I John Chapter Two

An Exegetical Commentary by Nate Wilson

2:1 My children, I am writing these things to you so that you might not sin, yet if someone sins, we have an advocate before the Father: righteous Jesus Christ.

John changes his tone here to an even more personal and fatherly one, no longer using the plural "we write," as an authoritative apostle, but "I write," as a farther who dearly loves his "little children. "This is the tenderest word for a child in Greek and is in diminutive form (Dana 27). Although Paul planted the church in Ephesus, John spent about the last 30 years of his life in the area and may well have been like a spiritual father to them. The question is, after 30 years of living somewhere, will there be people who look up to ME as a spiritual father? (Clark 41)

John has a hopeful purpose in writing: that these dear believers would not sin--even once. He has to temper it with reality, admitting that we sin, but it is indeed possible for a believer to refrain from sin in any given circumstance, though not perfectly in all circumstances. John encourages us to strive in this direction. The Aorist tense here means "may not ever sin" (Dana 27), speaking of a single sin, not a state of sinning (Westcott 42).

"but if anyone sins..." John is not stressing the inevitability of sin--forgiveness is not a license to sin--but the fact that sin brings real guilt which can be dealt with by Jesus (Dana 27). "We have an advocate..." the word παρακλητον literally means "called alongside" and was the same word used to denote an attorney in a civil court of the time (Hanna 28). Jesus is in the presence of God, facing Him and pleading our case for us. What a glorious privilege for the believer! (Notice John includes himself too "we have an advocate...")

2:2 And He Himself is appeasement concerning our sins (and not concerning ourselves only, but also concerning the entire world).

What good is Jesus? John tells us: Jesus Christ is "righteous," having no sin like we do, and He is "propitiation/expiation/appeasement." When we sin, God must be angry and render judgement on that sin, as justice and righteousness are His nature. Therefore it takes an utterly sinless advocate to stand in His presence and appease that wrath and justice. Jesus fulfills that role by receiving the punishment for all our sins while on the cross and now standing before God as a testimony of that appeasement of God's wrath. God's justice is satisfied through Jesus and no other. Jesus was different from all the priests before Him because He was not only the priest/propitiator, but also the sacrifice/propitiation! (Clark 47).

What does it mean that Christ appeased God's wrath over the "entire world?" Does it mean that Jesus saved every individual on the earth? Westcott (45) says that this phrase is not an elliptical expression for "the sins of the whole world." Clark (49-52) expands on this: John uses the word "world" to denote many different things--he is not always talking about every person in the world any more than the French do when they say "tout le monde." To say that Christ redeemed all mankind would contradict other clear passages of Scripture. When Caesar's decree of Luke 2 went out to "the entire world," were the Chinese included? No. John, being a Jew, was probably using the term to emphasize the fact that Jesus saves Gentiles as well as Jews. When we see how the phrase “all/the whole the world” is used in scripture, we find that it is often used to refer to the preaching of the gospel to all the world, and it indicates that some from every tribe and tongue and nation will be saved, but it is never used to promise salvation to every individual in the world.

2:3 And by this we know that we have come to know Him: if we are keeping His commands.

How can we be sure we have Jesus as our advocate and are right with God? If we are keeping His commands. "Legalism!" some cry, but knowledge of God cannot be divorced from fellowship with Him and obedience to Him (Clark 52, Westcott 45). John is combating the Gnostic heresy of secret knowledge without obedience by presenting TRUE knowledge: "we know that we have come to know Him" - this is a knowledge gained through past experience which still exists as a present possession, according to the form and tense of the verb here (Dana 29). Also the word "keeping" is a "watchful heed to an object which claims, so to speak, a living observance; a service not of the letter, but of the Sprit" (Westcott 47). This is not mere legalistic obedience, as the NIV seems to connote. John goes on to state the same principle negatively, applying it to the case in hand:

2:4 The one who says, "I have been knowing Him," while not keeping His commandments, he is a liar, and there isn't any truth in this!

The Gnostics who indulged their fleshly appetites said, "I know God." John points out that they are inconsistent if God is holy and righteous (Dana 29). Not honoring God's standards of righteousness is breaking fellowship with Him, and anyone who leads a double life, confessing Christianity on Sunday and living in sin the rest of the week is a liar--they don't know God.

John underscores this point again by stating the converse, "There isn't any truth in this." All the major English translations have rendered the Greek near demonstrative pronoun here as "him" assuming that the antecedent is "the one who says," although the antecedent could be the phrase "I have known Him." I tend to agree, however, with the former rendering since the word "liar" is the nearest noun, so the idea literally is, "in this [liar] the truth is not." John will build on this point later to warn his readers not to listen to the teachings of such a person.

2:5 But whoever is keeping His word, truly in this man the love of God has been perfected; by this we know that we are in Him.

John continues his thought from v.3, where he states that our assurance of knowing God is found in our obedience to Him, followed by v.4, which is a negative application of this principle. Now in v.5, John gives a positive example illustrating his point, then closes with a recap of his thesis. The positive example is that of the man who is "keeping" (notice the continuing-action Present tense here) God's word. "The opposite to the vain assertions of false claimants to the Christian name ("I know God") is not given in a counter-assertion, but in action ("keeps"). This phrase "keeps His word" expresses not only fulfillment of specific instruction, but also heedful regard to the whole revelation made by Christ as an active and living power" (Westcott 48). Clark (56) translates it "keeps His doctrine" rather than "His word" because the word "logos" is defined much more broadly than "word/morpheme." By this parallel structure, we see that John means the same thing when he says "keeps His commands" in v.3 and "keeps His word" in v.5.

And when we keep God's word, John assures us "truly"--without a doubt--that the love of God is "perfected" in us. At any rate, this love is "perfected/completed" in us when we keep God's word/commands. The verb is in the Passive voice, meaning we don't perfect ourselves, but God perfects us. "Teteleiotai" is also in the Perfect tense, meaning that this perfection is something that happened in the past and has continuing results. Its meanings can be expanded to: "perfect, complete, fulfilled, attained the goal, fully developed, fully executed, reached the end, consummated, or completely organized" (Pershbacher). Westcott adds (50) that this word means continuous growth, vital development and advance to maturity, but not the attaining of a definite end, as there is another word with the latter connotation. There is some debate as to whether "the love of God" means God's love to us or our love of Him (Dana 31). While it may not make a great difference, Westcott (48) maintains that the genitive ("of God") after "agape" in the New Testament is subjective, indicating, in this case, that it is the love which GOD has. What this is describing is the Holy Spirit's work of sanctification.

"By this we know..." Since the original Greek manuscripts don't have punctuation, there has been disagreement as to whether there should be a period or a colon at the end of v.5. I believe that the chiastic structure of v. 3-5 necessitates this last phrase of v.5 recapping the first statement of v.3 and ending the whole paragraph. Westcott (58) agrees, saying that v.6 shifts from the concept of assurance to that of obligation, and Dana (31) also agrees that it is keeping God's word that is evidence for knowing God and being "in Him."

2:6 [As for] the one claiming to be remaining in Him, he ought also to be walking in that same way in which He walked.

This concept of being "in Him" and "remaining in Him" supports the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints over "in-again-out-again" theology (Clark 58). But if we claim to be remaining/abiding in Jesus, our walk had better match our talk--this is a moral obligation (Dana 32). We should be walking the same way He (Jesus) walked. Now, although the word is "walk," we're not just talking about your physical gait. This word "walk" is used to mean the whole way you live your life. We should live our lives the same way Jesus lived His life. Are we doing this? How did Jesus live His life? What do I need to change in my life to conform to the life of Jesus?

2:7 Loved ones, no new commandment am I writing to you, but [this is] an old commandment which you have had from the beginning. (The old commandment is the word which you [have already] heard.)

From here, John launches into a new topic, expanding on what these new commandments of God are. The focus will be particularly on love, so John opens by addressing his readers with a word whose root is "love"--"beloved" or "loved ones." John is writing to remind them of a command which is "as old as the first message of the Gospel, and yet as new as the latest realization of its power in our lives" (Westcott 51).

What does it mean that this command is something they "have already heard" and which they "have had from the beginning?" Clark (59) says that the phrase "from the beginning" is "most likely the beginning of the Christian era, for [John's] addressees didn't have it from the beginning of time." Dana (33) adds that it's speaking of the apostolic message they had already heard in the preaching and writing of Paul and John. (Where on earth did the KJV come up with the last "from the beginning" in v.7? It's nowhere in the Greek text!)

2:8 Then again, I am writing a new commandment to you, which is true in Him and in you, for the darkness is leading itself away and the true light is already shining.

Although John is merely reminding his readers of the doctrine already taught by the apostles, there is newness in it because the young church is realizing more and more what this new era of faith in Christ means.

Clark (61) brings up the interesting point that the relative pronoun "which" in "new command which is true" is in the neuter gender, not matching the feminine word "commandment." In Greek, a feminine noun may take a neuter pronoun, but then again, can a command be true or false? No, a command just IS. Clark suggests that John uses this neuter relative because he is speaking of a broader concept than a simple commandment--he's referring to all the messages/word/doctrine of the apostles.

"The oldness consists in the eternal significance of the principle; its newness consists in its expansion in Christ and its renewal in the believer" (Dana 34). That's how it's true in Christ and in us: John 1:9 calls Christ the "true light," and it was Christ who taught the apostles their doctrine. It's true in us too, when we believe it, when the darkness is passing away in us, and when we love our brothers.

Aaron Sironi observed that the old form of the commandment was “Love your neighbor as yourself,” but the new form of the commandment which Jesus delivered was, “Love one another as I have loved you” (John 13:34, 15:12, 15:17) – a much taller order!

What does it mean about the "darkness passing away?" Westcott (54) says that the change pictured here is a process: "God is removing/withdrawing the veil in order to lay open the better things it conceals." The darkness is the shadows and types of Judaism. If this letter was written in 80A.D., most believers were of Jewish background, but the revelation of Christ and teaching of the Apostles was shedding new light on the meaning of it all (Clark 62).

2:9 The one claiming to be in the light while hating his brother is in the darkness until now.

Now John goes into several case studies to illustrate what it's like when people do and don't have the true light of Christ in them causing them to love their brother. John singles this one commandment of "love" out of all the doctrines to focus upon. This love is not an emotional feeling, but an obedience to God's command--an important distinction to make nowadays (Clark 63)! Westcott (55) teaches that love is specifically to be directed toward fellow believers, as there is "no case where a fellow man (as opposed to more specifically a fellow believer) is called a 'brother' in the New Testament." (I will take issue with this position later.) To claim to know God and to walk in the light necessitates the corresponding action of love. The Gnostics, however, while claiming to walk in the light, looked down heir noses at the believers who had not been initiated into their "gnosis," (Dana 34) so John labels that "darkness." Notice the stark contrast between "light" and "dark," "love" and "hate." There is no middle ground. "Twilight and indifference are the same as darkness and hate" (Westcott 55).

2:10 The one who loves his brother remains in the light and a trap does not exist in him.

But, "the one who loves his brother remains [not in-again-out-again] in the light..." Notice the contrast between empty words and righteous action: "The one claiming" vs. "The one loving." Do we live by empty words or by righteous action (Dana35) ?

An interesting phrase is added about those walking in the light and loving their brother: "a trap [σκανδαλον] in him does not exist"--to render it literally. This word skandalon means: "trap-spring, stumbling block, impediment, cause of ruin, cause of sinning, scandal, offense" (Pershbacher). Clark (64) translates it "scandal," whereas most English translations put something to do with "stumbling." I put "trap," as this word appears to be a general one for anything that could cause problems, whether for yourself or for others (Westcott 56). The one knowing God, walking in the light, and loving his brother, is not going to get tripped up and he won't mess anybody else up either. Lord, let me be such a man!

2:11 But the one who hates his brother is in the darkness and is walking in the darkness, and does not know where he is heading, because the darkness blinded his eyes.

John jumps back to the negative case, and expands on it, saying that the one who hates his brother is in the dark, walks in the dark, and is lost and blind. What a terrible plight! The emphasis is not so much on what the hypocrite does to the church, but the damage he does to his own life (Clark 65). My analysis of the word translated "going" in most English translations ("does not know where he is going") leads me to believe that there is a connotation of insidious evil leading him down, as the literal meaning of the word is "leading under." If we are in the darkness, we give reign to the devil who is active in blinding us and leading us to the pit. Such is the plight of the hypocrite. Lord, please save me from this horrible course; let my walk match my talk so that I may have integrity!

2:12 I am writing to you, dear children, because the sins have been dismissed from you on account of His name.

Until now, John has given reasons for writing his epistle based on hoped-for outcomes ("so that our joy may be completed," "that you may have fellowship," "that you may not sin" emphasis mine). Now John gives reasons based upon the actual qualities of his audience. The obvious structure of this passage is an address to multiple audiences followed by a repeated address to those same multiple audiences. Whether the three audiences (children, fathers, and young men) are physical ages or maturity in the faith, and whether the "children" is addressed to all the believers, followed by addresses specifically to "fathers" and to "young men" is up for debate. After reading several commentaries on it, I think I prefer the latter interpretation.

What, then is the difference between the repeated sections? One obvious difference is in the verb tense (which doesn't come through in the NKJV or the NIV), the first section being in the present, and the second in the past. This was apparently a convention at the time of the writing where an author would consider his letter not only from the perspective of his immediate writing in the Present tense (as in the first section) but also from the perspective of the reader who, by the time the letter got to him, would view the writing of that letter as an event that happened in the past (as in the second section) (Sources: Zeller, Hanna 434, Dana 36, Westcott 57).

A second distinction between the two sections is found in the word used for "children." If Dana and Westcott are right that the first address in both sections is aimed at ALL the believers, then the word for "children" which is different in the two sections would indicate different relationships in which John is addressing his audience that would give different slants on the meaning of the two sections. The first section addresses children as "teknia" indicating John's familial relationship to these people--it is an endearing term. The second section addresses the children as "paedia" indicating subordination--it is a diminutive term (Zeller, Westcott 60). If this is the case, then it could be said that John is writing in the first section not only from the perspective of the immediate transfer of his thoughts to a written page, but also from the perspective of a father to children he loves. So from this perspective, he says he is writing to these dear children because their sins are forgiven on account of [Christ's] name. (I think the NIV is the best translation of v.12--and the worst of v.13c.) John assumes his audience here is "forgiven Christians, able to accept this teaching" (Dana 36).

2:13 I am writing to you, fathers, because you have known the From-The-Beginning One. I am writing to you, young men, because you have conquered the evil one.

John specifically addresses the "fathers" or spiritual elders and teachers in the church, reassuring them that they know Jesus (cf. v.1 "what has been from the beginning") and thus the Gnostics are wrong in claiming to be the only ones who "know" God (Dana 36). Again, John uses the Perfect tense for the word "know" because the Christian faith was believed in the past by these "fathers," and they continue to know God (Westcott 60).

Then John addresses the "young men," literally, men of "fighting/military age," because they have conquered the evil one. The word for "overcome/conquered" is a military one which means you have won over your adversary in battle and beat him (Pershbacher). The one beaten is literally "the evil" in the Greek text, but it is consistently rendered "the evil one" in English (Westcott 60, Zeller). Why the NKJV translators felt it necessary to change the time-honored English rendering of "evil" to "wicked" I'd be curious to know.) Anyway, as a writer and a father, John is rejoicing that his audience is forgiven of sin, that the older men know God, and that the young men are victorious over satan.

2:14 I write to you, little children, because you have known the Father. I write to you, fathers, because you have known the From-The-Beginning One. I write to you, young men, because you are strong, and the word of God is staying in you and you have conquered the evil one.

Drawing from my intro in v.12, this second section is written from the perspective of the reader and from the perspective of an authoritative apostle. Here the key is that his little children know the Father, whereas the key to the first section was that they were forgiven. God's forgiveness enables us to know Him and to conquer satan. Our knowledge of the Father strengthens our faith and our ability to conquer sin (Westcott 60).

Why does John basically repeat his reasons in the second section? The address to the "fathers" is exactly the same. Dana (37) says this is because "John's concern for them matches their own concerns. John wants to reassure these fathers and young men--especially stirring up a renewed sense of victory in the young men." The basic idea of this whole passage, says Westcott (60) is that "it is a lead-in to an appeal in the following section based on the privileges of God's fatherhood and forgiveness and the qualities of the wisdom of the old and the strength of the young... 'I write, yea, I have written you because you have had experience in the faith.'"

God, I praise You that I know You as my Father in heaven! I don't know whether my 30 years of age--all of which have been abiding in the faith--would classify me as a father or a young man. The addresses to the fathers are more meaningful to me, but perhaps that is because I don't understand what John means when he says that the young men have conquered the evil one. It doesn't seem like the relationship we have with the evil one is such that we have conquered him in the past and that he is no longer a concern, as this passage seems to indicate. The battle with sin is a daily struggle for me. Perhaps the fact that it is "the evil one" and not "evil" which the young men have conquered points to our transfer from the kingdom of satan to the kingdom of God, meaning that satan is defeated and is no longer our master, although we still sin and do evil sometimes.

The reasoning that John gives to the fact that the young men have conquered the evil one in v.14 seems odd to me too: they "are strong and the word of God is living/staying/abiding/remaining/sticking with" them. What does physical strength have to do with beating the devil? Perhaps John is just looking to compliment them to build their confidence, but the more likely meaning is that their faith is strong and unshakable, and that’s why they are internalizing God's Word. There is a direct link between knowing God's word and overcoming satan in the Gospel account of the temptation of Jesus. Jesus defeated satan by quoting scripture and obeying that scripture.

2:15 Stop loving the world and the things in the world. If someone loves the world, the Father's love is not in him,

This imperative "do not love the world" is the first in the book of I John, so it may be the command referred to in 2:8. It is in opposition to loving our brother (2:10, 3:11ff) and to loving God. As James 4:4 states, "friendship with the world is hostility toward God." John Cotton (181) dwells on the mutual exclusivity of love for the world and love for God--we cannot be divided in our interests!

But, you say, "God loves the world"--why shouldn't we love it? (Westcott 62) It is God's prerogative to love His creation and tell us not to. However, it is true that we should have compassion for the world, but it should not become what we value, cherish, and delight in--those affections should be reserved for God. Cotton (174) makes a distinction between love that is directed to the thing itself to gain it (what we should NOT do with the world) and a love of "amity...to communicate good to it." So, the question is, "Which of the two describes your love for the world and its things?"

John goes on to describe 3 reasons not to love the world:

1. The exclusivity of our love,

2. The difference in source, and

3. The transient nature of the world.

Love of the world and the love of the Father are mutually opposed because we can't love both, they come from different sources, and one is temporary while the other is forever. If we love the world, the love of the Father is not in us. If we love the Father and our brothers, we do not love the world.

Guy King (ch.5) makes the interesting point that this passage outlines the forces arrayed against the believer:

• The evil one (2:14) beneath,

• The world around (2:15),

• The flesh within (2:16), and

• The antichrists alongside (2:18)

These things are not set antagonistically as the world vs. God or the creation vs. the Creator, but rather as the world vs. the FATHER, indicating the sense of the relationship God is getting at. Our love, relationship, provision, nurture, admonition, and fruit of our life should be by our heavenly Father rather than the forces arrayed against Him!

2:16 For everything in the world---the desire of the flesh, the desire of the eyes, and the showy lifestyle--is not from the Father but is from the world,

Now we come properly to the second reason to not love the world and its things: it is not from God. What is most interesting about this reason is John's enumeration of "everything in the world," namely, "the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the boastful pride of life" (NASV). "Lust" is the word , which Pershbacher translates "earnest desire, violent desire...lust." and the third descriptor, which I have translated "the showy lifestyle," is an interesting phrase rendered different ways in various translations:  caries the meanings of "ostentation, haughtiness, boasting, pride, and presumptuous speech.  is translated by Pershbacher as "life, means of living, maintenance, sustenance, goods..." It is differentiated from the more common word for life () as the present concrete is different from the essential principle of love (Westcott 65).

So we have here:

1. "the desire of the flesh" - the things which the body craves, like food, drink, physical touch, etc.,

2. "the desire of the eyes" - mental cravings, coveting, wishing you had more money, lust after the opposite sex, and, Westcott adds (62) "pursuit of art as an end," and

3. "the boastful pride of life" - Westcott (62) calls it the "vainglory of life... we desire wrongly and we glory wrongly in what we have... an empty, ostentatious assertion of advantages... lay[ing] claim to blessings which are not truly [ours] for the sake of renown." Cotton adds (177) that this is "seeking our own carnal excellency, conceit, boasting, high attitude..."

We are to ""flee youthful lusts" (II Tim. 2:22) and "make no provision for lusts" (Rom. 13:14). "If you are weaned from your profit or pleasure in meat or drink or pasttime, and, if you are weaned from credit in regard to others, you shall bereave satan of the weapons he fights you with," remarks Cotton (182). Jesus withstood the tempter on all three points in the wilderness Himself (Westcott 62). He was tempted to eat bread during a fast, lust after owning the nations, and show off at the temple by jumping off the roof, but He loved God rather than the world, and did not succumb.

Do any of these things characterize MY life? Do I let my bodily appetites control me? Does my mind become consumed with wanting certain worldly things? Do I like to show off my possessions or skills for other people to admire? Oh Father, please sanctify me more and more to be consumed with loving YOU instead of the world!

2:17 And the world and its desires are being phased out, but the one who does the will of God remains forever.

Now we come to the third reason not to love the world: it is "passing away." I recall a Greek myth where the gods tormented a person by making them fall in love with something they could not keep. So it is with the one who loves the world; they've got 70 years or so, and when that's over, that's it! The word translated "passing away" in most versions signifies transition and it is not an active verb, so that's why I translated it "being phased out." It is the same verb used in v.8. The darkness had better be phasing out in us so that we don't love a world which is being phased out! In this verse, we see that "doing the will of God" is the opposite to loving and desiring the world and its things (Cotton 207). "But the one who does the will of God remains forever." The word for "abides/remains," carries more of a sense of "sticking with" than merely "lives," as the NIV translates it. This is, in fact, another justification for the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints (Cotton 209). This doesn't mean you never stray, but that you will always get back on track. "This forms the ground for directing all who would find comfort," Cotton tells us (209), for following the world will only lead to disappointment, but doing the will of God is something that will be everlastingly good. Let us therefore not love the world and all its things, but rather, love God and His people!

2:18 Little children, it is a last hour, and just as you heard that an antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come into existence, by which we know that it is a last hour.

Children can be naive, believing anything (Cotton 212), and the same is true of those who are young in the faith. John wants to warn them not to be taken in by these "antichrists." Antichrists and the "last hour" go together--a recognition that we are in the last hour necessitates being prepared for these antichrists. But what exactly is "a last hour" and what does John mean by "antichrists?"

LAST HOUR--Westcott (69) says that it relates to the fact stated in the previous verse that the world is passing away. It is a fulfillment of the "last days" spoken of by the Old Testament prophets, yet James 5:3 and I Peter 1:20 speak of "last days" yet to come, full of sorrow and suffering. "It was a period of critical change, 'a last hour,' but not definitely 'the last hour.'" Cotton (214) says it refers to the last age between Christ and the end of the world. John is last of the apostles, so it is the last hour of the apostolic generation.

The definite article that changes “an antichrist” into “THE Antichrist” is found in all but four Greek manuscripts, thus it is in the Majority text, the Textus Receptus, and the NIV. Curiously, it is not in the Patriarchal Greek NT of 1904 or in the Vulgate or the Geneva Bible or the KJV. The fact that three of the four Greek manuscripts which don’t have the “THE” are three of the four oldest-known manuscripts of 1 John is what makes this variant interesting. Of the four oldest-known manuscripts, the Vaticanus and Ephraemi Rescriptus omit the “The,” the Siniaticus appears to have originally omitted the “the” but then was corrected by adding it in, and the Alexandrinus has the “the.” The fact that this singular antichrist at the beginning of the verse is contrasted with many plural antichrists at the end of the verse prevents this variant from being a significant change in meaning.

John says that they had heard of the coming of antichrist. How did they hear of it if the word “antichrist” doesn’t appear in the Bible until now? A.T. Robertson suggested that by other names Jesus and Paul had warned about these kind of people in Mark 13:6&22; Matt. 24:5&15, Matt. 24:24, Acts 20:30, and 2Thess. 2:3.

ANTICHRISTS--It means more than just an adversary of Christ, but "one who takes the place of Christ... the adversary preserves the semblance of the characteristic excellency which he opposes" (Westcott 70). As we'll see in a few verses, the antichrist's characteristics are that they "deny the Father and the Son" and that they do not "remain with us." In the Apostle John's day, the antichrists were the Gnostics against whom this book was written, but in typical Reformer fashion, John Cotton (219) says that the Pope is the antichrist (and, by his account, I do not doubt that he was AN antichrist). Yet there are many antichrists still today such as Mormons, Muslims, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc.

This warning to the church was to prepare them to withstand these "antichrists." Cotton (219) asks the piercing question, "Are WE prepared?" Do we know our doctrine will enough to refute a Muslim or a Mormon? Are our church teachers preparing us to face these antichrists?

2:19 They came out of us, but they were not out of us; for if they were out of us, they would have remained with us; but [they didn't] in order that they might be exposed, because they are not all out of us.

Now we get into a comparison of the true Christians ("us") and the antichrists ("they"). These antichrists had been part of the church congregation, but they were not really Christians. The proof John gives is that a true member of the faith would stay with the fellowship of believers, whereas these antichrists went out and did not remain. "Many a defaulter has been spoken of as a 'backslider,' when, in reality, they had never been Christians at all... 'the dog returns to its vomit' I Pet. 2:22" (King. 54-55). Cotton sums it up: True Christians continue always in the church (223) by the grace of God keeping them (227), but it is a hallmark of false teachers to split off from the church (231).

The phrase ' is translated differently in every English version. I translate it "in order that they might be exposed" because the subject is the antichrist and the verb is passive, meaning God is doing something to the antichrists--I have to disagree with the NIV and NASV here. Hanna (434) is in support, as is Westcott (71): "The departure of these false teachers after a temporary sojourn in the Christian society was brought about that they might be shown in their true character and so seen to be not of it." No such person is of the true church. This should make us think twice about being schismatic in our own fellowship!

2:20 Yet you yourselves have an anointing from the Holy [One/Spirit], and you all know.

In contrast with the antichrists, the Christian has "an anointing/unction from the Holy One," and has knowledge. This concept of anointing is an ancient one, speaking of how a king or priest would be set apart for his office by having oil poured over his head. It signified that God would give him the gifts needed to perform in that office. It is the same root word as "Christ," which means "anointed One." John Cotton (239) says, "That ointment which was poured on Christ above measure, descends to every member of His church, healing their wounds, softening and suppling their souls, cheering their hearts and countenances, and consecrating them to be kings, priests, and prophets to God... judging... fighting...praying... [and] preach[ing]." King (56) also notes that this anointing of the Holy Spirit guards us with the Holy Scriptures against false teaching (v.27). Every Christian has this unction, not just the pastor, and all should be able to discern the truth. The phrase is emphatic--"you yourselves." Why don't any English translations have the emphatic?

Whether "The Holy" in this verse refers to Christ or to the Holy Spirit or to God, is debatable. It is certainly God, and if John is referring to a certain member of the Godhead, it is not clear.

The final phrase is translated two different ways: 1) "you know all" and 2)"you all know." This is because some Greek texts have the word "all" in the objective case, others in the nominative¹. Scholarship more recent than the King James era favors the nominative "you-all," the emphasis being that ALL Christians have knowledge, not that those particular Christians have ALL knowledge.

What is it that we know? If we go on to the next verse, it says that we know the TRUTH (Westcott 73). This statement looks forward to the truth and, looking back, it is a reassurance that the gnosis/knowledge which the Gnostics/antichrists claimed was a sham. It is the Christians who "know" and what we know is the "truth!" We won't let those antichrists shake us from the confidence that we're righteous because we know the truth!

2:21 I do not write to you because you DON'T know the truth, but because you DO know it, and because every lie is not out of the truth.

John continues to encourage the believers, as he did in v.20, affirming their knowledge of the truth. This is a letter of assurance of salvation, not of converting non-Christians (Cotton 247). John once again assures those Christians that they are on the right track and that the Gnostic antichrists are on the wrong track: "you know the truth and they don't." Just as the antichrists are not really of us, so their false teaching is not of the truth. Truth and lies are totally opposed concepts, and no one teaching lies can be a Christian.

2:22 Who is the liar, if not the one who is making the declamation that Jesus is not the Christ? This man is the antichrist--the one who is denying the Father and the Son.

And what exactly is the lie being taught? These antichrists are teaching that Jesus is not the Christ, the Messiah, the Son of God. Some Gnostics taught that Jesus was just one of a hierarchy of divine beings, but that is a lie. And if that's not a lie, nothing else is! Jesus is God, and He is the Messiah who became man and took on himself the punishment for our sin. That's the truth!

I have to take issue here with the NIV, NASV, and KJV for not being accurate to the text, for the text states the lie in the negative, not in the positive. It says the liar is the one "making the declamation that Jesus is NOT the Christ." not that he "denies that Jesus IS the Christ" (emphasis mine). However, as is usually the case, the gist of the meaning is not lost even in this technical inaccuracy.

Let us therefore zealously uphold this truth that Jesus is the Christ, and, as Cotton says, "don't be mealy-mouthed" (261) but call a lie a lie, as the Apostle does here--especially when people are denying Christ. Every non-Christian faith comes down in the litmus test of who Jesus is, and they all substitute an antichrist doctrine. However, our faith in the Son is linked to the Father--If Jesus is not the Son of God, the Father is not the Father!

2:23 All who are denying the Son also don't have the Father; the one who is confessing the Son also has the Father.

The positive converse, while not in any manuscript before the 6^th century is surprisingly included in the UBS GNT and in the modern English versions which are generally slavish about following the 4^th Century texts over the Majority of later Greek manuscripts. However it isn’t even in the ancient versions (Old Latin, Syriac, Coptic), and quotes from Origen and Cyprian don’t have it either! The Geneva Bible seems to be about the only English version that omitted it, although the KJV italicized it because not even the 16^th century Stevens edition of the Textus Receptus GNT had it, although it showed up later in the 19^th century Scribner edition. The added phrase does not, however, add information which could not be deduced from the rest of Scripture, so it doesn’t change anything.

The Father and the Son are equivocated; they are the same in essence. To deny one is to deny the other; to confess one is to confess the other. Jesus is God, just as the Father is God--they are ONE! The antichrist, in denying the true nature of who Christ is, thinking he is exalting God (as the Gnostics, Mormons, Jehovah's witnesses, Hindus and Muslims do). But in doing so, they actually lose their claim to know the Father. Those of us who confess Jesus (Christians) by default have God also as our Father.

This confession has, as its entomological base the meaning "same word" (homo-logos); it is "affirming" (Westcott 76) a truth God has already set out, "speaking in accordance" (Pershbacher) with it. When we agree with and verbally confirm the great truth that Jesus is the Son of God, we receive the privilege of calling God our Father. And what a wonderful Father He is!

2:24 What you yourselves heard from the beginning, keep in you. If what you heard from the beginning stays in you, you will also remain in the Son and in the Father.

The construction of this Greek sentence emphasizes the word "you" by putting it first in the sentence. This is to contrast John's readers with the false teachers who "deny the son" (Westcott 77, Hanna 435). John exhorts his readers to hang onto the teaching they had heard from the beginning rather than going after the newfangled doctrines of the antichrists. Cotton says (278) "Primary antiquity is a certain note of apostolic verity," and it's true. The apostles had taught good doctrine from the beginning of the church, and the good scripture of the O.T. had been with God's people since the beginning of time. Believers must "think about it, talk about it, and even sing about it... [for] theology is not to be reserved until converts become mature" (Clark 83). It should "abide/remain" in the believer all the time. On page 276, John Cotton gives a good discourse on how the word abides in us by "faith," "fear," and "obedience." He goes on to say, "This may show us what a hard thing it is to persevere and abide in the doctrine of the apostles as appears from the strong exhortation... Seeing that the world makes such a large offer to withdraw us... He outbids the world and even promises fellowship with the Father and the Son, and eternal life" (277). Retaining this "primary antiquity" is equivocated here with remaining in fellowship with God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ. That's pretty crucial! How tenaciously are WE hanging on to the ancient truths of the Bible?

2:25 And this is the promise which He Himself declared to us: the life eternal.

If we steadfastly keep "what we heard from the beginning" and abide in the Son and the Father, then God gives us the promise that we have eternal life. Eternal life is not a reward of good works; it is God's grace given to us by His promise (Cotton 280). It is given to us by Jesus Christ Himself; the sentence in Greek gives special emphasis to this (which the KJV and NIV ignore). Jesus Himself gave the promise.

Now there is some dispute as to whether the promise was given to "us" (John including himself and probably the apostles) or given to "you" (John's readers). Most Greek manuscripts favor "us" and it makes sense that if John is calling attention to something Jesus Himself said, it was something Jesus said in the presence of His disciples (John’s “us”) while He was living on earth.

So, what is the "promise," and what does "eternal life" mean? The promise, says Clark (83-84) is the whole Gospel, and eternal life is defined by John 17:3 "this is eternal life, that they should know the only True God and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent." Sounds like an equivocal phrase for "abide in the Father and in the Son" from the verse above. Keeping the ancient doctrines, being in fellowship with God the Father and God the Son, and having the promise of eternal life all go together.

2:26 These things I write to you concerning the ones who are leading you astray.

John is writing this letter in order to help the believers remain in Christ and not be deceived by the false teachers/ antichrists they are encountering. This is the first of two means St. John enjoins upon his readers by which to abide in Christ and avoid anti-Christ; the second is mentioned in v.27: the unction /anointing of Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Both the writings and the unction are important--the unction must be confirmed by the Bible, for we cannot abandon what John wrote (Cotton 281-283).

One further note is the addition of the phrase "trying to" in every major English translation. This is simply not in the Greek text; I suppose it is an addition by the translators to protect the reputation of John's audience, because they don't want to accept the implication of the unedited text that the false teachers were already in the process of leading the believers astray. The point, however, is not so much whether the readers were already being led astray as it is the means by which they could be protected from the deception: the writings of Scripture and the anointing/unction they had received.

2:27 And the anointing which you yourselves received from Him remains in you, and you have no need for someone to be teaching you. But as His² anointing is teaching you concerning everything--and it is true; it is not a lie--just as it taught you, you remain in Him.

"In the preceding verses, St. John appealed to the original apostolic message which his readers had received in contrast with all false teaching. He now appeals to the inward voice of the Spirit whose first teaching ["just as it taught you"] and whose present teaching ["His anointing is teaching you"] are one" (Westcott 78). And that one teaching which the anointing/unction gives is this: REMAIN IN HIM. Just as emphasis was given on the fact that you heard the word from the beginning, emphasis is again laid here that you received the anointing (Hanna 435), and just as the KJV and NIV ignored the earlier emphasis, they ignore this one too. But there is significance in the emphasis, as John Cotton points out (286), "Every child of God even the least and meanest has received the unction of the Spirit." The anointing of the Holy Spirit is not some mystical event that Christians must search for; it is already in all who believe and stay rooted in Christ. This anointing is "from Him" meaning from Christ, who, together with the Father, sends the Holy Spirit to believers (Westcott 79).

Most people assume that this "anointing/unction" is speaking of the presence of God's Holy Spirit in us, interacting personally with our minds and bodies to sanctify us. I tend to agree, although Gordon Clark does have a good point that a divine relationship like that could not be appropriately called "true and not a lie." He maintains that the "anointing" is just another descriptive word for the word of God spoken of in earlier verses, for a teaching such as the Gospel can be tried as being true or a lie.

The punctuation in this verse is somewhat difficult, with four different ways of punctuation found in the old manuscripts (there was no punctuation in the original letter). The preferred reading is to put a period at the end of "no need for someone to teach you," and make the rest of the verse a separate sentence. There are some, however, that make it all one sentence and others that put the period at the end of "true and not a lie." Arranging the sentence as I have done makes a parallel between "teaching you concerning everything" and "it taught you, abide in Him," but it doesn't show the relationship the Greek text gives to "no need for someone to be teaching you, BUT [in contrast] His anointing is teaching you concerning all things." The "But" is a strong contrast word pitting the "someone/anyone" (Presumably the antichrists/false teachers) with the "anointing."

What does it mean that the anointing teaches us about everything? The passage isn't entirely clear. It's possible that the phrase "just as it taught you, abide in Him" is an explanation of "everything"--everything is taken care of if you'll just abide in Christ. Westcott (80) writes along similar lines, "The first teaching contained implicitly all that is slowly brought to light at later times... The Spirit...is ever bringing something more of the infinite meaning of [Christ's] person and work in connection with the new results of thought and observation." Clark (85) connects it rather with the identification of antichrists--they do not need any further teaching to recognize the heresy of the Gnostics. Clark says the point is not that they don't need teaching but that they know enough to tell the difference between the true apostolic teaching and the lies of antichrists. John Cotton (291) has yet another perspective, emphasizing the supremacy of individual conscience over human teachings. In his context of the Reformation of the traditions of the Roman Catholic church in the 1500's, the reassurance of the value of one's own spirit-anointed conscience was very important, especially when it differed from the authoritarian, yet human, teachings of Mother Rome. Cotton doesn't stop there, but goes on to say that we shouldn't implicitly accept the teachings found from our preachers or the books we read, but should test them all with our anointing. This is because the anointing is "true and not a lie." We know the true Spirit by the fact that it speaks truth, not lies, and this is a "ground of comfort" to all who have received this Spirit: it will not deceive you (Cotton 292-294).

This unction teaches us to "abide in Him." UBS reads Present tense (either Indicative or Imperative), following the 4 oldest-known Greek manuscripts (אBAC) and the ancient Latin and Coptic versions, instead of the Future tense in the later majority of Greek manuscripts and the Textus Receptus, which the Geneva and KJV adopted. The NIV and ESV opted for imperatives while the NASB and NET opted for a reading in English that could be either indicative or imperative. The difference is not that great because Greek grammar allows for the Future tense to carry Imperative force. Westcott (81) maintains that this is am imperative rather than an indicative mood--"You must abide" rather than "you are abiding." The word itself is capable of being translated either way. I tried to maintain an English translation that could be interpreted either as a command or a statement (as the NIV also did), "you abide/remain in Him." The KJV goes for the indicative "you will abide in Him," and the NIV goes for the imperative, "remain in Him." Is it not possible that both are true? If we are being taught by Christ's anointing, we are abiding in Him, and if we are obedient to His teaching, we will seek to keep abiding in Him.

There is also uncertainty in the object of our abiding. Most English translations make the object of our abiding to be "Him," meaning Jesus (Westcott 81). But Clark (84), supported by Augustine, says that the word should be "it," meaning the anointing/Spirit. In other words, they say that this verse is saying, "Because the anointing teaches you, remain in it so that it can keep teaching you the truth." It is true that the Greek word  can be translated "it" or "him," but the anointing is closely associated with Jesus in both occurrences in this verse ("the anointing you received from Him," "His anointing teaches"), and the next verse is obviously talking about Jesus when it uses autos, so I prefer the former reading.

2:28 And now, dear children, stay in Him, so that whenever He is revealed, we may have an open conversation and not be embarrassed by Him in His presence.

At any rate, whether the anointing is the Holy Spirit or the Gospel, and whether we abide in "it" or in "Him," the practical upshot is that we remain in Christ. Since this is a command, there is obviously work on our part to keep abiding in that relationship with Christ. We must discipline our minds to turn from sin and pursue obedience to God's word; we must discipline ourselves to meditate on God's word and pray rather than following natural thought patterns. We must speak openly of our faith too. We should live such lives that when Christ comes, we will be confident about our relationship with Him, looking forward to His coming, knowing that we have not done anything which might upset Him (Cotton 297-300).

Concerning this second coming of Christ, the Greek wording admits of some uncertainty of His coming--moreso than the NIV, NAV, or KJV admit. Since John is no doubt certain that Christ WILL return, the uncertainty must have to do with not knowing exactly WHEN He will come; that is why I translated it "whenever He is revealed." I also chose "revealed" in departure from the major English versions' "appears" because the verb is passive and "appears" is active (Westcott 81).

UBS reads εαν φανερωθη σχωμεν (“if he happens to be revealed we may start to have”), supported by all four of the oldest-known Greek manuscripts (except that the Sinaiticus reads Present tense ἔχωμεν instead of Aorist σχωμεν). However the thousands of Greek manuscripts that come after the 5^th Century read ὅταν φανερωθῇ ἔχωμεν (“whenever he happens to be revealed, we may continue to have”) with only about a half dozen exceptions. The difference is not significant because the Greek words for “if” and “when” are basically synonymous, and the distinction between a Present tense and Aorist tense subjunctive in Greek is so fine, it wouldn’t normally come through in English.

The Greek words containing John's visualization of what might happen at the Second coming are very interesting: The two scenarios are

1. we might have  (literally "with speech") --"boldness in speech, freedom in speaking, openness, confidence, license, assurance, frankness..." (Pershbacher). The NIV, NAV, and KJV all use the word "confidence," but I tried to convey the strong association of the Greek word with speech by rendering it "an open conversation"

2. The scenario of "open, unreserved utterance" is contrasted with the scenario of "separation" (Westcott 82). The wording is literally "ashamed from of Him." Hanna (435) renders it "ashamed before him," along with the KJV and NIV, but Westcott (82), Clark (86), and the NAV give more emphasis on the "away from." That seems to me a little more active than this passive verb should allow, however, so I chose the phrase "embarrassed by Him."

Which will it be when Christ comes and we stand in His presence and He publicly calls us to account for every deed we've done--good or bad. Will you be confident in your relationship with Christ or will you be shamed? If we are abiding in Christ, we'll be able to be confident and enjoy talking with Him! How awesome that will be!!

2:29 If you know that He is righteous, you should also be aware that everyone who does what is right has been born out of Him.

St. John now makes a comparison between Christ's righteousness and the righteousness of a child of God (Hanna 435, Cotton 302ff, Westcott 82). If we abide in Christ and practice righteousness, we will be ready to meet Him "whenever He is revealed." This is a proof that we are true Christians--we can have assurance of salvation and have "confidence when He appears" (NAV). This is not self-confidence but a confidence and a righteousness BASED ON Christ's RIGHTEOUSENESS. Righteousness is the result of being born of God; it does not come naturally! (Cotton 302ff) This is probably another refutation of the Gnostic heresy which said that as long as your Spirit is pure, it doesn't matter what sin your body does. The Gnostic teaching is refuted here as John points out that Christ was righteous and that His children will be also marked by "justice/fairness/equitableness/virtue/generosity/ piety/ godliness/ righteousness" (Pershbacher).

John uses two words for "know" in this verse. The first word, having to do with the knowledge of Christ's righteousness is a revealed or absolute knowledge whereas the second word, having to do with knowing righteous people as being born of God, is a relationship-oriented or experiential knowledge (Westcott 82, Zeller). That second word for "know" can be translated in the indicative or the imperative mood--as a statement or a command. I agree with Westcott (82) that it makes a lot of sense as a command. Taken in this way, it drives home the point of the previous verse that we should live a life we won't be ashamed of when Christ comes. "You should know that everyone who does what is right has been born out of Him."

That picture of being born/begotten/given birth" (Pershbacher) by God is arresting. Having seen several births, the little word "out" in the Greek text (omitted in most English texts) makes it all the more graphic in my mind. I've seen babies coming out of the birth canal, and it is an awesome thing. No wonder John breaks into an exclamation in the next verse! Our being has been formed by God, and everything about the believer is uniquely His and bears His likeness. We are in an incredible relationship with God Himself!

To proceed to Chapter Three, click here.