. GOD'S LOVE FOR US/OUR LOVE FOR ONE ANOTHER - 2:28-3:24

A. Children of God - 2:28-29

B. God's Love for His Children - 3:1-3

C. Warnings against Sin - 3:4-10

D. Love One Another - 3:11-24

IV. TESTING THE SPIRITS/TRUSTING GOD - 4:1-5:12

A. Testing the Spirits - 4:1-6

B. God's Love and Our Love - 4:7-21

C. Faith in the Son of God - 5:1-5

D. The Three Witnesses - 5:6-12

V. CONCLUDING REMARKS - 5:13-21

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

Lapide: 1 John (Book Introduction)

PREFACE TO THE FIRST EPISTLE

OF S. JOHN.

——o——

I mention three things by way of preface. First, concerning the authority of the Epistle. Second,  concerning the author. Third, concerning the argument.

1. It is of faith that this Epistle is canonical Scripture. This is the general belief of the whole Church, expressed both elsewhere and in the Council of Trent ( sess. 4). Here observe that the canonical books of Holy Scripture are of two kinds. The first are called proto-canonical , because they have been accounted canonical in all ages by all Christians, so that of their authority none of the orthodox have ever been in doubt.

The second kind are called deutero-canonical , because at one time the Church or the Fathers doubted of their authority, but they were subsequently received into the canon by all men. Such are the books of Esther, Baruch, part of Daniel, Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, two books of the Maccabees, certain portions of the Gospels of S. Mark, S. Luke, or S. John, the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Epistle of James, the second of Peter, the second and third of John, the Epistle of Jude, and the Apocalypse. All the rest are proto-canonical. Among them, therefore, is this Epistle of S. John, with the exception of one verse, concerning which in its place. This is what Eusebius says of this Epistle ( H. E. 3. 24), "Among those things which John wrote after his Gospel, his first Epistle is also received both by the ancients and the moderns without any hesitation." Moreover, it is equally received by ancient and modern heretics. And S. Augustine says ( Tract . 7, in Epis. 1 Joan .), "That Epistle is canonical which is read by all nations, is accepted by the authority of the whole world, which itself has edified the whole world." And Dionysius of Alexandria, says, "The Gospel and the first Epistle of John are not only without fault, but are written with the utmost elegancy of style, the greatest weight of their sentiments and with perfect diction."

2. The orthodox are all agreed that the author of this Epistle is S. John the Apostle, as the inscription gives it. The same is indicated by the style of the Epistle in all things agreeable to S. John's Gospel, so beautiful, and flowing with the honey of charity, plainly indicating its source, the fair and loving breast of S. John. Add to this that he inculcates the same things in this Epistle which he does in his Gospel, as Eusebius well observes ( H. E. 7. 25), "He who reads carefully will find frequently in both, the words 'life,' 'light,' 'departure from darkness,' 'the truth,' 'grace,' 'joy,' 'the flesh and blood of the Lord,' 'judgment,' 'the remission of sins,' 'the love of God towards us,' 'the command to love one another,' 'the rebuke of the world, the devil, and antichrist,' 'the promise of the Holy Ghost;' he will find everywhere 'the Father and the Son.' And if the character of both writings be observed in all things, there will be found altogether the same sense and form of expression in both the Gospel and the Epistle."

3. The object of the Epistle is, first, to teach the true faith, hope, and charity: the faith both concerning the Holy Trinity and the Incarnate Word, of which assuredly no one has treated more fruitfully than S. John both in his Gospel and in this Epistle. And for this reason he is called by S. Dionysius, Athanasius, Cyril, Chrysostom, Epiphanius and others generally, John the Theologian.

Moreover, this is a Catholic Epistle, that is circular and general, written to all Christians throughout the world, like the Epistles of S. Peter, S. James, and S. Jude. Some, however, of the ancients say that this Epistle of John was written expressly to the Parthians. So Pope Hyginus ( Epist. 1), Pope John II. ( Epist. ad Valer .), S . Augustine ( Lib . 2 quæst. Evang. c. 39), Idacius ( Lib. de Trin .) and others. Our Serarius suspects that Patmos ought here to be read instead of Parthos. For John being banished by Domitian to the Isle of Patmos, converted its inhabitants to Christ. Junius, a Calvinist, against Bellarmine ( Lib. 2 de Verbo Dei, cap. 15 num. 22), understands by Parthians, not the inhabitants of Parthia, but pious exiles distant from their native land. For in the Scythian language exiles were formerly called Parthi , from the Hebrew word pur , i.e., to divide. To the Parthians , then, would mean the same thing as to the tribes which are in the dispersion, as S. James says in his Epistle, and "to the elect strangers of the dispersion," as S. Peter says, in the beginning of his Epistle. But exiles, impious as well as pious, were called Parthi by the Scythians, not by the Greeks or Hebrews, such as was St. John. For otherwise S. Peter and S. James, who write to the dispersed, would have written to the Parthians. Properly, therefore, I understand Parthians here to mean those whose name and empire were at that time widely extended, and embraced several nations, the Persians among them. Now there are in Parthia many Jews as well as Christians, both of Jewish and Gentile extraction, to all of whom S. John here writes.

S. John then wrote to the Parthians, either because he had formerly been amongst them and taught them the faith of Christ, as Baronius and others think, or else because many of the Ephesians and other natives of Asia Minor, to whom S. John had preached, and who had been converted to Christ, had migrated into the nearer regions of Parthia and Persia.

All writers agree that this Epistle was written in Greek. There is no reason for wonder that S. John does not give his name at the beginning of the Epistle. Neither did S. Paul in the Epistle to the Hebrews. The same is the case with many modern writers who do not prefix their names to the beginning of their letters, but subscribe them at the end. Besides, the Holy Spirit was the Author of this Epistle rather than S. John. As S. Gregory says ( Præfat. in Job c. i.), "It is altogether vain to ask for the Author of this Epistle, since it is faithfully believed to have been the Holy Ghost. He then wrote these words who commanded them to be written. If we should receive a letter from any great man, we should look upon it as a ridiculous question to ask with what pen it had been written."

S. John appears to have been an old man, and altogether forgetful of earthly things, and panting after Christ, both when he wrote this Epistle and also his Gospel. He was so absorbed in the greatness of the mystery that he omitted both his name and the salutation, and by so doing carries the reader with him in such a manner as to intimate that he was the writer of the Epistle as well as the Gospel. So Thomas Anglicus. The same thing is sufficiently indicated by the words of the first Epistle, by which one is made wonderfully full of sweetness and delight with Christ Incarnate. Lastly, it is plain that S. John wrote these words in extreme old age, from the words themselves in which he calls himself the Elder, and the faithful his little children. The precise date when he wrote is uncertain: but it seems to have been about the same time that he wrote the Gospel, for there is a great agreement between the Epistles and the Gospel. This has led Baronius to assign the same date to both, namely, A.D. 99, which was the seventh year of Pope S. Clement, and the first of the Emperor Nerva.

S. Gregory concludes with the following golden words ( Hom. 15 in Ezech .): "Do we seek to have our hearts inflamed with the fire of love? Then let us ponder over the words of S. John, for everything that he says is filled with the fire of love." He breathes, repeats and enforces nothing else but the love of God, of Christ, and of our neighbour. He is like old men and lovers, who think and speak of nothing else but what they love and have loved all their lives.