From: Over 50 Interpreters Explain 1 to 3 John Return to
Home
By
Roland H. Worth, Jr. © 2018
List of All Sources
Quoted At End of File
CHAPTER 2:15-29
WEB: Don't
love the world, neither the things that are in the world. If anyone loves the
world, the Father's love isn't in him.
Young’s: Love
not ye the world, nor the things in the world; if any one doth love the world,
the love of the Father is not in him,
Conte (RC): Do not
choose to love the world, nor the things that are in the world. If anyone loves
the world, the charity of the Father is not in him.
The
best safeguard against the selfish love of what is sinful in the world is to
remember God’s unselfish love of the world.
“The world” here is that from which James says the truly religious man
keeps himself “unspotted,” friendship with which is “enmity with God” (James
neither the things that are in the world. A
man might deny in general that he loved the world, while keenly following the
things in it--its riches, honors, or pleasures; this clause prevents him
escaping conviction. [4]
He is forbidding those things the
love of which rivals and excludes the love of God—all those immoral tendencies
and pursuits which give the world its evil character. [24]
If any man love
the world.
Referred to in the next verse as
“the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life.” This explanation shows what John meant by
“the things that are in the world.” He
does not say that we are in no sense to love “anything” that is in the material
world; that we are to feel no interest in flowers, and streams, and forests,
and fountains; that we are to have no admiration for what God has done as the
Creator of all things; that we are to cherish no love for any of the
inhabitants of the world, our friends and kindred; or that we are to pursue
none of the objects of this life in making provision for our families; but that
we are not to love the things which are sought merely to pamper the appetite,
to please the eye, or to promote pride in living. These are the objects sought by the people of
the world; these are not the objects to be sought by the Christian. [18]
the love of the
Father is not in him. Love of the world absolutely
excludes the love of the Father. “Ye
cannot serve God and mammon.” [24]
WEB: For
all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the
pride of life, isn't the Father's, but is the world's.
Young’s: because
all that is in the world -- the desire of the flesh, and the desire of the eyes,
and the ostentation of the life -- is not of the Father, but of the world,
Conte (RC): For all
that is in the world is the desire of the flesh, and
the desire of the eyes, and the arrogance of a life which is not of the Father,
but is of the world.
alienated from God, and [thereby] assigns a reason why the
world must not be loved. [51]
all that is in the
world.
The material contents of the universe cannot be
meant. To say that these did not
originate from God would be to contradict the Apostle himself (John 1:3, 10)
and to affirm those Gnostic doctrines against which he is contending. The Gnostics, believing everything material to
be radically evil, maintained that the universe was created, not by God, but by
the evil one, or at least by an inferior deity.
By “all that is in the world” is meant the spirit which animates it, its
tendencies and tone. These, which are
utterly opposed to God, did not originate in Him, but in the free and
rebellious wills of His creatures, seduced by “the ruler of this world.” [23]
He mentions three temptations in the world which constitute a sinful trinity.
As the world is against God, so is this
anti-trinity in enmity to Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. All three find their dwelling-place in the
heart, but are called into activity by the outward surroundings. [51]
the lust of the
flesh.
[This] is not merely the lust after the flesh, but all
lust that has its seat in the flesh (Galatians
The term “flesh” does not of itself assert selfishness or sinfulness, for
John declares again and again that Jesus had a body of flesh (John 6:51; 1 John
4:2, 3, 25, 27). Nowhere does John
incline to the first-century heresy that all matter is sinful in itself; he
always stoutly opposes this notion. There are instincts of body that are not
wrong, the feeling of hunger, of thirst, of pleasurable sensations. But a sinful and sinning agency has perverted the
nature so that it is not only a minister of evil thoughts, but it is, in turn,
a creator of evil thoughts. So much has
this nature been debased that the term flesh in the New Testament is almost
always opposed to the term spirit, and stands for weakness and sinfulness. [51]
and the lust of
the eyes.
The avenue through which outward things of the world, riches, pomp,
and beauty, inflame us. Satan
tried this temptation on Christ when he showed Him the kingdoms of the world in
a moment. By lust of the eyes David (2
Samuel 11:2) and Achan fell (Joshua
That lust that has its origin in
sight (Augenlust)—curiosity, covetousness,
etc. (cf. “the lusts of their hearts,” “the lusts of your body,” Romans
It is best with Spener to explain:
“All sinful desires by which we seek delight in the seeing itself.” So also Huther: “The desire of seeing [inappropriate and
improper] things, and the sinful pleasure which the sight of them affords.” [49]
and the pride of
life.
Or arrogancy of living, is
ostentation exhibited in the manner of living; the empty pride and
pretentiousness of fashion and display.
It includes the desire to gain credit which does not belong to us, and
outshine our neighbors. [24]
is not of the
Father.
Nor has it any
connection whatever with Him. [49]
Who has made a better world for
us, and makes it ours through his Son. [33]
but is of the
world. Of this earth rather than of heaven where the
Father is. [rw]
Has its origin in the sinful, which is the
source of all ungodliness. [49]
In depth: Lust of
flesh, eyes, and pride—a summary of all sources of sin in the world or
just major representative ones [23]? The three forms of evil “in the world” mentioned in 1 John
There is, however, a wide difference between
the views stated at the beginning and end of the preceding paragraph. It is one
thing to say that we have here a very comprehensive statement of three typical
forms of evil; quite another to say that the statement is a summary of all
the various kinds of temptation and sin.
To begin with, we must bear in mind what
seems to be John’s purpose in this statement.
He is not giving us an account of the different ways in which Christians
are tempted, or (what is much the same) the different
sins into which they may fall. Rather,
he is stating the principal forms of evil which are exhibited “in the world,”
i.e. in those who are not Christians. He is insisting upon the evil origin of these
desires and tendencies, and of the world in which they exist, in order that his
readers may know that the world and its ways have no claim on their affections.
It is difficult to maintain, without making
some of the three heads unnaturally elastic, that all kinds of sin, or
even all of the principal kinds of sin, are included in the list. Under which of the three heads are we to
place unbelief, heresy, blasphemy, or persistent impenitence? Injustice in many of its forms, and
especially in the most extreme form of all—murder, cannot without some violence
be brought within the sweep of these three classes of evil.
Two positions, therefore, may be insisted
upon with regard to this classification.
1. It applies to forms of evil which prevail in the non-Christian world
rather than to forms of temptation which beset Christians. 2. It is very comprehensive, but it is not
exhaustive.
Some of the parallels and contrasts which have from early times been made to the Apostle’s classification are striking, even when somewhat fanciful. Others are both fanciful and unreal. There is more reality in the parallel drawn between John’s classification and the three elements in the temptation by which Eve was overcome by the evil one, and again the three temptations in which Christ overcame the evil one. “When the woman saw that the tree was good for food (the lust of the flesh), and that it was pleasant to the eyes (the lust of the eyes), and a tree to be desired to make one wise (the vainglory of life), she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat” (Genesis 3:6). Similarly, the temptations (1) to work a miracle in order to satisfy the cravings of the flesh, (2) to submit to Satan in order to win possession of all that the eye could see, (3) to tempt God in order to win the glory of a miraculous preservation (Luke 4:1-12).
In depth: Not all desires
of the flesh are automatically sinful for many are created within us by God;
only sinful expressions of fleshly desires properly go under the label
of “lust of the flesh” [37].
The genitive or
possessive here—“of the flesh” denotes, not the object of the desire, but its
nature. It is lust of desire of a carnal
sort; such as the flesh prompts or occasions.
It is the appetite of sense out of order, or in excess. It is not, of course, the appetite of sense
itself; that is of God, as the provision for its satisfaction is also of
God. The appetite for which food is
God's appointed ordinance, and the appetite for which marriage is God's appointed
ordinance,—the general needs and cravings of the body which the laws of nature
and the gifts of providence so fully meet,—the higher tastes which fair forms
and sweet sounds delight,—the eye for beauty and the ear or the soul for
music;—these are not, any of them, the lust of the flesh.
But they all, every one of them,
may become the lust of the flesh.
And in the world they do become the lust of the flesh. It is the world's aim to pervert them into
the lust of the flesh, and to pander to them in that character, either grossly
or with refinement. Sensuality, or that
modification of it now spoken of as sensuousness, enters largely into the
world's fascinating cup. And it may be
detached plausibly from what is avowedly and confessedly the world; it may be
covertly loved, while the world, as such, is apparently hated. Gluttony, drunkenness, uncleanness; if not
worse excesses, must appease;—these forms or modifications of the lust of the
flesh may not be for us the most insidious.
It may creep into our affections disguised almost as an angel of
light. A certain fondness for the
good things of this life, an unwillingness to forego them, a pleasant
feeling of fullness in the enjoyment of them, a growing impatience of any
interruption of that enjoyment—how soon may such a way of tasting even the lawful
gratifications of sense grow into selfishness and sin! And then how readily does the imagination
admit ideas and fancies the reverse of pure!
Through how many channels, the news of the day, the gems of literature,
the choicest trophies of the fine arts, may unholy desire be kindled! I may be out of the world; but this that is
in the world, “the lust of the flesh,” may not be out of me.
WEB: The world is passing away with
its lusts, but he who does God's will remains forever.
Young’s: and
the world doth pass away, and the desire of it, and he who is doing the will of
God, he doth remain -- to the age.
Conte (RC): And the
world is passing away, with its desire. But whoever does the will of God abides
unto eternity.
The passing away
is not annihilation, but rather a passing along or by. It describes the act of passing off the stage,
or the breaking up of a scene, in a play. In our passage, it describes the breaking up
of the present order and state of things, selfish desires and their objects
will soon cease to hold their present relations, passing on and over into
darkness, disappointment, and ruin. The
Cosmos, the worldly order, will be broken, and for the godless soul nothing
will take its place! Nothing but a
disordered, dark, fragmentary state, utterly hopeless! [52]
As a reference to how
everything within the world is subject to continuing, ongoing change without
end: Not
the matter and substance, but the fashion, form, and scheme of it, 1
Corinthians 7:31; kingdoms, cities, towns, houses, families, estates, and
possessions, are continually changing, and casting into different hands, and
different forms; the men of the world, the inhabitants of it, are continually
removing; one generation goes, and another comes, new faces are continually
appearing; the riches and honors of the world are fading, perishing, and
transitory things; everything is upon the flux, nothing is permanent; which is
another argument why the world, and the things of it, are not to be loved. [16]
and the lust
thereof.
Not the lust for the world, but the lust which it
exhibits, the sinful tendencies mentioned in 1
John 2:16. The world is passing away
with all its evil ways. How foolish, therefore, to fix one’s affections on what
not only cannot endure but is already in process of dissolution! “The lust hereof” = “all that is in the
world.” [23]
but he that doeth
the will of God. This is the exact opposite of “all that is in the world.” The one sums up all the tendencies to good in
the universe, the other all the tendencies to evil. [23]
abideth for ever. This cannot mean that he
will never die; but it means that he has built his happiness on a basis which
is secure, and which can never pass away.
Compare Matthew 7:24-27. [18]
Abideth
for ever is literally, abideth unto the age (μένει εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα).
The notion of endlessness is, perhaps,
not distinctly included; for that we should rather have had εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν, αἰώνων (Revelation
WEB: Little
children, these are the end times, and as you heard that the Antichrist is
coming, even now many antichrists have arisen. By this we know that it is the
final hour.
Young’s: Little
youths, it is the last hour; and even as ye heard that the antichrist doth
come, even now antichrists have become many -- whence we know that it is the
last hour;
Conte (RC): Little sons, it is the last hour. And, as you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have arrived. By this, we know that it is the last hour.
If the epistle was written in the 90s, then
just about all disciples were (as if) little children in comparison to
John’s own age. [rw]
it is the last
time [hour, NKJV]. An emphatic way of stressing the importance
of what is said. [rw]
Attempting to define the
period: The last dispensation, especially that particular period of it (Hebrews
1:2). [47]
Discussion on the best way to
translate: More
literally, it
is the last hour; possibly, but not probably, it is a
last hour. The omission of
the definite article is quite intelligible and not unusual: the idea is sufficiently definite without it,
for there can be only one last hour.
Similarly (Jude 18) we have “in (the) last time there shall be mockers walking after
their own ungodly lusts” and (Acts 1:8; Acts 13:47) “unto
(the) uttermost part of
the earth.” [23]
and as ye have
heard that antichrist shall come. Under the term antichrist, or the spirit of antichrist, he includes all
false teachers and enemies to the truth; yea, whatever doctrines or men are
contrary to Christ. It seems to have
been long after this that the name of antichrist was appropriated to that grand
adversary of Christ, the man of sin, 2 Thess 2:3. Antichrist, in
[He]
begins to show himself in the false teachers and deceivers, who were his
forerunners; and this they had heard and understood, either from the words of
Christ in John 5:43; or from the
account the Apostle Paul gave to the Thessalonians concerning him, 2 Thessalonians 2:3; or rather it may
be from what, the apostle had said to the elders of the church at Ephesus,
where the Apostle John now was, when he met them at Miletus, Acts 20:29.
[16]
What being an “antichrist” envolved. The
term “Antichrist” in Scripture occurs only in the First and Second Epistles of
John (1 John
even now are there
many antichrists. Systems or men who stand against or instead of
Christ. [47]
Better,
as R.V., even now have there arisen many Antichrists: the Christ was from all eternity (1 John 1:1), the
Antichrist and his company arose in
time; they are
come into being. We have a
similar contrast in the Gospel: “In the
beginning was the Word;” but “There arose a man, sent from God, whose name was
John” (John 1:1, 6). These “many
Antichrists” are probably to be regarded as at once forerunners of the
Antichrist and evidence that his spirit is already at work in the world: the one fact shows that he is not far distant,
the other that in a sense he is already here.
[23]
whereby we know that it is the last time [hour, NKJV]. By the fact that so many Christ imitators
have arisen. They are a “living witness
and testimony”—by their very existence—that something even worse spiritually
is about to arise. An
yet more ominous and dangerous Antichrist.
[rw]
In depth: The use of
“last time/hour/age” language in both testaments [32]. This phraseology occurs first in Genesis 49:1, “That I may tell you
that which shall befall you in the last days”; where it means “the sequel of
days,” “far-off times.” So Numbers 24:14, “What this people shall do to thy
people in the latter days;” Deuteronomy 4:30,
“When all these things are come upon thee, even in the latter days;” and Deuteronomy 31:29, “Evil will befall
you in the latter days.”
In Isaiah 2:2, it has begun to mean the
new age of the world; a vague indefinite time, during which, or before which,
Messiah’s kingdom would be established.
“It shall come to pass that in the last days the mountain of the Lord’s
house shall be established.” So Micah 4:1.
In Matthew 12:32, our Lord distinguishes
between this world (or rather, age) and the world to
come. So “this time” is contrasted with
“the world to come” in Mark
Paul
also speaks of the present age and the coming, the sufferings of the present
time and the glory that shall be, and of things present and things to come
(Romans
Peter
identified his age with the “last days” of the prophets (Acts
James,
too, looked forward to such a period:
“Ye have heaped treasure together for the last days” (James 5:3). The Epistle to the Hebrews, like the first
usage in Peter, treats the existing times as “these last days” (Hebrews 1:1-2);
“now once in the end of the world hath He appeared to put away sin by the
sacrifice of Himself” (Hebrews
John,
then, having, like the other Apostles, the notion that the first age was
drawing to its close, and that the latter days were already upon the earth, and
believing—or, at the very least, firmly hoping—that the second advent was not
far off, did not hesitate, especially in view of Matthew 24:22, 24, to speak of the
time of his old age as “the last hour.”
Of the date of the second coming even the Son was to be ignorant; but at
any rate, since the death of the last of the Apostles, and the closing of the
Canon, there has been no change in the Christian dispensation, it has been a
constant repetition of repentance, forgiveness, watching.
In depth: What event is under consideration as being
imminent?
Physical end of the world [24]? Just as the apostles, even after
the Resurrection (Acts 1:6), remained grossly ignorant of the nature of Christ's kingdom on earth, so
to the last they remained ignorant of its duration.
The primitive Church had not
yet found its true perspective, and, in common with all Christians of the first
age, the apostles believed that Christ would return soon, possibly within the
lifetime of some then living. “Yea, I
come quickly” (Revelation
The
Old Testament prophets were often guided to utter language the Divine meaning
of which they did not themselves understand.
They uttered the words in one sense, and the words were true in a far
higher sense, of which they scarcely dreamed. The same thing is true of the New Testament
prophets, though in a less degree, because the gift of Pentecost had given them
powers of insight which their predecessors had not possessed. The present text seems to be an illustration
of this truth. We can hardly doubt that,
in saying, “it is the last hour,” John means to imply that within a few years, or possibly even less time, Christ will return to
judgment.
In this sense the statement is not true. But it may also mean that the last period in the world's history has begun; and in this sense we have good reason for believing that the statement is true. “That one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day” is not rhetoric, but sober fact. By the Divine standard times are measured, not according to their duration, but their importance; it is their meaning, not their extent, which gives them value.
What are all the measureless
prehistoric aeons of the material universe compared
with the time since the creation of rational life? What are the thousands of years covered by
the Old Testament compared with the portion of a century covered by the
New? The great crisis in the history of
the world, constituted by the life and death of Christ, will never be equaled
until He comes again. When he ascended
to heaven the last hour sounded. There
may follow a silence (as it seemed to John) about the space of half an hour,
but of half a thousand centuries. Yet
the duration of the period, as measured by man, will not alter its essential
characteristics; it was, is, and will still remain, “the last hour.”
What
Paul taught rules out the literal end of the earth being under consideration [33]: The error of Huther,
Alford, and many others, in applying this “last
time” to the second advent ought, we should suppose, to have
been prevented by Paul’s express warning to the Thessalonians that such
language did not imply Christ’s near approach; as well as Peter’s caution in 2 Peter 3:8 [“But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with
the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. (vs. 9) The
Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is
longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all
should come to repentance.”] At
the approaching close of his life our apostle saw that the withdrawal of his
fellow apostles from this scene of things was the close of a historical cycle,
and the development of the errorists foretold by
Saint Paul had already approached; so that the hour was typical of that last period
before the rise of “antichrist” who
precedes the last advent. It was just
equivalent to Paul’s predictive phrase, addressed to this same
Fall of
As
equivalent to the last system of Divine revelation (= the gospel system) is now
finally available to the human race [35]? Greek, εσχατη ωρα εστι, it is the last hour, namely, as some understand it, of
the duration of the Jewish Church and state, a sense of the expression which is
favored by the consideration that it was the period in which our Lord had
foretold the rise of many false Christs. And therefore the apostle here cautions them
against such deceivers, intimating, at the same time, for their encouragement
and comfort, that the power of their persecutors, the Jews, would speedily be
broken. Doddridge, however, Wesley, and
many others, by the last hour, or last time, here understand the
last dispensation of grace. As if the
apostle had said, “The last dispensation that God will ever give to the world
is now promulgated, and it is no wonder if Satan endeavor,
to the utmost, to adulterate a system from which his kingdom has so much to
fear.” [35]
The arrival of the far more dangerous
Antichrist than the ones they have been acquainted with? The last hour could well have no reference to
either the fall of
In
depth: Is the Antichrist a specific
individual or a mindframe / attitude [23].
Although strongly inclined
to identify it as a specific individual he concedes that the evidence is not
conclusive: It
remains to say something on two other points of interest. I. Is the Antichrist
of John a person or a tendency, an individual man or a principle? II. Is the Antichrist of John identical with
the great adversary spoken of by Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2? The answer to the one question will to a
certain extent depend upon the answer to the other.
It will be observed that John introduces the
term “Antichrist,” as he introduces the term “Logos” (1 John 1:1; John 1:1),
without any explanation. He expressly
states that it is one with which his readers are familiar; “even as ye heard
that Antichrist cometh.” Certainly this, the first introduction of the name,
looks like an allusion to a person. All the more so when we remember that the Christ was “He that
cometh” (Matthew 11:3; Luke
We
may understand “Antichrist” to mean an impersonal power, or principle, or tendency,
exhibiting itself in the words and conduct of individuals, without doing
violence to the passage. In the one case
the “many antichrists” will be forerunners of the great personal opponent; in
the other the antichristian spirit which they exhibit may be regarded as
Antichrist. But the balance of
probability seems to be in favor of the view that the Antichrist, of which
John’s readers had heard as certain to come shortly before the end of the
world, is a person.
Such is not
the case with the other three passages in which the term occurs. “Who is
the liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the
Christ? This is the Antichrist, even he
that denieth the Father and the Son” (1 John
So also with the third
passage in the First Epistle. “Every spirit which confesseth
not Jesus is not of God: and this is the
(spirit) of the Antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it cometh, and now is in
the world already” (1 John 4:3). Here it
is no longer “the Antichrist” that is spoken of, but “the spirit of the
Antichrist.” This is evidently a
principle; which again does not exclude, though it would not necessarily
suggest or imply, the idea of a person who would embody this antichristian
spirit of denial.
The passage in the Second Epistle is similar
to the second passage in the First Epistle.
“Many deceivers are gone forth into the world, even they that confess
not Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh.
This is the deceiver and the Antichrist” (1 John 2:7). Here again we have many who exhibit the
characteristics of Antichrist. Each one
of them, and also the spirit which animates them, may be spoken of as “the
Antichrist;” the further idea of an individual who shall exhibit this spirit in
an extraordinary manner being neither necessarily excluded, nor necessarily
implied.
The first of the four passages, therefore,
will have to interpret the other three. And
as the interpretation of that passage cannot be determined beyond dispute, we
must be content to admit that the question as to whether the Antichrist of
Saint John is personal or not cannot be answered with certainty. The probability seems to be in favor of an
affirmative answer. In the passage which introduces the subject (1 John
Nevertheless, we must allow that, if we confine
our attention to the passages of John in which the term occurs, the balance in
favor of the view that he looked to the coming of a personal Antichrist is far
from conclusive.
In depth: If one
regards the “man of sin” in Paul’s epistle to the Thessalonians to be only one
specific individual, then it is quite natural to expect his fellow apostle John
to speak in similar terms of a specific individual [23]. There is a strong preponderance of opinion in favor
of the view that the Antichrist of John is the same as the great adversary of Paul (2 Thessalonians 2:3). 1. Even in the name there is some similarity;
the Antichrist (ὁ ἀντίχριστος)
and “he that opposeth” (ὁ ἀντικείμενος). And the idea of being a rival Christ which is
included in the name Antichrist and is wanting in “he that opposeth,”
is supplied in Paul’s description of the great opponent: for he is a “man,” and he “setteth
himself forth as God.”
2.
Both Apostles state that their readers
had previously been instructed about this future adversary.
3.
Both declare that his coming is preceded
by an apostasy of many nominal Christians.
4.
Both connect his coming with the Second
Advent of Christ.
5.
Both describe him as a liar and
deceiver.
6.
Paul says that this “man of sin exalteth himself against all that is called God.” John places the spirit of Antichrist as the
opposite of the Spirit of God.
7.
Paul states that his “coming is
according to the working of Satan.” John implies that he is of the evil one.
8.
Both Apostles state that, although this
great opponent of the truth is still to come, yet his spirit is already at work
in the world.
With
agreement in so many and such important details before us, we can hardly be
mistaken in affirming that the two Apostles in their accounts of the trouble in
store for the Church have one and the same meaning.
Having answered, therefore, this second
question in the affirmative we return to the first question with a substantial
addition to the evidence. It would be
most unnatural to understand Paul’s “man of sin” as an impersonal principle;
and the widely different interpretations of the passage for the most part agree
in this, that the great adversary is an individual. If, therefore, John has the same meaning as
Paul, then the Antichrist of John is an individual.
In depth: The viewing
of Antichrist as one specific individual in post-apostolic early centuries [23]. “That Antichrist is one individual man, not a power,
not a mere ethical spirit, or a political system, not a dynasty, or a
succession of rulers, was the universal tradition of the early Church.” This strong statement seems to need a small
amount of qualification. The Alexandrian
School is not fond of the subject.
“Clement makes no mention of the Antichrist at all; Origen,
after his fashion, passes into the region of generalizing allegory. The Antichrist, the ‘adversary,’ is ‘false
doctrine;’ the
Still
the general tendency is all the other way.
Justin Martyr (Trypho XXXII.) says “He
whom Daniel foretells would have dominion for a time, and times, and an half,
is even already at the door, about to speak blasphemous and daring things
against the Most High.” He speaks of him
as “the man of sin.” Irenaeus (v. xxv. 1, 3), Tertullian (De Res. Carn. XXIV., XXV.),
Lactantius (Div. Inst. vii. xvii.), Cyril of Jerusalem (Catech. XV. 4, n, 14, 17), and others take a
similar view, some of them enlarging much upon the subject.
Augustine
(De Civ. Dei, xx.
xix.) says “Satan shall be loosed, and by means of that Antichrist shall work
with all power in a lying but wonderful manner.” Jerome affirms that Antichrist “is one man,
in whom Satan shall dwell bodily;” and Theodoret that
“the Man of Sin, the son of perdition, will make every effort for the seduction
of the pious, by false miracles, and by force, and by persecution.”
From
these and many more passages that might be cited it is quite clear that the
Church of the first three or four centuries almost universally regarded
Antichrist as an individual. The
evidence, beginning with Justin Martyr in the sub-Apostolic age, warrants us in
believing that in this stream of testimony we have a belief which prevailed in
the time of the Apostles and was possibly shared by them.
But
as regards this last point it is worth remarking how reserved the Apostles seem
to have been with regard to the interpretation of prophecy. “What the Apostles disclosed concerning the
future was for the most part disclosed by them in private, to individuals—not
committed to writing, not intended for the edifying of the body of Christ,—and
was soon lost” (J. H. Newman).
In depth: How
“Antichrist” can logically refer to two different phenomena; how the existence
of many such false teachers could make a reference to the plural
“antichrists” quite logical while the combined phenomena of such individuals
might be pictured in the singular as “Antichrist” since they exhibited
the same core traits [35]. “The word αντιχριστος, antichrist, is nowhere found but in John’s
first and second epistle. It may have
two meanings. For if the preposition αντι, in αντιχριστος,
denotes in place of, the name will signify one who puts
himself in the place of Christ: consequently antichrist is a false Christ. But if the preposition denotes oppositions,
antichrist is one who opposeth Christ. The
persons to whom this epistle was written had heard of the coming of antichrist in both senses of the name.
“For the first sort of antichrists
were foretold by our Lord, Matthew 24:5:
Many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ, and shall deceive
many. The second sort were
foretold Matthew [in] Matthew 24:11, Many false prophets will arise and
deceive many.
“ From what John hath written, verse 22 of this chapter, and
chapter 4:3-4; 1 John 2:7, there
is reason to think that by antichrist he meant those false prophets, or
teachers, who were foretold by our Lord to rise about the time of the
destruction of Jerusalem, and who were now gone abroad. Some of these denied the humanity of Jesus
Christ, others of them denied his divinity; and as both sorts opposed Christ,
by denying the redemption of the world through His death, it is probably of
them chiefly that John speaks in his epistles.
When the apostle mentions these false teachers collectively, he
calls them the antichrist in the singular number, as Paul
called the false teachers collectively, of whom he prophesied, 2 Thessalonians 2:3, the man of sin. But when John speaks of these
teachers as individuals, he calls them many
antichrists, in the plural
number.” — Macknight.
[35]
WEB: They
went out from us, but they didn't belong to us; for if they had belonged to us,
they would have continued with us. But they left, that they might be revealed
that none of them belong to us.
Young’s: out of
us they went forth, but they were not of us, for if they had been of us, they
would have remained with us; but -- that they might be manifested that they are
not all of us.
Conte (RC): They
went out from among us, but they were not of us. For, if they had been of us,
certainly they would have remained with us. But in this way, it is made
manifest that none of them are of us.
Here
the writer is evidently speaking of a school [of thought] which had already
gone to the length of actual separation.
[50]
This verse is also an encouragement to the remaining disciples who might fear from the defection of these teachers that the entire church was in danger of going to pieces. [51]
Possible causes of the exodus: Whether they
went out because pressed out, or wholly of their own motion, does not appear. Though disagreeing with the main body of
Christians, and separated, they still claimed to interpret the Christian
doctrine, and evidently professed to be Christian teachers, and, indeed, the
true ones, else they could have had no power of seduction over Christian minds
(verse 26); and the injunction to try the spirits (4:1-3) would have been
altogether needless. Persons who stood
forth as direct opponents of Christianity, outside of the Christian pale, were
already distinguished, and needed no testing; and such would scarcely come
under the head of deceivers—for they played no false part, wore no mask. [52]
Even if one wishes to quibble, the text still refers to
departing from the Christian community: It was their
own doing, a distinct secession from our communion: in the Greek, “from us”
comes first for emphasis. It is
incredible [to claim] that the words can mean “they proceeded
from us Jews.” What point would there be in
that? Moreover, John never writes as a
Jew, but always as a Christian to Christians.
“Us” includes all true Christians, whether of Gentile or Jewish
origin. Compare Paul’s warning to the Ephesian presbyters, “From
among your own selves shall
men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them”
(Acts 20:30); where the Greek is similar to what we have here: and “Certain men, the children of Belial, are gone out from
among you, and have withdrawn the inhabitants of their city, saying,
Let us go and serve other gods, which ye have not known” (Deuteronomy 13:13);
where the Greek of LXX is still closer to this passage. [23]
but they were not
of us.
They were of the church,
and of the same mind with it, at least in profession, antecedent to their going
out; for had they not been in communion with the church, they could not be
properly said to go out of it; and if they had not been of the same mind and
faith in profession, they could not be said to depart from it. [16]
Or: They never belonged properly and inwardly to
us. There is no bond of relationship
between them and us. [50]
Explaining the antithesis
presented: The
single act of departure (aorist) is contrasted with the lasting condition of
being “of us” (imperfect). It is
difficult to bring out in English the full force of the antithesis which is so
easily expressed in the Greek. “From out
of us they went forth, but they were not from out of us;” where “from out of us”
(ἐξ ἡμῶν) is
of course used in two different senses, “out from our midst” and “originating
with us.” [23]
“From us,” in the preceding sentence, and “of us,” here, are the same (ἐξ ἡμῶν) in the Greek.
But the former, with its verb of motion,
has a local meaning; while the latter, with its verb of being, has a meaning of
spiritual derivation, affinity, or relationship. These men had no vital sympathy with the
for if they had been of us. If they had been sincere and true Christians.
Truly and
fully committed to the truth as we are. [rw]
they would no doubt
have continued with us. The words “no doubt” are
supplied by our translators, but the affirmation is equally strong without
them: “they would have remained with us.” [18]
Note
that John does not say “they would have abided among us (ἐν ἡμῖν),” but “with us (μεθ' ἡμῶν).” This brings out more clearly the idea of fellowship: “these antichrists had no real sympathy with
us/” [23]
but they went out that
they might be made manifest. Tragic as their departure was, it served a constructive purpose—by
revealing to everyone that their commitment to the gospel was secondary to
their commitment to whatever changes to it that they preferred. [rw]
that they were not
all of us.
Their exodus was no loss to the Church, but a good
providence. Their exposure would relieve
the Church of all responsibility for their false doctrines and unbecoming
lives. [33]
In depth: The cycle of thought from
(1) The motive for doing righteousness: the hope we have through our sonship to God (1 John 3:1-10);
(2) The test of doing righteousness: love to the brethren (1 John
(3) The reward of doing righteousness: assurance of salvation (1 John
WEB: You
have an anointing from the Holy One, and you all have knowledge.
Young’s: And ye
have an anointing from the Holy One, and have known all things;
Conte (RC): Yet you have the anointing of the Holy One, and you know everything.
Unction here signifies the
doctrine which they received together with the Holy Ghost or Spirit of God; in
which he exhorts them to remain, as being sufficient for their instruction, and
to make them avoid the new teachers of false doctrine. (Witham) [29]
We cannot positively decide from
this passage whether John is here thinking of the Holy Ghost communicated at
Baptism, or to the gift continually bestowed by means of the preaching of the
Word—most likely the latter, as we may infer from what follows. [49]
from the Holy One. Either Christ (Mark
and ye know all
things.
That is, all things which it is essential that you
should know on the subject of religion. [18]
The truth of the gospel is
disclosed to you. This also is probably
directed against the pride of the Gnostics, who denied that the church
possessed the true and full knowledge and claimed it entirely for their own
little circle. [50]
Or: All
things needful to guard against these opposers and
seducing teachers. [3]
A textual change when working from “critical” versions of
the Greek text: not “you know all
things” but all of his readers know these things (ESV, NASB, NIV, etc.): [KJV
text] so the Alexandrine manuscript and the Codex Ephremi. But the two oldest manuscripts, the Sinaitic and the
In depth: Albert Barnes on the breadth and limits of
the promised knowledge [18]. The meaning cannot be that
they knew all things pertaining to history, to science, to literature, and to
the arts; but that, under the influences of the Holy Spirit, they had been made
so thoroughly acquainted with the truths and duties of the Christian religion,
that they might be regarded as safe from the danger of fatal error. The same may be said of all true Christians
now, that they are so taught by the Spirit of God, that they have a practical
acquaintance with what religion is, and with what it requires, and are secure
from falling into fatal error. In regard
to the general meaning of this verse, then, it may he
observed:
I.
That it does not mean any one of the following things:
(1)
That Christians are literally
instructed by the Holy Spirit in all things, or that they literally
understand all subjects. The teaching,
whatever it may be, refers only to religion.
(2) It is not meant that any new faculties of
mind are conferred on them, or any increased intellectual endowments, by their
religion. It is not a fact that
Christians, as such, are superior in mental endowments to others;
nor that by their religion they have any mental traits which they had
not before their conversion. Paul,
Peter, and John had essentially the same mental characteristics after their
conversion which they had before; and the same is true of all Christians.
(3) It is not meant that any new truth is
revealed to the mind by the Holy Spirit.
All the truth that is brought before the mind of the Christian is to be
found in the Word of God, and “revelation,” as such, was completed when the
Bible was finished.
(4) It is not meant that anything is perceived by
Christians which they had not the natural faculty for perceiving before their
conversion, or which other people have not also the natural faculty for
perceiving. The difficulty with people
is not a defect of natural faculties, it is in the
blindness of the heart.
II. The statement here made by John does imply the
following things:
(1) That the minds of Christians are so
enlightened that they have a new perception of the truth. They see it in a light in which they did not
before. They see it as truth. They see its beauty, its force, its adapted less to their condition and wants. They understand the subject of religion
better than they once did, and better than others do. What was once dark appears now plain; what
once had no beauty to their minds now appears beautiful; what was once
repellant is now attractive.
(2) They see this to be true; that is, they see
it in such a light that they cannot doubt that it is true. They have such views
of the doctrines of religion, that they have no doubt that they are true, and
are willing on the belief of their truth to lay down their lives, and stake
their eternal interests.
(3) Their knowledge of truth is enlarged. They become acquainted with more truths than
they would have known if they had not been under the teaching of the Holy Spirit. Their range of thought is greater; their
vision more extended, as well as more clear.
III. The evidence that this is so is found in the
following things:
(1) The express statements of Scripture. See 1
Corinthians 2:14-15, and compare John 16:13-14.
(2) It is a matter of fact that it is so.
(a) People by nature do not perceive any beauty
in the truths of religion. They are
distasteful to them, or they are repulsive and offensive. “The doctrine of the cross is to the Jew a
stumbling-block, and to the Greek foolishness.”
They may see indeed the force of an argument, but they do not see the
beauty of the way of salvation.
(b) When they are converted they do. These things appear to them to be changed, and
they see them in a new light, and perceive a beauty in them which they never
did before.
WEB: I
have not written to you because you don't know the truth, but because you know
it, and because no lie is of the truth.
Young’s: I did
not write to you because ye have not known the truth, but because ye have known
it, and because no lie is of the truth.
Conte (RC): I have
not written to you as to ones who are ignorant of the truth, but as to ones who
know the truth. For no lie is of the
truth.
but because ye
know it.
This is one of that
very large number of passages in the Apostolical
Epistles which teach us that the persons to whom they were written were already
in possession of all truth through the original oral teaching, and all the
epistles did for them is to remind them of what they knew, and sometimes put it
into new lights and enforce it. [42]
and that no lie is
of the truth. No false doctrine can come
from true piety. [12]
What this lie is, is evident from the next verse. Truth and falsehood are absolutely antagonistic to one another. Truth cannot proceed out of falsehood, neither can falsehood spring out of truth. [42]
Or: This may mean simply that truth and
falsehood cannot be at one; or it may be a sort of vindication of our Blessed
Redeemer and mean, no lie can proceed from Him, Who is the Truth. [43]
WEB: Who
is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the Antichrist,
he who denies the Father and the Son.
Young’s: Who is
the liar, except he who is denying that Jesus is the Christ? this
one is the antichrist who is denying the Father and the Son;
Conte (RC): Who is a liar, other than he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This one is the Antichrist, who denies the Father and the Son.
but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? It
would seem that the apostle referred to a class who admitted that Jesus lived,
but who denied that he was the true Messiah.
On what grounds they did this is unknown; but to maintain this was, of
course, the same as to maintain that He was an impostor. The ground taken may have been that He had
not the characteristics ascribed to the Messiah in the prophets; or that He did
not furnish evidence that he was sent from God; or that he was an
enthusiast. Or perhaps some special form
of error may be referred to, like that which is said to have been held by Corinthus, who in his doctrine separated Jesus from Christ,
maintaining them to be two distinct persons.
[18]
Plainly, in John's view, to deny
that Jesus is the Christ is to deny the Son; the two denials are declared to be
one and the same. And yet there is a
difference. The object of the one denial
is a proposition; the object of the other is a person. Nor is the difference accidental or
unimportant; on the contrary, it is very significant. If the denial of a proposition concerning
any person is to be viewed as identical with the denial of the person himself, the
proposition must be one that vitally affects his nature and character. It
must be something far more deeply touching His birth, or His birthright, or his
worthiness of either, that I deny, before you can construe my denial of it,
into a disloyal and traitorous denial of Himself. [37]
He is antichrist. The article before “antichrist,” almost certainly
spurious in 1 John
that denieth the Father and the Son. In short: He who denies the Son must of necessity [logically] deny the Father. [43]
At greater length: The charge here is not that
they entertained incorrect views of God “as such”--as almighty, eternal, most
wise, and good; but that they denied the doctrines which religion taught
respecting God as Father and Son. Their
opinions tended to a denial of what was revealed respecting God as a
Father--not in the general sense of being the “Father” of the universe, but in
the particular sense of His relation to the Son. It cannot be supposed that they denied the
existence and perfections of God as such, nor that they denied that God is a
“Father” in the relation which he sustains to the universe; but the meaning
must be that what they held went to a practical denial of that which is special
to the true God, considered as sustaining the relation of a Father to His Son
Jesus Christ. Correct views of the
Father could not be held without correct views of the Son; correct views of the
Son could not be held without correct views of the Father. The doctrines respecting the Father and the
Son were so connected that one could not be held without holding the other, and
one could not be denied without denying the other. [18]
WEB: Whoever denies the Son, the same
doesn't have the Father. He who confesses the Son has the Father also.
Young’s: every
one who is denying the Son, neither hath he the
Father, he who is confessing the Son hath the Father also.
Conte (RC): No one
who denies the Son also has the Father.
Whoever confesses the Son, also has the Father.
Seeing the Father can only be known,
approached, worshipped, and glorified by sinners in and through His incarnate
Son; and they who “honor not the Son, honor not the Father that sent Him.” The denial of the Son is therefore a denial
of the Father. [40]
the same hath not
the Father.
“To have the Father”
must not be weakened to mean “to hold as an article of faith that He is the
Father;” still less, “to know the Father’s will.” It means, quite literally, “to have Him as
his own Father.” Those who deny the Son
cancel their own right to be called “sons of God:” they ipso facto excommunicate themselves from the great
Christian family in which Christ is the Brother, and God is the Father, of all
believers. “To as many as received Him,
to them gave He the right to become children of God” (John
he that acknowledgeth the Son. Of what/who He truly is; who recognizes and
embraces that truth rather than rejecting or bending it into conformity with
some popular theory. [rw]
hath the Father
also.
The approval, the endorsement,
the presence of. [rw]
WEB: Therefore,
as for you, let that remain in you which you heard from the beginning. If that
which you heard from the beginning remains in you, you also will remain in the
Son, and in the Father.
Young’s: Ye,
then, that which ye heard from the beginning, in you let it remain; if in you
may remain that which from the beginning ye did hear, ye also in the Son and in
the Father shall remain,
Conte (RC): As for you, let what you have heard from the beginning remain in you. If what you have heard from the beginning remains in you, then you, too, shall abide in the Son and in the Father.
which ye have heard from the beginning. The
pure doctrine of the gospel is that which was from the beginning; that which
was preached by the apostles and evangelists, and which is with certainty to be
found in their writings, and nowhere else: accordingly Tertullian
says, “That is true which was first; that was first which was from the
beginning; that was from the beginning, which was from the apostles.” [36]
If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain
in you. “If”--Here
is the dread alternative of perseverance or apostasy; which, your own free will
must decide. [33]
Abide . . . remain . . .
continue: [In this verse] the same word
in the Greek. [50]
ye also shall
continue in the Son, and in the Father. We abide in the Son, as we may be said to abide in any one
when his words abide in us—or when that which we have heard of Him, or from Him,
from the beginning, abides in us; when we understand and know Him, by what He
says and what we hear; when what we thus understand and know of Him takes hold
of us, carries our conviction, commands our confidence and love, fastens and
rivets itself in our mind and heart, and so abides in us. Thus we abide in the Son precisely as we abide
in a friend whom we know, and trust, and love. [37]
In depth: Weakness of
the KJV translation [23]. Here the arbitrary distinctions introduced by the translators of 1611
reach a climax: the same Greek word (μένειν)
is rendered in three different ways in the same verse. Elsewhere it is rendered in four other ways,
making seven English words to one Greek: “dwell” (John
WEB: This
is the promise which he promised us, the eternal life.
Young’s: and
this is the promise that He did promise us -- the life the age-during.
Conte (RC): And this
is the Promise, which he himself has promised to us: Eternal Life.
that he hath
promised us. When He was on earth.
even eternal life. The final and endless blessing coming down upon the faithful from “the Father” through “the Son.” [33]
WEB: These
things I have written to you concerning those who would lead you astray.
Young’s: These
things I did write to you concerning those leading you astray;
Conte (RC): I have written these things to you, because of those who would seduce you.
concerning them that seduce you. The word “seduce” means to
lead astray; and it here refers to those who would seduce them “from the
truth,” or lead them into dangerous error.
The apostle does not mean that they had actually seduced them, for he
states in the following verse that they were yet safe; but he refers to the
fact that there was danger that they might be led into error. [18]
WEB: As
for you, the anointing which you received from him remains in you, and you
don't need for anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you concerning
all things, and is true, and is no lie, and even as it taught you, you will
remain in him.
Young’s: and
you, the anointing that ye did receive from him, in you it doth remain, and ye
have no need that any one may teach you, but as the same anointing doth teach
you concerning all, and is true, and is not a lie, and even as was taught you,
ye shall remain in him.
Conte (RC): But as
for you, let the Anointing that you have received from him abide in you. And
so, you have no need of anyone to teach you. For his
Anointing teaches you about everything, and it is the truth, and it is not a
lie. And just as his Anointing has taught you, abide in him.
Anointing as an ancient Jewish
practice showing someone or something that has been set aside to serve a divine
purpose: We read in the book of Genesis (28:18) that when Jacob dedicated to God
the place where God had favored him with a vision, he took the stone on which
he had laid his head, “and set it up for a pillar, and poured oil upon
it. When the law
of Moses was established among the Israelites, the place of worship, and the
vessels used in worship, were anointed with oil (Exodus 28:41; Leviticus
When Samuel was sent to select a king for
Israel (1 Samuel 9:1), “he took a vial of oil and poured it on his
head, and kissed him, and said, Is it not because the Lord hath anointed
thee to be captain over his inheritance?”
To anoint, therefore, was to consecrate. These Christians had been consecrated to God
when baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus; had been anointed with the Spirit
of God, of which the oil was understood to be an emblem [cf. Acts
which ye have received of him.
An anointing that no one else could give you. [rw]
abideth in you. You have not lost it; it has not been removed from you in any manner or
degree. [rw]
Or: We often, in order to
convey a command or a rebuke gently, state as a fact what ought to be a fact. This is perhaps John’s meaning here. If not, it is an expression of strong
confidence in those whom he addresses. [23]
and ye need not
that any man teach you. For the Holy Spirit teaches us through the word of God that He revealed
to the apostles and prophets. [rw]
[This] does not mean, however, that the
readers have no need of Christian instruction, as the former statement, “ye know
all things,” does not mean that they are infallible. It does mean that those who will
ponder the gospel message, and allow the Holy Spirit to guide them, will come
to an enlarging knowledge and a joyful assurance of the truth concerning Christ
as the divine Son of God. [44]
This
seems to be quite conclusive against “little children” anywhere in this Epistle
meaning children in years or children in knowledge of the Gospel. John writes throughout for adult and
well-instructed Christians, to whom he writes not to
give information, but to confirm and enforce and perhaps develop what they have
all along known. [23]
And: Ye need not the aid of
these opposing teachers. [3]
but as the same
anointing teacheth you of all things. For the Spirit through the revealed word
provides us with access to every spiritual truth and reality that God wishes us
to be aware of. [rw]
Interpreted as the Holy Spirit: A hint to modern fanatics—It is important to bear in mind that this passage does not hold out the
least encouragement, or give support to the vagaries of fanatics, because the
Holy Spirit works on the basis of the Word given and received, and does not
communicate anything new, but only imparts to believers clear perceptions and
views of that which they already have.
(Dr. Braune)
[47]
The same “bottom line” occurs if one simply
takes the text to refer to our being “anointed” to God’s service by obeying and
adhering to what the Scriptures teach us since it is a complete revelation of
God’s will by the Spirit (John 16:12-15).
[rw]
and is truth and
is no lie.
The Holy Spirit not
only teaches the truth, but is absolutely the Spirit of truth (John
and even as it
hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. Margin,
“or it.” The Greek will bear either construction. The connection, however, seems to demand that
it should be understood as referring to Him--that is, to the Savior. [18]
WEB: Now,
little children, remain in him, that when he appears, we may have boldness, and
not be ashamed before him at his coming.
Young’s: And
now, little children, remain in him, that when he may be manifested, we may
have boldness, and may not be ashamed before him, in his presence;
Conte (RC): And now, little sons, abide in him, so that when he appears, we may have faith, and we may not be confounded by him at his advent.
little children.
abide in him. Earnest
and repeated exhortation to that determination of their own free will which God
will not overrule to their perseverance, and without which they will
apostatize. [33]
God wishes all people to
be saved, but He will not force anyone.
[rw]
“Abide” is one of the favorite
words of John, occurring twenty-three times in this letter. John had heard his Master use this word
eleven times in the teaching concerning the vine and the branch (John 16:1-16).
that, when he shall
appear [at his coming, ASV, WEB]. In His “coming”
or presence (παρουσίᾳ), when manifested
at the last day. The
important word occurs but once in all John's writings, though several times
elsewhere in the New Testament. [52]
Note on the Greek text: Better, as R.V., that. if He shall be manifested. The “when” (ὅταν) of A.V. (KL) must
certainly give place to “if” (ἐάν),
which is more difficult and has overwhelming support (אABC). “If” seems to
imply a doubt as to Christ’s return, and the change to “when” has probably been
made to avoid this. But “if” implies no
doubt as to the fact,
it merely implies indifference as to the time: “if He should return in our day.” [23]
we may have
confidence. That nothing we have done or believed will produce a solemn rebuke when
the Lord returns. [rw]
It is noticeable that John joins himself with
his readers in using “we.” [51]
and not be ashamed
before him.
This cannot well be
improved, but it is very inadequate: the
Greek is “be ashamed from Him,”
or “be shamed away
from Him;” strikingly
indicating the averted face and shrinking form which are the results of the
shame. “Turn with shame” or “shrink with
shame from Him” have been suggested as renderings. Similarly, in Matthew
at his coming. Whenever that unknown event shall take place. [33]
On the Greek usage: The Greek word (παρουσία = presence) occurs nowhere else in
John’s writings. In [the] N.T. it
amounts almost to a technical term to express Christ’s return to judgment
(Matthew 24:3,27,37,39; 1 Corinthians
15:23; 1 Thessalonians 2;9;
3:13; 4:15; 5:23; James 5:7-8; 2 Peter 1:16, &c). John uses it, as he uses “the Word” and “the
evil one,” without explanation, confident that his readers understand it. This is one of many small indications that he
writes to well-instructed believers, not to children or the recently converted. [23]
WEB: If
you know that he is righteous, you know that everyone who practices
righteousness is born of him.
Young’s: if ye
know that he is righteous, know ye that every one doing the righteousness, of him hath been begotten.
Conte (RC): If you
know that he is just, then know, too, that all who do
what is just are born of him.
The interpretive options: Clearly “He” and “Him” must be interpreted
alike: it destroys the argument to
interpret “He is righteous” of Christ and “born of Him” of God. Moreover, this explanation gets rid of one
abrupt change by substituting another still more abrupt. That “He, Him, His” in 1 John
ye know that
every one that doeth righteousness is born of him. This is a visible manifestation that we have
a child/parent relationship. Since
righteousness is such a fundamental characteristic of His nature, this visibly
verifies that we share His “DNA.” [rw]
It follows as a matter of course from God's
righteousness that every
Christian
should be righteous. It was a part of
their common stock of knowledge that the life lived in the light (1:7) must be
a holy life, [hence] “ye know” [in this verse].
[51]
is born of him. Or as he expresses it in his gospel, be “born
again.” [43]
“Doeth righteousness” defines the life that springs from forgiveness. This is the result of the new birth, not the occasion
or cause of it. [51]
BOOKS/COMMENTARIES
UTILIZED IN THIS STUDY:
All commentaries are in the public domain; the copyright
having expired or never been on them.
1 Marvin R.
Vincent, D.D. Word
Studies in the New Testament.
1886. Internet edition.
2 John Wesley. Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible. 1754-1765. Internet edition.
3 Barton Johnson. People’s New Testament. 1891.
Internet edition.
4 Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, David Brown.
Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole
Bible. Unabridged
edition. Internet
edition.
5 Charles Simeon. Horae Homileticae.
1832. Internet edition.
6 James Gray. Concise Bible Commentary. 1897-1910. Internet edition.
7 John Dummelow,
editor. Dummelow’s
Commentary on the Bible. 1909. Internet edition.
8 Frank B. Hole. Old and New Testament
Commentary. Internet edition.
9 E. M. Zerr. Commentary on Selected
Books of the New Testament. Internet edition.
10 Arthur Peake. Commentary on the Bible. 1919.
Internet edition.
11 John A. Bengel. Gnomon of the New
Testament. 1897. Internet edition.
12 John S. C. Abbott. Illustrated New
Testament. 1878. Internet edition.
13 Joseph Sutcliffe. Commentary on the Old
and New Testaments.
1835. Internet edition.
14 Matthew Poole. English Annotations on
the Bible. 1685. Internet edition.
15 Paul E. Kretzmann. Popular Commentary. 1921-1922. Internet edition.
16 John Gill. Exposition of the Entire
Bible. 1746-1763. Internet
edition.
17 Adam Clarke. Commentary. 1832.
Internet edition.
18 Albert Barnes. Notes on the New
Testament. 1870. Internet edition.
19 Heinrich Meyer. Critical and Exegetical
Commentary on the New Testament.
1832. Internet edition.
20 Johann P. Lange. Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical. 1857-1884. Internet edition.
21 William R. Nicoll,
editor. Expositor’s Greek Testament. 1897-1910. Internet edition.
22 Henry Alford. Greek Testament Critical
Exegetical Commentary.
1863-1878.
Internet edition.
23 Alfred Plummer.
24 The Pulpit Commentary. 1897.
Internet edition.
25 John Trapp. Complete Commentary. Lived 1601-1669. 1865-1868 reprinting. Internet edition.
26 William Godbey. Commentary on the New Testament. Internet edition.
27 John Calvin. Commentary on the Bible. Internet edition.
28 Joseph C. Philpot (1802-1869). Commentary on Select
Texts. Internet
edition.
29 George Haydock
(1774-1849). Catholic
Bible Commentary. Internet edition.
30 H. A. Ironside. Ironside’s Notes on Selected Books. 1914.
Internet edition
31 Lost source; rather than delete the
material, I felt it better to simply list the unidentifiable volume and admit
my error.
32 Charles J. Ellicott, editor. Ellicott’s
Commentary for English Readers. Internet edition.
33 Daniel D. Whedon. Commentary on the Bible. Internet edition.
34 Philip Schaff,
editor. Schaff’s
Popular Commentary on the New Testament.
Internet edition.
35 Joseph Benson (born 1748). Commentary of the Old
and New Testaments. Internet edition.
36 Thomas Coke (published 1801-1803). Commentary on the Holy
Bible. Internet
edition.
37 Robert S. Candlish. The First Epistle of John Expounded In A
Series of Lectures. 1877 edition. Internet edition.
38 Arno C. Gaebelein. The Annotated Bible.
Internet edition.
39 Joseph Parker. The People's Bible. Internet edition.
40 Thomas Scott. Commentary on the Bible. Volume Six. Fifth Edition. London:
L. B. Seeley et al, 1822.
41 Bernhard Weiss. Commentary on the New
Testament. Volume
Four.
42 M. F. Sadler. The General Epistles of
SS James, Peter, John and Jude.
43 [Robert S. Hunt?] The
Cottage Commentary: The Epistle to the
Hebrews and the General Epistles.
44 Charles
Erdman. The General Epistles: An Exposition.
45 W. H. Bennett. The Century Bible: The General Epistles—James, Peter, John, and
Jude.
46 John B. Sumner. A Practical Exposition
of the General Epistles of James, Peter, John, and Jude.
47 James C. Gray. Biblical Museum: Hebrews to the End of the New Testament.
48 William G. Humphry. A Commentary on the
Revised Version of the New Testament.
49 Revere F. Weidner. The Lutheran Commentary: Annotations on the General Epistles of James,
Peter, Peter, John, and Jude.
50 A Short Protestant Commentary on the
New Testament. Volume
3. Translated
from the Third German Edition.
51 O. P. Eaches.
52 Henry A. Sawtelle. Commentary on the
Epistles of John.