1 John 2:18-28

7. Warning and consolation against Anti-Christ

DESCRIPTION OF HIS FORERUNNERS, WHOSE APPEARANCE POINTS TO THE LAST TIME (1 John 2:18-23). EXHORTATION OF THE FAITHFUL TO STEADFASTNESS IN THEIR ASSURANCE OF POSSESSING THE TRUTH AND ETERNAL LIFE (1 John 2:24-28).

1 John 2:18-28

18Little children, it is the last time25, and as ye have heard that26 antichrist27 shall come, even now are28 there many antichrists; whereby29 we know that it is the last time30. 19They went out from us31, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt32 have continued33 with us: but they went out34, that they might be 20made manifest that they were35 not all of us. But36 ye have an37 unction from the Holy One, and ye38 know all things39. 21I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth40. 22Who is a41 liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He42 is antichrist, that 23denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever43 denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father44: [but] he that acknowledged the Son hath the Father also45. 24Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning46. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father47. 25And this is the promise that he48 hath promised us49, even eternal life50. 26These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you51 27But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you52, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same53 anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth54, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him55. 28And now, little children, abide in him; that when56 he shall appear57, we may have58 confidence, and not be ashamed before him59 at his coming.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

The connection. The groundwork on which this portion of the Epistle rests is contained in the individualized addresses (1 John 2:12-14), introducing both warning and consolation against the love of the world (1 John 2:15-17), as well as in the subsequent warning and consolation against antichrist (1 John 2:18-28). As the former particularly connected with the final clause νενικήκατε τὸν πονηρόν whose kingdom is ὁ κόσμος, so this connects with ἐγνώκατε τὸν ̓ ἀρχῆς, τὸν πατέρα, ὁ λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν ὑμῖν μένει. The opening words ἐσχάτη ὥρα ἐστίν in the sequel (1 John 2:18) connect also with ὁ κόσμος παράγεται (1 John 2:17). This portion which began (1 John 1:5 sq.) with the Light-Being of God and the Light-walk of believers, concludes with a warning against the lie which is directed against the fundamental pillar of eternal truth, the glory of Christ. and an exposure of its attempt to annihilate the promise of eternal life. The address παιδία, 1 John 2:18, applies to all the readers of the Epistle, and requires us to consider the sequel addressed to the whole Church (contrary to Bengel). It is incomprehensible that Ebrard on account of the peculiarly childlike character of this section should hold the opinion that the reference is only to the little ones, to children.

The last hour, 1 John 2:18. This important and difficult idea, which is liable to many interpretations and has been variously understood, can only be understood and explained with reference to the whole usus loquendi current and the sum-total of clear views on the subject contained in the New Testament. It is not sufficient to refer the reader to Lange on Matthew 24:0., Moll on Hebrews 1:1, and Fronmüller on 1 Peter 1:5; 1 Peter 1:20. Compare particularly Riehm, Lehrbegriff des Hebräerbriefs, pp. 72 sqq.; 204 sqq., and Düsterdieck ad loc.—The representation of two ages of the world is rooted in the Old Testament idea בְּאַחֲרִית חַיָּמִים which constantly recurs in prophetical passages, beginning with the blessing of Jacob (Genesis 49:1), especially in Jeremiah, denotes “the most distant future, beyond which the eye cannot penetrate” (Hitzig on Micah 4:1), and is therefore well rendered by “in the end of the days.” The prophets use it almost exclusively to denote the Messianic times. The LXX. translate it ἐν ἐσχάταις ἡμέραις (Isaiah 2:2), ἐπ̓ ἐσχάτων τῶν ἡμερῶν (Genesis 49:1), ἐπ̓ ἐσχάτου τῶν ἡμερῶν (Numbers 24:14), ἐπ̓ ἐσχάτῳ τῶν ἡμερῶν (Deuteronomy 4:30), ἔσχατον τῶν ἡμερῶν (Deuteronomy 31:29). Hence comes primarily the talmudical and rabbinical idea of the עו̇לָם הַזֶה and the עוֹלָם הַבּא; inside these two ages of the world are the יְמוֹת הַמָּשִׁיחַ, the days of the Messiah, the Messianic age proper, which is alternately counted with either age of the world, and consequently may be either after or before the end of the days, or the end of the days itself. The Lord Himself distinguishes ἐν τούτῳ τῷ αἰῶνι from ἐν τῷ μέλλοντι (Matthew 12:30), ἐν τῷ καιρῷ τούτῳ from ἐν τῷ αἰῶνι τῷ ἐρχομένῳ (Mark 10:30; Luke 18:30); and this distinction, as well as Luke 20:34, sq. (οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου γαμοῦσιν—οἱ δὲ καταξιωθέντες τοῦ αἰῶνος ἐκείνου τυχεῖν καὶ τῆς ) show most plainly that the earthly development-period of the kingdom of God preceding the second coming of Christ in glory, and beginning with the first coming of Christ in the flesh, belongs to the first age of the world, and that the future time is the time of the completed kingdom of God. According to this ἡ ἐσχάτη ἡμέρα (John 6:39-40; John 6:44; John 6:54; John 11:24; John 12:48) is the day of the resurrection of the dead and the judgment, the last day of the first age of the world and the transition to the second. The turning-point between both ages of the world is the time of Christ’s return to judgment (Matthew 13:39 sq.; Matthew 13:49; Matthew 24:3; Matthew 28:20). Thus Paul also contrasts ἐν τῷ αἰῶνι τούτῳ with ἐν τῷ μέλλοντι, and the sufferings τοῦ νῦν καιροῦ with the μέλλουσα δόξα (Romans 8:18), and describes Christians as living ἐν τῷ νῦν αἰῶνι looking for the blessed hope and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ (Titus 2:12-13). The ἔσχαται ἡμέραι in which there shall come καιροὶ χαλεποὶ (2 Timothy 3:1), and the ὕστεροι καιροί (1 Timothy 4:1), like the αἰῶνες οἱ ἐπερχόμενοι (Ephesians 2:7), denote the period immediately preceding the second coming of Christ. While, according to Paul, Christians still live outwardly in the first age of the world, yet are they ethically beyond it and the character of this present age of the world is described by him as tainted with immorality and alienation from God, Rom 12:2; 1 Corinthians 2:6; 1Co 2:8; 1 Corinthians 3:18; 2 Corinthians 4:4; Galatians 1:4; Ephesians 2:2; 2 Timothy 4:10. He regarded also the present age of the world as running on towards its end since the first coming of Christ; hence he speaks of τὰ τέλη τῶν αἰώνων (1 Corinthians 10:11) having set in. We have not to inquire here whether he regarded the second coming of Christ to be near at hand.—Peter considers his time as the ἔσχαται ἡμέραι (Acts 2:17) and laid the first coming of Christ ἐπ ἐσχάτου τῶν χρώνων (1 Peter 1:20 cf. 1 John 2:5 : ἐν καιρφ͂ ἐσχάτῳ or τῶν ἡμερῶν, 2 Peter 3:3 cf. Judges 18:0).—So also James: (James 5:13 : ἐν ἐσχάταις ἡμέραις).—In the Epistle to the Hebrews also the close of the first age of the world is described as beginning with the first coming of Christ (Hebrews 1:1), but the συντέλεια τῶν αἰώνων denotes the turning-point of the two ages of the world, Hebrews 9:26, and this turning-point is more particularly described as found in the sacrificial death of Christ on account of its important consequences (Hebrews 10:14; Hebrews 11:39-40), since that which is eternal, is now extant (Χριστὸς–ἀρχιερεὺς τῶν μελλόντων Hebrews 9:11; cf. Hebrews 5:14; Hebrews 10:1; Hebrews 10:18; Hebrews 6:5; Hebrews 12:22). The beginning of the new time has set in, but only the ideal and objective beginning; since the αἰὼν μέλλων as to the δύναμις is already extant in the redeemed, but will not enter into ἐνέργεια until the second coming of Christ (Hebrews 13:14), so that the first age of the world still continues outwardly and that consequently our time is only a transition-period; with respect to the ethical sense of these ideas we have here the point of contact between the Epistle to the Hebrews and the views of Paul.—John’s ἐσχάτη ὥρα ἐστίν must be understood as lying within the limits of these views. The use of ὥρα instead of ἡμέρα, the day which with God is equal to a thousand years (Psalms 90:4; 2 Peter 3:8), indicates a peculiar feature, and the absence of the Article leaves it undefined. We have to think of a period of time belonging to the last days or last times which exhibits their character in a concentrated form, and since the ἐσχάτη ἡμέρα in the Gospel adverts particularly to the κρίσις, the reference seems to be to peculiarly critical manifestations. If now we have to translate: “it is the last hour,” the reference to the antichrist and the antichrists is in admirable keeping with the announcements of the coming of false prophets and teachers for the purpose of temptation and trial, so that in them there already takes place a separation of true believers from false believers. Cf. Matthew 24:24 sqq.; 1 Timothy 4:1 sqq.; 2 Timothy 3:1 sqq.—Hence ὥρα is neither=the season of the year, the wintry season of the world (Scholiast II), nor ἐσχάτη χειρίστη (Oecumen., Schöttgen: tempora periculosa, pessima et abjectissima, Carpzov and others), which is also forbidden by 2 Timothy 3:1. Bengel’s explanation that it denotes the last hour of John’s old age (ultima, non respectu omnium mundi temporum, sed in antitheto puerulorum, ad patres et juvenes), is a singular make-shift in order to guard John from the error that his prediction of the last hour had not been fulfilled. Nor can ἐσχάτη ὥρα designate the time immediately preceding the destruction of Jerusalem (Socinus, Grotius), for the last time is not to be taken with such chronological precision. Nor is there any warrant for the assertion of Huther, that John wrote with presentiment of the second coming of Christ (an assertion based on what is said 1 John 2:8 of the σκοτία and 1 John 2:17 of the κόσμος, that they παράγεται which simply marks the transitory character inhering in the σκοτία and the κόσμος), since he writes only under the impression and with a sense of the transitoriness of the powers of this first age of the world, and that he indicates thereby the nearness of Christ’s second coming (Lücke, Neander, Baumgarten-Crusius, Gerlach, Ebrard, Huther). Hence we may say with Düsterdieck that “John did not wish to supply a chronological but only a real definition” [that is, one relating simply to the object—M.], which is clearly indicated by ἐὰν φανερώθῃ (1 John 2:28), since ὅταν is hardly the true reading there. “The prophetical substance of the Apostolical declaration is true,” “the extension of the time from the real beginning (the destruction of Jerusalem, which does not disconcert John, and of the import of which, with reference to the history and the judgment of the world, his mind is fully made up), to the actual end of beings” denotes rather no measure at all than one that is too short. The first Messianic transition-period inaugurated by the Saviour in the form of a servant, governed by Him and terminating the first age of the world is the ἐσχάτη, during which men pass through peculiar troubles, perils and conflicts on to the promised advent of the second world-age of glory. In this transition-period there are however peculiar hours of development, one of which had come when John wrote his Epistle. The term ἐσχάτη ὥρα has therefore to be taken in a prophetical and eschatological sense; it has moreover an important bearing on the history of Christ’s kingdom and constitutes a historical reference to the second coming of Christ as the commencement of the second world-age, but not a chronological reference to the time when the second coming is to take place.—Noteworthy is Calvin’s explanation: ultimum tempus, in quo sic complentur omnia, ut nihil supersit præter ultimam Christi revelationem, and with reference to the absence of the Article also that of Besser: the time before a special revelation of the judicatory glory of Christ prefiguring the last hour before the universal final judgment.—

The Antichrist and the Antichrists, 1 John 2:18.

1. The word ἀντίχριστος occurs only here, 1 John 2:22; 1 John 4:3 and 2 John 1:7. and its meaning has to be ascertained first philologically and then exegetically.

2. ἀντὶ may mean both hostility and substitution. In the former case it denotes the antagonist of Christ, the antichrist, in the latter the pretender-Christ or pseudo-Christ. Thus ἀντίτυπος is a τύπος set in opposition to another τύπος, and ἀντίλυτρον a λύτρον, paid or given for something; so ἀντίθεος in Homer, denotes godlike, but other authors use it in the sense of adverse to the gods; one and the same word may then be used in both senses; but no word can have both meanings in one and the same place; hence we must not endeavour to combine the ideas of anti-Christ and pretender-Christ as Huther maintains (“the enemy of Christ, who, under the lying appearance of being the true Christ, endeavours to destroy the work of Christ”), although it must be conceded that the enemy of Christ appears at the same time with the pretension of being able to supply His place, of becoming His substitute, and that the pretender-Christ does occupy His place in hostility to Him. But the ἀντίχριστοι manifestly cannot be taken in this double sense. And still less allowable is it with Sander first to attach to the word in the Singular the sense of pseudo-Christ and mimic of Christ, and then immediately afterwards to make the Plural designate the enemies of Christ. We cannot get on purely philological considerations beyond the possibility of taking the word in one or the other of said senses.

3. We have to hold fast the fact that the word denotes persons. This is required of the Plural ἀντίχριστοι in 1 John 2:19 : ἐξ ἡμῶν ἐξῆλθαν, οὐκ ἦσαν ἐξ ἡμῶν, μεμενήκεισαν μεθ̓ ἡμῶν. But if the ἀντίχριστοι are persons, then ἀντίχριστος must also be a person, for this is required by ἔρχεται. Hence Bengel’s exposition is incorrect: “Sive id vocabulum phrasis apostolica, sive sermo fidelium introduxit, Johannes errores, qui oriri possent, prævisurus, non modo antichristum, sed etiam antichristos vult dici; et ubi antichristum vel spiritual antichristi vel deceptorem et antichristum dicit, sub singulari numero omnes mendaces et veritatis inimicos innuit. Quemadmodumque Christus interdum pro christianismo (where?), sic antichristus pro antichristianismo sive doctrina et multitudine hominum Christo contraria dicitur. Antichristum jam tum venire, ita assentitur Johannes, ut non unum, sed multos, id quod amplius quiddam et tristius esse censet, antichristos factos esse doceat. Sæpe totum genus eorum, qui bonam aliquam aut malem indolem habent, singulari numero cum articulo exprimitur (Matthew 12:35; Matthew 18:17; Matthew 18:29.). Igitur antichristus sive anti-christianismus ab extrema Johannis œtate(see above: the last hour=old age!) per omnem sæculorum tractum se propagavit et permanet, donec magnus ille adversarius exoritur. This view is adopted by Lange, Baumgarten-Crusius, Besser and others.

4. We have here before us a law of historical development, a fixed ordinance of the history of the kingdom. The point in question is the ἐσχάτη ὥρα and the marks by which it may be known; the reference is to ἀντίχριστος ἐρχεται and to ἀντίχριστοι γεγόνασιν, to that which has happened νῦν, to that which is still to be looked for and has been announced (ἠκούσατε):

And as ye have heard (through the announcement of the Apostles) that an antichrist cometh, even now have there come into existence many antichrists (καὶ νῦν–γεγόνασι).—It is by no means allowable to insert ita est before καθὼς ἠκούσατε (Bengel): nor must the Present ἔρχεται be put on a line with γεγόνασι, so that the antichrist now cometh and is present even as the others also have appeared; nor must ἔρχεται and γεγόνασι, made equal in point of time, be only so distinguished from each other that the former comes aliunde, while these have come ex nobis. Γεγόνασι, they are become, they have come into existence, denotes the antichrists as a historical product, on whom the surrounding powers operating in time have operated. Hence it is not equal to coeperunt esse (Erasmus) but to “they are become, they are existing.”—Ebrard incorrectly renders ἔρχεται=is future, although he correctly explains it by=will some day appear. The Future is implied in the idea of coming and the Present indicates the certainty of the event. [Huther: The Present ἔρχεται instead of the Future; it denotes the future as an event which is sure to occur.—M.]. Accordingly the ἀντίχριστοι exist before the ἀντίχριστος, who however is sure to follow them, and that which appears in the former, the προδρόμοις, only in an isolated, undeveloped and feeble form, is gathered together by the latter in his individual person, and developed in a powerful form. In the course of time malice will so surely become intensified and opposition to God and Christ will reach such a degree of development that the existence of many antichrists warrants the certain result of a future concentration and formation of this spirit in one person.

5. The ἀντίχριστοι come out of the Christian Church, they have themselves been Christians before (ἐξ ἡμῶν ἐξῆλθαν 1 John 2:19); the antichrist, in like manner, will of course come forth from the ranks of the Christians, he will also be a man. Hence ἀντίχριστος is not Satan himself (Pseudohippolytos, Theodoret); the idea of Satan becoming man is inexecutable, since the Eternal Word only, the Image of the Father, in which man has been created, can become man.

6. The antichrists deny that Jesus is the Christ (1 John 2:22; 1 John 4:3; 2 John 1:7);) that He did not come in the flesh, that He is not the Son of God, that He is not of God (1 John 4:14 sqq.; 1 John 5:5 sqq.; 1 John 5:20 sq.). The doctrine is the denial of the truth, the lie, they themselves are liars, and according to John 8:44, the children of the devil, of the father of the lie (1 John 3:3-10). The Greeks strikingly observe: ὁ ψεύστης, ἐναντίος ὥν τῇ , ἥτοι τῷ Χριστῷ, ἀντίχριστός ἐστιν (Theophylact) and ὁ ψεύστης τὸ τοῦ διαβόλου ὄνομα (Scholiast II.). The antichrist and the antichrists are to be taken “as expressly connected with Satan” (Düsterdieck), and the two words here denote not substitution, but hostility to Christ exhibited in the form of eminent strength; the antichrist is pre-eminently the instrument and tool of Satan. Hence we have to exclude the exposition of Irenæus, Hippolytus, Cyrillus and others, that the antichrist was tentans semet ipsum Christum ostendere, and mimicking Christ.

7. The comparison of this passage with 2 Thessalonians 2:1 sq. (Hofmann, Heilige Schrift I., p. 307 sqq.) requires this explanation. The name ἀντίχριστος used by John corresponds with the description given by Paul, ἀντικείμενος καὶ ὑπεραιρόμενος ἐπὶ πάντα λεγόμενον θεὸν ἥ σέβασμα, to denote his hostility with reference to his pretended ability to supply the place of God (ὥστε αὐτὸν εἰς τὸν ναὸν τοῦ θεοῦ καθίσαι, ἀποδεικνύντα ἑαυτὸν ὅτι ἐστὶν θεός). John contrasts the πνεῦμα τοῦ with the πνεῦμα τοῦ θεοῦ, while Paul calls him ὁ ἅνθρωπος τῆς , ὁ ἅνομος, ὁ υἱὸς τῆς ͅωλείας. His appearing also is preceded by an ἀποστασία, and he himself is the precursor of the παρουσία τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν, just as in John. But we must not overlook a difference belonging to this agreement. John speaks in a more general way, and uses less definite terms than Paul, who gives more distinct prominence to the person and approach of the dreaded and dreadful one; but he also refers to τὸ κατέχον and ὁ κατέχων as a power wielded by a living person, and specifies that for the benefit of the Church his progress will be arrested and his appearing delayed, thus pointing, like John, to a historical development.—Remembering all these particulars, we have, first of all, to reject those expositions which limit the application of the subject to a solitary historical fact or a single personage, and regard this statement of the Apostle in the light of a prophecy of a church-historical fact. Thus the Greek expositors, and many others (Augustine, Luther, Calvin, al.) after them apply it to heretics or heresiarchs, e.g., to Simon Magus, Cerinthus, Ebion, the Gnostics, to Basilides, Valentinus, and others, the Nicolaitanes (Revelation 2:6), to Diotrephes (3 John 1:9.), Hymeneus and Philetus (2 Timothy 2:17), and Grotius actually applies it to Barcochba, Calov to Mohammed, Luther (Art. Schm. tract. de pot. et prim. papæ, § 39; cf. Melanchthon, Apol. Art VII. VIII., § 23; XV. § 18) to the pope, and Roman Catholics to Luther. All this is purely arbitrary and unwarranted, and not only depreciates the word of prophecy, but actually deprives it of the prophetical element, as if it had ceased to be valid. Secondly, we have also to reject the modern exposition (both that of rationalistic commentators and that of Lücke, de Wette and Neander) which insists upon separating the idea, “that simultaneously with the development of Christianity, evil also would gradually increase in intensity, until having reached its culmination, it would be completely conquered by the power of Christ,” from the form as here indicated, and that the form, as the mere shell, might be dropped. On the contrary, both the idea and the form have to be held fast, for we have here the expression of a law ever recurring in historical manifestations which belongs to the development of the history of the Kingdom [of God] up to and until the end of the time of Messiah and the Church, and this expression is so clearly and distinctly asserted that John feels warranted to draw the emphatic conclusion: “whence we know that there is a last hour.” By the appearing of many antichrists we may know and infer thence (ὅθεν) as from a distinct premise, that there is an onward progress in the direction of Christ’s coming, which is preceded by the concentration of the antichristian element, thriving and luxuriating of course in different persons according to its different forms of manifestation. [On the different views of the antichrist see Lünemann on 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12; p. 204 sqq., and Düsterdieck ad locum; also Trench, Synonyms of the N. T., p. 145 sqq.—M.].

Relation of the Antichrists to the Church. First there is noted the fact that,

1 John 2:19. From us they went out.—The most natural and primary meaning of ἡμῶν is that it designates the Apostle and his readers, consequently the Church, which is addressed by παιδία, and to be understood in ἡκούσατε. The reference is neither to the Jews (Grotius, Rickli), nor to the Apostles only (Spener, Besser), nor only to the Church with exclusion of the children (Ebrard). Apart from the form ἐξῆλθαν, which in this very verb is by no means uncommon in the New Testament (Winer, pp. 86, 87), the sense is various: prodire, exire, egredi, secedere. Two ideas play into each other: origin and separation, coming out and going away. The nature of the ἀντίχριστοι who are engaged in the ἀποστασία, not μεμενήκεισαν μεθ’ ἡμῶν, requires us to translate secesserunt, evaserunt (Augustine, Bede, Erasmus, Lücke, Düsterdieck, Ebrard, Huther). Prodierunt (Vulgate, al.) misapprehends the origin of the antichrists, and denotes origin only. ἐξῆλθαν does not point to their development and origin, but only to their separation, their apostasy, which ἐξ ἡμῶν requires us to regard as their apostasy from the Church; γεγόνασιν, to be sure, shows that they are within that Church from which they have now separated. This is brought out “by the emphatic position of ἐξ ἡμῶν before the verb” (Huther), for ἐξ ἡμῶν in connection with the verb ἐξέρχεσθαι merely denotes the circle, the fellowship from which they have separated. “John does not indicate the extent to which that formal separation has been carried; still ἐξῆλθαν implies that they had not only opposed the Apostolical doctrine (Beza: “ad mutationem non loci, sed doctrinæ pertinet”), but also those who, by the faithful preservation of the unadulterated Gospel, had proved themselves to be children of God”(Huther).

But they were not of us.—Εἶναι ἐξ ἡμῶν indicates the internal relation. Here the idea of origin combines with that of appertaining and affinity. ’Αλλὰ (Winer, pp. 462, 472, ἄλλα) denotes the strong opposition of ἐξ ἡμῶν ἐξῆλθαν and ἐξ ἡμῶν ἦσαν. While the former simply betokens external origin and coming out from, the latter indicates internal relationship; they were the former, not the latter; the aforesaid fact expressly denies this internal relation. Both origin (coming from) and relationship (affinity, appertaining to) are contained in εἶναι ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς, ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου (1 John 2:16) and in ἐξελθεῖν ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ (John 8:42; John 16:28; while ἀπὸ θεοῦ, John 13:3, and παρ̇ὰ τοῦ θεοῦ, John 16:27, denote only the former.) [Augustine: Quandoquidem adhuc curatur corpus Domini nostri Jesu Christi, et sanitas perfecta non erit nisi in resurrectione mortuorum; sic sunt in corpore Christi, quomodo humores mali. Quando evomuntur, tunc revelatur corpus: sic et mali quando exeunt, tunc revelatur ecclesia. Et dicit quando eos evomit atque projicit corpus, ex me exierunt humores isti, sed non erant ex me. Quid est, non erant ex me ? Non de carne mea præcisi sunt, sed pectus mihi premebant dum inessent.”—M.]. But John here sharply contrasts the two and excludes the one by the other, adding moreover,

For if they had been of us, they would have abode with us.—Consequently, they had been μεθ̓ ἡμῶν, they had belonged to the Christians, they had lived among and with the Christians, they were Christians outwardly and to be considered, as such. Although they had been μεθ̓ ἡμῶνͅ, they were not ἐξ ἡμῶν, for in that case they would have abode μεθ̓ ἡμῶν. On the very frequent omission of the augment in the Pluperfect see Winer, p. 85. On the dogmatical and ethical import of this passage, see below in Doctrinal and Ethical, especially sub. Nos. 4. 5.

But—that they might be made manifest, that not all are of us.—Here is an imperfect and involved construction. After ἀλλὰ we have of course to supply the thought suggested by the previous words: but they did not abide with us, that—(Huther, Winer, Grammar p. 333. where may be found the corresponding illustrations John 13:18 : ἐξελεξάμην, ἀλλ̓ (ἐξελεξάμην ἵνα;—John 15:25 : μεμισήκασιν—,ἀλλ̓ (μεμισήκασιν ἵνα—). In general γέγονε τοῦτο would have to be supplied, which would however depend on the context for its meaning, as in John 1:8 : ἀλλ̓(ἦλθεν) ἵνα—; John 9:3 : ἁλλ̓ (but he was born blind) ἵνα—. But de Wette has very correctly pointed out that two sentences are here interlaced, and Huther has rightly arranged them thus: 1, ἵνα φανερωθῶσιν ὅτι οὐκ εἰσὶν ἐξ ἡμῶν, 2, ἵνα φανερωθῇ ὅτι οὐκ εἰσί πάντες ἐξ ἡμῶν. The secession of the antichrists has, taken place and constitutes an event that does not take place without some providential design, an event in which God the Lord takes an active part both as Ruler and Judge, hence ἵνα, to the end that, in order that. The Apostle’s design is to mark a purpose and not a consequence, as Lange and Paulus maintain without any reason for their view. The purpose is first, that they shall manifest themselves as those who do not sustain to us an inward and ethical relation of kinship and appertainment, and secondly, that it shall become manifest in general that not all those who are in the Church and outwardly belong to it (μεθ̓ ἡμῶν, in ecclesia) do also belong to it inwardly (ἐξ ἡμῶν, de ecclesia). We have to connect οὐ πάντες in the sense of nonnulli; for if we were to connect οὐκ εἰσὶν so that the negation would belong to the predicate, John would have written οὐκ εἰσὶν ἐξ ἡμῶν πάντες, and we should be obliged to explain. “All are not of us,” or “none is of us.” In this case there would be something predicated of the antichrists, they would be the subject in πάντες. But this is not allowable on account of the position of the words. The meaning is rather: “Not all are of us, only some, although the majority are of us.” But this cannot be predicated of the antichrists; for they are not all true, living church members, none of them belongs truly to the Church. But their seceding furnishes actual proof that not all Christians (baptizati, vocati) are and remain real Christians (electi, fideles). “While in φανερωθῶσιν the seceders only are considered as the subject, the conception is enlarged in the clause ὄτι—ἡμῶν, and the Apostle declares in respect of the former, that in general not all who belong outwardly to the Christian Church, are really members of the same (Düsterdieck). It is not allowable to understand ού πάντες with Socinus in the sense of nulli: the connection is right, the explanation is wrong. [Wordsworth: “They all pretend to be of us, and the heathen confound them with us. But their secession from us, and opposition to us, clearly prove that they are not all of us. Some false teachers [or false brethren M.] there are still who propagate heresies in the Church. They are tares in the field, but as long as they are in the field, it is not easy to distinguish them from the wheat. They are not of us, but they are not manifested as such by going put from us. But the going out of those who have left us, and who resist us, is a manifest token to all men, that they and their associates are not all of us, as they profess to be, and as the heathen suppose them to be; and as even some of the brethren in the Church imagine that they are, and are therefore deceived by them. By their going out they are manifested in their true light; and by their opposition to us Truth is distinguished from Error and Error from Truth.”—M.].

Testimony of the gifts of believers. 1 John 2:20-21.

1 John 2:20. And you have ointment from the Holy One and know all things.—The address ὑμεῖς has regard to the readers, to the Church, from which the antichrists have seceded. They are referred to a gift: ἔχετε. This gift is χρῖσμα, unguentum, not unctio as explained by Vulgate, Augustine, Luther, de Wette, Sander, al. It is chrism. “Alludit appellatio chrismatis ad antichristi nomen” (Bengel). [They hare the chrism from Christ.—M.]. Thus John came to use this word which besides this place occurs only in 1 John 2:27. In obedience to the command of God kings (1Sa 10:10; 1 Samuel 16:13-14; Psalms 45:8), priests (Exodus 29:7; Exodus 30:31) and. prophets (Isaiah 61:1) were anointed, and ointment is both figuratively, and in the ordered act itself, a symbol of the Holy Spirit. Thus Christ is anointed (Acts 4:27) and that with the Holy Spirit (Acts 10:38), and thus Christians also are anointed. The chrism or ointment will have to be understood as the Holy Spirit and ὑμεις ἔχετε χρῖσμα reminds the readers of the great gift which makes them priests, kings and prophets, the γένος ἐκλεκτόν, βασίλειον ἱεράτευμα, ἕθνος ἄγιον, 1 Peter 2:9; cf. Exodus 19:6; Isaiah 43:20-21. This gift of the Holy Spirit must not be made the “divinum beneficium cognoscendi ipsas res divinas, quatenus homini est opus” (Socinus), or the “auditio evangelii, institutio christiana” (Episcopius, Rosenmüller), or the “docendi auctoritas” (Sauler), or “the true tradition concerning Christ distinguished by its being primitive, originating with the Apostles and vitally propagated” (Köstlin, Lehrbegriff, p. 243), or the “caritas quæ diffunditur in cordibus nostris per spiritum sanctum” (Didymus). And this having is a gift ἀπὸ τοῦ , they have received what they have; hence 1 John 2:27 : τὸ χρῖσμα—ἐλάβετε. Christ is called ἀγνός 1 John 3:3 and δίκαιος 1 John 2:2; in John 6:69 He is called: ὁ ἅγιος τοῦ θεοῦ, Acts 3:14 : ὁ ἅγιος καὶ σίκαιος, Revelation 3:7 : ὁ ἅγιος ὁ . The primary reference therefore seems to be to Christ who received the Spirit without measure (John 3:34), and baptized with the Holy Ghost (John 1:33) and sends Him from the Father (John 15:26; Acts 2:33) and hence the idea is that the Χριστός makes the χριστούς.—̔Απὸ τοῦ ἁγίουconsequently denotes neither God the Father (Socinus, Episcopius, Rickli, Neander, Besser, al.) nor the Holy Ghost (Didymus, Grotius).—It must be remembered that nothing is said here of the time when they received this gift nor of the means by which it was conveyed to them, but we read simply: ἔχετε. Hence there is no warrant for finding here an allusion to baptism (Augustine, Bede, Oecumenius), and the inference of the ungenuineness of the Epistle from the supposition of an allusion to a usage connected with baptism introduced at a later period, is wholly unjustifiable (Baur). [The argument for an allusion to baptism, rests on the hypothesis that this whole section is addressed to παίδια, pueruli, children, who received the gifts of the Holy Spirit in their baptism; it is then by implication extended to adults, and the use of chrism in baptism, a practice which does not belong to the Apostolical Age, seems to have been occasioned by this passage. Bengel: “Eam unctionem spiritualem habent τὰπαιδία, pueruli: namque cum baptismo, quem susceperunt, conjunctum erat donum Spiritus Sancti, cujus significandi causa ex hoc loco deinceps usu receptum esse videtur, ut oleo corpora baptizatorum ungerentur.”—M.]. It is more allowable to connect with 1 John 2:24 cf. 1 John 2:18, and to refer to the preaching of the word of God (Düsterdieck). We read simply “ye have—! Thus John reminds his readers of an important and responsible gift from which they might derive comfort and enjoyment in opposition to the antichrists, but which they ought also to keep, use and show against these adversaries. Hence the thought is introduced by καἰ, as John is wont to do, without indicating an antithesis which is contained in the matter itself; his object being to develop his argument by way of comfort and exhortation. [It is doubtful whether there is even an adversative implication in the thought, for John surely did not want to inform his readers that because they had the χρῖσμα they were the opposite of the antichrists. I do not mean that ὑμεῖς is not antithetical, but doubt whether καὶ is intended to mark an emphatic antithesis; in which case the Apostle would most probably have used σὲ or dispensed with the particle altogether. So Huther.—M.]. There is no reason at all to discover here with Semler a “captatio benevolentiæ,” or with a Lapide an apology for the shortness of the Epistle; and still more objectionable is the view of Lange that “a certain anxious care is unmistakable which puts forth even rhetorical efforts;” nor is Calvin right in saying: “modeste excusat apostolus, quod eos tam sollicite admonet, ne putent oblique se perstringi, quasi rudes ignarosque eorum, quæ probe tenere debuerant.” The further particular

And know all things denotes the immediate gain they derive from this gift. Bengel rightly explains “et inde.” Πάντα is evidently neuter. The Syriac translates therefore falsely “omnes.” Although Calvin rightly says of πάντα: “omnia non universaliter capi, sed ad præsentis loci circumstantiam restringi debet,” we must not restrict it with Bengel to “ea, quæ vos scire opus est: hoc responso repellendi erant seductores.” Still less must it be applied with Estius to the Church, as knowing all things, whereas individual Christians know only implicite if they hold to the Church [He says: “Habetis episcopos et presbyteros, quorum cura ac studio vestræ ecclesiæ satis instructæ sunt in iis quæ pertinent ad doctrinæ christianæ veritatem.”—M.]. The reference, according to 1 John 2:21 and agreeably to John 16:13 : to τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ὰληθείας ὁσηγήσει ὑμᾶς ἐν τῇ cf. John 14:26) is rather to πᾶσαν τὴν (so Huther and most expositors). The sentence οἵδατε τὴν , 1 John 2:21 is wholly=οἴδατε τὰ πάντα.

1 John 2:21. I have not written unto you, because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it.—̔̓Εγραψα refers to the words immediately preceding 1 John 2:19 [that is to what the Apostle had just said concerning the antichrists—M.], and not to the Gospel, as Ebrard arbitrarily asserts. Not ignorance or want of knowledge on the part of the Church induced the Apostle to write this Epistle, on the contrary it was their knowledge and ability to form a right judgment of what was transpiring among them which prompted him to indite this Epistle, anxious as he was to foster and stimulate the truth possessed by his Church. Lorinus: “non ut vos hæc doceam, sed ut doctos confirmem.”—̓Αλήθεια is “the truth as announced by the Apostles, determining the whole walk in the light of believers (1 John 1:8; 1 John 2:4), begetting all love, giving life and founded on Christ (1 John 2:23 sqq.). Whatsoever falls within the compass of this truth is the object of Christian knowledge, all this is known by believers” (Düsterdieck).

And that every thing which is lie is not of the truth.—Καὶ ὄτι is not connected with ἔγραψα: and because—as if indicating the motive which prompted the Apostle to write this Epistle, but the sentence depended on the second οἵδατε and is an object-sentence coördinated with αὐτήν: ye know it (the truth)—and that—.Thus render almost all commentators. Hence springs the question (1 John 2:22) τίς ἐστιν ὁ ψεύστης; John assumes that they know who is the liar, as well as what and whence the lie is. Here εἶναι ἐκ τῆς denotes not only origin but also appurtenance conditioned and defined by the origin. Of course πᾶν—οὐκ must not be explained here as a Hebraism (Grotius and al.)= οὐδέν, since οὐκ evidently belongs to the predicate, but—every lie is not out of the truth, which, however, amounts to=no lie is out of the truth. The reference to the antichrists is plain and the sense manifest: every thing which is lie neither originates from the truth, nor can it remain with the truth; it is not matter of complaint or of surprise that the antichrists with their lies and denials are seceding. ψεύδος consequently is not only error, but the distinct opposite of the truth, nor is it the abstract put for the concrete, viz.: the false teachers (Lange). Our Lord Himself tells us whence the lie originates, it is from the devil (John 8:44). The truth is from God and full of God, and therefore incompatible with any and every lie. [Diversity of origin renders the truth and the lie incompatibles. Christ is the truth (John 14:6). Lorinus: “Lex vero non nisi verum sequitur et verum vero consonat.”—M.]. All knowledge and ability to form a right judgment of moral phenomena are founded on the χρῖσμα, the Holy Spirit, consequently on a gift, even the gift which begins with sanctifying the will and renewing the heart. Sanctification leads to illumination. This points to the powerful exhortation which accompanies the consolation.

The substance of the antichristian lie. 1 John 2:22-23.

Ver 22. Who is the liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ?—The interrogative form marks the vivacity with which John passes from the general abstract (πᾶν ψεῦδος) to the definite concrete (ὁ ψεύστης) as in 1 John 5:4-5. [Huther.] There is here surely no reference to children (Ebrard). Hence Bengel rightly explains: ὁ vim habet ad abstractum 1 John 2:21=quis est plains: ὁ vim habet ad abstractum 21=quis est illius mendacii reus?” The Article is by all means to be retained (Luther translates wrongly: who is a liar? [also E. V.—M.]) and to be explained as bringing out with emphatic distinctness the idea “the liar κατ̓ ἐξοχήν i.e. he in whom the lie appears in concrete form= ὁ ” (Huther). It must not, however, be restricted to one individual besides whom there is none like him, but rather be taken generically or collectively with reference to the genus of antichristians, like ὁ νικῶν in 1 John 5:5 (Düsterdieck); πᾶν ψεῦδος of course concentrates in him, if we exclude lies in other spheres, e.g. those of the natural sciences, history or jurisprudence; here we have to do with the sphere of religion, with church-life. All comparative explanations dilute the conception of the Apostle; under this head we may enumerate those of Calvin (“nisi hoc censeatur mendacium, aliud nullum haberi posse), Socinus (“mendacium quo nihil possit esse majus”), Grotius (“Quis potest esse major impostor?”), Episcopius (“enormitas mendacii”), J. Lange (“mendax præcipuus et periculosior?”), de Wette (“who deserves more the name of liar?”).—Huther very justly says that Baumgarten-Crusius has altogether missed the Apostle’s meaning in his explanation: “What is an erroneous doctrine, if not etc.”—In the sentence εἰ μὴ ὁ , the term εἰ μὴ is=nisi, except; εἰ οὐ, si non would be inapplicable (Winer, p. 499) cf. 1 John 5:5; Luke 17:18; Romans 11:15, etc. The negative οὐκ in the sentence: ὅτι ̔Ιησοῦς οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ Χριστὸς might have been omitted, since it is preceded by ἀρνούμενος; but the affirmation of the liar is fully indicated, although it is couched in the form of a negation; this is in perfect agreement with the genius of the Greek language. Similar terms are found Luke 20:27; Galatians 5:17; Hebrews 12:19; cf. Kühner, II. p. 410; Winer, p. 532 β. The essential feature and the height of the lie of the antichrist is this: Jesus is not the Christ, the Saviour promised by and come from the Father, the λόγος σὰρξ γενόμενος; this is the gnostic error which does not distinguish Jesus from Christ, but tears them asunder and thus constitutes the strongest antithesis to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The reference therefore is neither to the form of Jewish unbelief that Jesus is not omnium hominum patronus (Semler) nor to the two forms of heresy one of which denies that Jesus was the Eternal Word, and the other that the Eternal Word became flesh (Besser following Tertullian), [who says: de Præscript, c. 1John 33: Joh. in ep. eos maxime antichristos vocat, qui Christum negarent in carne venisse et qui non putarent Jesum esse Filium Dei; illud Marcion, hoc Ebion vindicavit.”—Wordsworth, following Irenæus and Waterland, refers also to Cerinthus and his followers, who denied that Jesus was the Christ, dividing Jesus from Christ; and they denied the Son, because they did not acknowledge that Jesus was personally united with the Word, the Eternal Son of God; nor that the Word was the only begotten of the Father; and so they disowned the divine Sonship of Jesus and Christ; and thus they denied the Father and the Son.”—M.]. The reference is only to one lie.

This is the antichrist who denieth the Father and the Son.—̔Ο here and ὁ ψεύστης in the preceding clause, are evidently identical, and for the very reason that the liar denies Christ [or as Huther puts it: the liar, who denies the identity of Jesus and Christ, is the antichrist.—M.]. John adds “a new particular, exhibiting the wholly fatal consequence of that antichristian lie,” (Düsterdieck) to this name in the following clause: ὁ ; here, to use the terse language of Luther, John knocks the bottom out of the barrel.—The antichrist denies also the Father. First he denies Christ and then proceeds to deny that He is the Son of and with the Father until he reaches the extreme position of denying the Father Himself. The Χρίστος belongs to history, to the economy of salvation. The idea υἱός reaches further, even down to the innermost Being of God; the denial of the Son violates the very Being of God, consequently the Father and thus far must it come with one who denies Christ. In Jesus appeared as Christ, as the Saviour of the world, the Son of the Father full of grace and truth, the Eternal Word which is from the beginning, and in the Son is manifested the Being of the Father, His Spirit and His Love, so that the knowledge of the Father is impossible without the knowledge of the Son. Hence he who denies Christ is led to the point that he has an ideal conception of God of his own making, an εἵδωλον, as Huther puts it, but not the true God, [Huther, to whom Braune is indebted for the thought, puts the logical sequence more lucidly than the latter; he says: He who denies the identity of Jesus and Christ, denies first the Son, for the Son is none other than ̔Ιησοῦς ό Χριστός (neither an Aeon called Christ who did not become man, nor Jesus who is not Christ, or according to John 1:14, who is not the Logos); but whoso denies the Son, denies also the Father not only in as far as Father and Son are logically convertible terms, but because the Being of the Father manifests Itself only in the Son and because all true knowledge of the Father is conditioned by the knowledge of the Son, so that the God of those who deny the Son is not the true God, but a false creation of their own thoughts—an εἵδωλον.—M.].

1 John 2:23. Every one that denieth the Son, hath also not the Father [neither hath he the Father].—Here is the progression from denying (ἀρνεῖσθαι) to having (ἔχειν), and from the particular (ὁ ψεύστης) to the general (πᾶς).—’Αρνούμενος evidently cannot be without an object, so that we have to connect πᾶς ὁ ,ενος τὸν υἱὸν, but not: every one that denieth hath not the Son also (hath not) the Father; neither ὁ nor the immediately succeeding ὁ ὁμολογῶν can be independent subjects, and πατέρα joined to υἱὸν cannot be governed by ἔχειν as in 2 John 1:9.—Ἁρνεῖσθαι τὸν υἱὸν signifies to disown the Eternal Word of the Father, the Logos (not only in Jesus who without the Logos is not and cannot be the Christ, but absolutely), and as such disowning implies not only mere ignorance or a limited understanding, but also infirmity and impurity of the heart and the will, it points to a separation of man from the Son of God, so that it becomes an οὺκ ἔχειν, and contains and operates an οὐκ ἔχειν 2 John 1:9. It is therefore “habere in agnitione et communione (Bengel), a possession in vital fellowship (Düsterdieck); “habere in mente et fide, in ore et confessione” (a Lapide), “in faith and in love” (de Wette), “in knowledge, faith and confession” (Lücke). False are the expositions of Socinus (“non habere opinionem, quod Deus sit”), Grotius (“non cognoscere Deum seu quæ sit ejus voluntas erga humanum genus”), Episcopius and others.—Οὐδὲ emphatically denotes the further loss that one cannot separate oneself from the Son without giving up the Father. The Apostle now concludes affirmatively:

He that confesseth the Son hath the Father also.—On ὁμολογεῖν see above on 1 John 2:9. It is an act of the inner life and of a more intimate fellowship. Cf. Matthew 10:32; Romans 10:10. [Düsterdieck: “In the denial of the Son is involved necessarily the denial of the Father, since the Father cannot be known without the Son, and the Father cannot be received, believed on, loved, by any man, without the Son, or otherwise than through the Son, i.e. the Son manifested in the flesh, the Christ, which is Jesus. So that in John’s development of the argument there are three essentially connected points: denial of the Christ, of the Son, of the Father. The middle link of the chain, the denial of the Son of God, shows how the denial of the Father is of necessity involved in the denial of Christ. And the cogency of this proof is made yet more stringent by another equally unavoidable process of argument. The antichristian false doctrine consists mainly in a negation, in the denial of the fundamental truth, that Jesus is the Christ. But in this is involved the denial of the Essence of the Son as well as of the Father, and again in this denial is involved the losing, the virtual not having of the Son and of the Father. In the sense of John, we may say, taking the first and last steps of his argument and leaving out the intervening ones: He who denieth that Jesus is the Christ, hath not the Father. And this necessary connection between denying and not having is perfectly clear, the moment we understand the ethical character, the living realism of John’s way of regarding the subject. As (1 John 2:23) we cannot separate the knowledge and confession of the Christ, the Son, the Father, from the having, the real possession of, the practical fellowship with, the actual remaining in the Son and the Father, so conversely, together with the denial is necessarily given the not having: together with the loss of the truth of the knowledge, the loss of the life which consists in that knowledge (John 17:3). In such a connection, the confession of the truth is as essential on the one side, as the denial on the other. Each is the necessary manifestation of the belief or unbelief hidden in the heart. And this ὁμολογεῖν is not to be understood of the “confessio cordis, vocis et operis,” (Bede), but only as 1 John 1:9, of the confession of the mouth (στόματι ὁμολογεῖται, Romans 10:9, see John 12:42). It is parallel with φέρεινδιδαχήν 2 John 1:7; 2 John 1:10; and indicates the definite utterance of the doctrine which was made known by the Apostolic preaching, 1 John 2:24.”—M.].

Paternal exhortation founded on promises, 1 John 2:24-25.

1 John 2:24. Ye, let that which ye have heard from the beginning, abide in you.—The sentence is anacoluthic. It is well explained by Theophylact: ἐκεῖνοι μὲν οὖν οὕτως ὑμεῖς δὲ ἃπερ ἠκούσατε ̓ ἁρχῆς—φυλάττετε παρ ἑαυτοῖς.—ὑμεῖς therefore must not be connected with ἠκούσατε, as if it were a mere transposition; there would be no reason whatsoever for such a connection and no reason or necessity for such an emphasis. So in 1 John 2:27, and frequently. See Winer §. §. 28, 3; 64, 2. d. Kühner II, 156. Hence the explanations of Bengel (“antitheton, est in pronomine; ideo adhibetur trajectio”), de Wette (“ὑμεῖς is really the subject of the relative sentence, placed before”), and others are erroneous. Neither can ὑμεῖς be the pure Vocative (Ebrard, Paulus), nor be taken as an absolute Nominative (Myrberg).—The spurious οὐν after ὑμεῖς is not improper per se (Düsterdieck in opposition to de Wette with whom Huther agrees), for it is not an antithesis of what goes before, which is also assumed by Theophylact, because the preceding sentence closes affirmatively thus: ὁ ὁμολογῶν τὸν υἱὸν, καὶ τὸν πατέρα ἕχει; and this is the ground of the present exhortation.—On ὅ ἡκούσατε cf. 1 John 2:7. John points to the apostolical announcement. ’Απ’ ἀρχῆς is more clearly defined by it (ex quo institui cœpistis in primis christianæ religionis rudimentis, Beza, so also Lücke and others). There is no necessity to think of the prima ecclesiæ nascentis tempora (Bede). The substance of ὅ, not ἅ, seems to be simple. But it is not enough to understand in general evangelium, Christi (Calvin), or the truth that Jesus is the Christ (Huther, Lücke), or θεολογούμενον τὸν χριστὸν (Theophylact), but we had better understand with Bengel (de patre et filio) the theologoumenon of the Father and the Son besides that fundamental truth (Düsterdieck), as indicated in the preceding verses.—̓Εν ὑμῖν μενέτω describes ἕχειν as a possession that has to be kept., The preposition must preserve its proper meaning; that which has been heard must “be in dwelling within as something that determines the life” (Neander). This meaning is also urged by the parallel passage John 15:1-10, where μένειν appears as a favourite expression of our Lord. In the sentence immediately following it is indeed impossible to render ἐν, with. The same holds good here. Hence Theophylact’s παρὰ, and Luther’s with are false. The truth and doctrine as announced by the Apostles “is really to dwell in them, as a living power in their hearts” (Düsterdieck), and if that takes place, ἐὰν ἐν ὑμῖν μείνῃ ὅ ̓ ἀρχῆς ἡκούσατε,

If in you—emphatically placed first—abides that which ye have heard from the beginning, ye also shall abide in the Son and in the Father.—Bengel well observes: καὶ: vicissim. Düsterdieck hits the mark: “John denotes by the position of καὶ before ὑμεῖς the promised consequence which will correspond with the indicated destination while at the same time he makes prominent the fine turn contained in the thoughtful change of ἐν ὑμῖν μείνῃ and ὑμεῖς ἐν τῷ υὶῷ μενεῖτε.” The reciprocal effect of the Word abiding in you and of the Church abiding in Christ does not refer to the origin of the relation of the Church and of her conduct, but only to the further development of the same. But the expression and its order intimate that the word must first be brought, preached and explained, and then be heard, received and kept, and that it must have found in individual Christians an element in which it is vitally efficient, even as it is full of life, in order to enable them to have (ἔχειν) and to live in Christ as their element. ἐντῷ υίῷ stands naturally before καὶ τῷ πατρὶ because the Son is the Mediator of this life-fellowship. Hence Theophylact’s exposition, based on John 17:2; John 17:21 : κοινωνοὶ αὐτοῦ ἔσεσθε, goes hardly far enough. The life of believers must really and essentially be rooted in God, derive nourishment, grow and mature to completeness from Him. Faith has not only brought news and intelligence and become acquainted with God, but has entered into personal intercourse with Him and carries away from Him the separate gifts, benefits and powers. The possession of this life is not left to the distant future, although the life is an eternal life, but the object of Christian hope in respect of its perfection and at the same time something present and the object of present experience; to speak with Calvin: deum se totum nobis in Christo fruendum dedit, not dabit (Düsterdieck). Besides the principal passage John 15:1 sqq. the following places are very similar John 6:56; John 17:23; Galatians 2:20; 1 Corinthians 3:16; Ephesians 3:17. Hence the evaporating and diluting views of Grotius (“conjunctissimi Patri et filio eritis, summo eorum favore et amicitia fruemini”) Semler (“sitis certi, nobis patere omnem hanc felicitatem unice veram”) and others, as well as the scholastic, orthodox views of Schmid (“gratiosa filii et Patris inhabitatio”) and J. Lange (“unio cum deo mystica, communio cum eo jam inchoata, communicatio, per quam omnes regni divini dotes homini in usum sanctum et beatum contingunt”), are insignificant to bring out the mind and the thoughts of John in their living fulness.

1 John 2:25. And this is the promise which He hath promised us, the life eternal.—Αὕτη ἐστίν should be explained here as in 1 John 2:23; 1 John 5:11; 1 John 5:14 where the same words occur in the same position or as in 1 John 1:5 : καὶ ἔστιν αὕτη; the reference is to the words which follow—τὴνζωὴν τὴν αἰώνιον. The substance or object of ἐπαγγελία is qualified here by a Substantive, while the substance or object of ἀγγελία or ἐντολή or μαρτυρία or παῥῥησία in the other passages is indicated by a clause connected with ὅτι or ἵνα according to the context. Instead of the Accusative (ζωὴν), the Nominative (ζωὴ) ought to have been in apposition with ἐπαγγελία, but it was both attracted as apposition to the relative clause ἥν αὐτὸς ἐπηγγείλατο ἡμῖν annexed in the same case as ἥν. See Winer, p. 552 sq. Therefore manere in filio et patre is not the ἐπαγγελία and ἡ ζωὴ ἡ αἰώνιος not a pure apposition, so that the abiding itself is described as eternal life (Sander, Besser), but “the life eternal is the promise” (so Huther and most commentators). The ἐπαγγελία is promissio, consequently not res promissa (J. Lange, Estius), as if it were true contrary to the genius and usage of Greek to add ἥν—ἐπηγγείλατο. Αὐτὸς designates Him “who is the centre of this whole section” [Huther), that is Christ, and neither the Father (Hunnius), nor the Father through the Son (Socinus). But ἡ ζωὴ ἡ αἰώνιος, as the substance and object of the ἐπαγγελία of the Son, is not viewed as a gift remote from and subsequent to this promise, but as present and experienced, acquired and enjoyed wherever the pre-requisite of the promise is complied with, namely the abiding of the word in you. Where the promise applies, it is forthwith fulfilling itself. Therefore it is not said that we should acquire the life eternal, but that at which this promise is aimed is simply mentioned and connected by attraction with ἐπηγγείλατο.—Καὶ accordingly has here its ordinary force as copula, connecting this sentence with the one preceding, adding and explaining something implied, but not yet particularly mentioned in the preceding sentence; the reference is to something directly connected with abiding in God; καὶ therefore must not be taken αὶτιολογικῶς (Oecumenius) or as designating the further consequence of holding fast the Gospel (Lücke). Düsterdieck strikingly observes: “The present reality of eternal life in believers is no more annulled by the fact that it is not yet perfected in them than that inversely continued growth, a holy and fruitful development, and the final glorious perfection are excluded by its real possession.”

Conclusion, with repeated warnings and exhortations 1 John 2:26-28.

1 John 2:26. These things I have written unto you concerning those who deceive you.—Here ταῦτα connected with ἔγραψα refers back to the preceding verses, and the object περὶ τῶν πλανώντων ὑμᾶς points back as far as 1 John 2:18. The πλανῶντες ὑμᾶς are the antichrists, and denotes that they are dangerous per se, really and not only unsuccessfully dangerous, as is evident from 1 John 2:19. [It is doubtful whether the reference to 1 John 2:19 warrants the inference of their actual success in the case of those whom the Apostle is addressing. The deceivers themselves had seceded; that is all we can gather from 1 John 2:19, and that they were anxious to deceive others we learn from this verse, but nothing is said of their having been successful in their endeavour—M.]. This is also intimated by the Accusative ὑμᾶς and 2 John 1:8; Matthew 24:5; Matthew 24:11; Matthew 24:24. [This is certainly a singular conclusion, for ὑμᾶς indicates that they, the readers of the Epistle, the Church, are the object of the deceiver’s endeavours.—M.]. The word itself denotes an act, a continuing activity, and therefore more than a “studium, conatus,” “seducere conantibus” (Bengel, Huther). [See Apparat. Critic. 1 John 2:26, note 27.—M.]. Hence the reiterated exhortation to fidelity.

1 John 2:27. And you—the ointment which ye received from Him, abideth in you, and ye have no need that any one teach you.—Thought, expression and construction, as in 1 John 2:20-21 : καὶ ὑμεῖς τὸ χρῖσμα—φυλάττετε μένει ἐν ὑμῖν. From ὑμᾶς, 1 John 2:26, the Apostle takes καὶ ὑμεῖς, and contrasting them with οἱ πλανῶντες, places said words emphatically in anteposition, for they would be too strongly emphasized if we were to connect them with the relative clause. cf. 1 John 2:24. Tò χρῖσμα here, as χρῖσμα, 1 John 2:20, is in the Accusative, but must not be connected with the relative clause, per trajectionem. The Article denotes what is known and what has already been mentioned. Ἐλάβετε distinctly marks their reception and points to a greater obligation than the previous reference to possession (ἔχετε, 1 John 2:20). The gift is not without its task and work, here, under the impulse of gratitude. Ἀπ̓ αὐτοῦ of course designates Him round whom the Apostle’s thoughts revolve as round their centre, the same who is deseribed in ἀπὸ τοῦ ἁγίου, Christ, 1 John 2:25. This verse proves that τοῦ ἁγίου, 1 John 2:20, relates to Christ. (Huther). While the Future was used in 1 John 2:24 (μενεῖτε), we have here the Present (μένει) in order to express the Apostle’s certain assurance (Huther) and to exhort at the same time to that which he does expect. Bengel (“Habet hic indicativus perquam subtilem adhortationem (conferendam ad 2 Timothy 3:14) qua fideles, a deceptatoribus sollicitatos, ita iis respondere facit: unctio in nobis manet: non egemus doctore: illa nos verum docet: in ea doctrina permanebimus. Vide quam amœna sit transitio ab hac sermocinatione ad sermonem directum versu sequenti“Manet in vobis: manebitis in Illo” correlata).—Καὶ, and because the Holy Spirit is and abideth in you (Bengel: et ideo), οὐ χρείαν ἔχετε, ye have no need whatever; thus is brought out here the αὐτάρκεια θεοδιδάκτων, and we have here a new particular, which was not expressed in 1 John 2:20. The construction with ἵνα occurs also John 2:25; John 16:30.—Τοῦ διδάσκειν, Hebrews 5:12. The Infinitive only, Matthew 3:14; Matthew 14:6; 1 Thessalonians 1:8; 1 Thessalonians 4:9. This teaching is taken here not as a simple consequence, but as the end and aim because of the condition of the persons to be taught. Love prompts thereto, for love deems it its duty and cherishes the intention to teach. Hence the meaning is: “You are not at all in the situation that somebody should or ought to teach you” (Düsterdieck after Lücke and against Huther, who takes ἵνα in a weakened sense and thinks that it is simply used to indicate the object). Hence we may think also of Apostolical instruction, fraternal encouragement and (with reference to τις 1 John 2:21) friendly teaching, perhaps that of the Apostle himself (Bengel, de Wette, Lücke, Düsterdieck). There is no occasion here to think of πλανῶν; so Semler, Spener, (τὶς=who asserts a new revelation), Sander, Gerlach, Besser. But with reference to πάντα 1 John 2:20 and περὶ πάντων we must not restrict ἵνα διδάσκῃ ὑμᾶς to instruction concerning the false teachers (as Lücke does), although that is included (Huther).—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 any thing new, but only imparts to believers clearer perceptions and views of that which they already have.

But as the ointment of Him teacheth you concerning all things, and is true and is not lie, and as it hath taught you, so abide in Him.—As we read τὸ αὐτοῦ χρῖσμα and not τὸ αὐτὸ χρῖσμα, it is only necessary to observe that Bengel (“idem semper, non aliud atque aliud, sed sibi constans, et idem apud sanctos omnes) finds here the unchangeableness, and Düsterdieck and others the identity of the chrism, which unceasingly teaches believers and which they have received from Him, the Christ; our reading brings out this identity and also reiterates its origin: [See Appar. Crit. 1 John 2:27, note 29, where the other reading is advocated, according to which we render “the same ointment,” i.e., the identical χρῖσμα, ὃ ἐλάβετε.—M.].—The structure of this sentence presents peculiar difficulties. Ἀλλὰ introduces the antithesis μένετε ἐν αὐτῷ. While, on the one hand, the Apostle had assured them that they have no need of being taught by any one, because they have the Spirit reminding them of the words of the Lord and leading them into all truth, he now declares, on the other, and by way of antithesis, that they have need of abiding faithful with Him. Hence the words in parenthesis belong to the first ὡς, although the vivacity [of the Apostle’s diction] which never repeats without indicating some new feature, has occasioned various modifications. The exhortation: μένετε ἐν requires fidelity toward and steadfastness with Christ, as is unmistakable from the context and 1 John 2:28. Erasmus explaining ἐν τῷ χρίσματι erroneously thinks of the Holy Spirit, and Baumgarten-Crusius of the doctrine of the Spirit, while Schottgen strikingly observes: “in Christo, quem Johannes semper in mente habet.” The motive for abiding with Christ is: τὸ αὐτοῦ χρῖσμα διδάσκει περὶ πάντων. Hence the context also recommends the well authenticated αὐτοῦ [the authorities on Braune’s own showing are all the other way; they stand thus: αὐτοῦ C. Sin (?) against αὐτὸ A. B. (?) G. K.—M.]; it is the ointment of the Holy Ghost from Him [αὐτοῦ], Christ, with [ἐν?] whom they are to remain; and this ointment teaches them concerning all things, as we read 1 John 2:20 : οἴδατε πάντα. But not only the extent of that concerning which they are taught of the Holy Spirit is the motive for his exhortation that they should abide with Him. The chief motive is the characteristic: καὶ άληθές ἐστιν. The χρῖσμα is called absolutely ἀληθὲς, implying of course that that also which it teaches, is true; the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of truth (John 14:17), therefore He leadeth you also into all truth (John 16:13). So Düsterdieck; also Lücke, de Wette, Brückner, Ebrard. There is no ground for restricting the reference to that which the χρῖσμα teaches, as do Oecumenius, Theophylact, Luther, Neander, Besser, Huther. The importance of the true essence and substance of the χρῖσμα occasions the additional clause which denies all lie: καὶ οὐκ ἐστὶν ψεῦδος, and lie is not, is not extant. John evidently here recurred to the thought expressed in 1 John 2:21 : πᾶν ψεῦδος ἐκ τῆς , and that there is no lie where the Spirit teaches. Now the Apostle resumes with the fuller form καθὼς that which he had begun with ἀλλ’ ὡς, and moreover, by way of reminding them that the Holy Spirit had taught them for some time: καθὼς ἐδίδαξεν ὑμᾶς. This Aorist after the preceding Present ought not to occasion any difficulty; and the καὶ before καθὼς instead of the ἀλλὰ before ὡς is readily accounted for by the one immediately preceding it; the sentence, thus resumed, connects with the testimony of the truth of the Spirit and His teaching; agreeably to which He has taught and teaches believers. Hence we should not divide the second clause of this verse. into two parts (with Luther, Calvin, Baumgarten-Crusius, Sander, Brückner, Besser, Huther, and others), so that ἀλλ’ ὡς τὸ αὐτοῦ χρῖσμα διδάσκει ὑμᾶς is the first antecedent, and καὶ its consequent, and again καὶ καθὼς ἐδίδαξεν ὑμᾶς is the second antecedent, and μένετε ἐν αὐτῷ its consequent. The explanation given by us is supported by Oecumenius, Theophylact, Lücke, de Wette, Neander, Düsterdieck, Ewald and others. [This applies only to the structure of the sentence, not to the exposition of the passage. As to the former we cannot but think that the one adopted by Huther and the many authorities who agree with him, is preferable to that of Braune, and on the following grounds: 1st, it assigns to περὶ πάντων its proper position, whereas in the former view is no relation whatsoever to μενεῖτε μένετε) of the consequent; 2d, ἀλλὰ indicates that the Apostle is about to introduce an antithesis to οὐ χρείαν ἔχετε, a sentence in which the teaching of the χρῖσμα is to be described as exempting them from the necessity of another human teacher, and 3d, because the clause καὶ οὐκ ἔστι ψεῦδος added to ἀληθές ἐστι raises this thought above the character of a mere parenthetical and secondary observation, and stamps it as the leading thought. These are the grounds on which Luther, Calvin, Baumgarten-Crusius, Sander, Brückner, Besser, Huther, and many more, deem it preferable to divide the whole into two clauses, and to take καὶ as the consequent of the first clause. “But as the anointing teaches you all things, so it is true and is no lie,” etc. (Luther).—M.].

The conclusion of the whole section, 1 John 2:28.

1 John 2:28. And now, little children, abide with [in, ἐν] him.

Καὶ νῦν connects the exhortation, repeated on account of its great importance and already expressed as a hope and in confidence 1 John 2:27, with the preceding verses. Καὶ νῦν occurs very often (John 17:5; Acts 3:17; Acts 4:29; Acts 7:34; Acts 10:5; Acts 22:16; 2 Thessalonians 2:6), or καὶ νῦν ἰδοὺ (Acts 13:11; Acts 20:22; Acts 20:25), or νῦν οὖν (Acts 16:36; Acts 23:15), on the other hand ἀλλὰ νῦν (Luke 22:36), νῦν δὲ (John 8:40; John 9:41; John 15:22; John 15:24; John 18:36), but always so that out of the originally sentient description of the present there has sprung a certain logical significance in order to mark the consequences from a present situation, to draw an inference or conclusion, to annex the features involved in a given case or to denote an antithetical relation (Düsterdieck). Hence Paulus errs in rendering: “Even already now—as in opposition to the Parthian-magian doctrine, that union with God cannot take place except in the future kingdom of light.”—The seasonable address τεκνία frees the Apostle’s earnestness from all severity, and intensifies his exhortation as a paternal right, by reminding them of the fellowship of love as the consequence of his Apostolical discharge of duty. Repetitio est præcepti cum blanda appellatione, qua paternum erga eos amorem declaret” (Estius). It is inconceivable how Socinus applies the ἐν αὐτῷ not to Christ, but to Deus per Christum, and how Semler could hit upon this doctrine. Rickli, who explains 1 John 2:27 of abiding in the confession that Jesus is the Christ, suggests here abiding in righteousness.—Now follows a reference to the judgment.

That if He shall be manifested we may have confidence and not be shamed away from Him at His coming.—Since ἐὰν and not ὅταν is the true reading, we have here not an intimation of the time, or the nearness of the time, but of the reality of the manifestation of Christ (Huther, Düsterdieck). Although the same word is applied to our Lord’s appearing in flesh, in the form of a servant (1 John 3:5; 1 John 3:8. ἐφανερώθη), still it may be applied with equal propriety to the future manifestation of His glory as in Colossians 3:4. That will be manifested which as yet is hidden. The Apostle now passes to the first person Plural: παῤῥησίαν σχῶμεν. He ever places himself under the laws (1 John 1:6 sqq.; 1 John 2:2 sq.; 1 John 3:16; 1 John 3:18 sqq.) and promises (1 John 3:1 sqq.; 1 John 3:21; 1 John 4:17; 1 John 5:11; 1 John 5:20), applicable to all without being able to exclude himself from the hope here presented (de Wette, Düsterdieck). Hence it is not from modesty (S. Schmid), nor because he would suffer loss if any members of his Church were falling away (Sander). Παῤῥησία is literally frankness, free-spokenness (Acts 4:13; Acts 4:29; Acts 4:31; Acts 26:26; Acts 28:31; 1 Thessalonians 2:2) then confident assurance with respect to all the threats and terrors of the judgment. The Vulgate translates fiducia, Luther properly freudig (vreidic i.e. free), Freudigkeit (vreidicheit i.e. freeness), which sheer ignorance has turned into joyful (freudig) and joyfulness (Freudigkeit). Compare Vilmar pastoral-theolog. Blätter 1861, Nos. 1. 2; Jütting, Biblisches Wörterbuch (1864) s. v.—A Strasburg edition of 1537, indeed, has already Freudigkeit, but the original word is Freydigkeit (Nürnberg ed. 1524), Freydigkeyt (Wittenberg ed. 1525), Freidigkeit (1530), and in a sermon on John 4:16-21 he speaks of boldness (Trotz) in the last day. The Greek Scholiasts and Lexicographers explain the word by ἄδεια, ἐξουσία, ἡ ἐπὶ τοῖς κακίστοις εὔτολμος . The ordinary antithesis is αἰσχύνεσθαι (Proverbs 13:5; Philippians 1:20) to be ashamed, to shame oneself or feel ashamed, so as to depart from Him the Judge. The preposition ἀπὸ therefore is not=ὑπὸ (Socinus), nor=coram (Luther, Ewald), nor both together (S. Schmid, Sander), but=away from (Calvin, Beza, de Wette, Düsterdieck, Huther); but it is necessary to retain the Passive and not the Middle, because we do not retire and withdraw ourselves, but are rejected and driven away. Cf. Matthew 25:41. It is impossible to agree with Erasmus, who says: “ut illum non pudeat nostri.”—Παρουσία occurs only here in John’s writings, but often elsewhere (Matthew 24:8; Matthew 24:27; Matthew 24:37; Matthew 24:39; 1 Corinthians 15:23; 1 Thessalonians 2:19 etc.), corresponds with φανερωθῇ, and as φανερωθῇ answers to παῤῥησίαν ἔχειν so παρουσία answers to αἰσχύνεσθαι. All this, connected with ἵνα, constitutes a motive for abiding with Him, walking in the light, in fellowship with Him.

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. The unmistakable reference here to the immanent Trinity is theological in the strictest sense of the word. According to the final clause of 1 John 2:22 and 1 John 2:23 we have here a reference to a paternal relation with respect to the Son, and to a filial relation with respect to the Father existing above and before the world within the Godhead. The Son is not only a power or principle before He became personal in the Christ, but He is personal in virtue of his Being, the Son of the Father who is a Person, the Son who as the Image of the Father is also a Person. But He became a historical Person, a Person belonging to the history of man in the Christ who did appear in Jesus. See Exegetical and Critical.

2. The knowledge of God without the knowledge of Christ is impossible, because the knowledge of God is impossible without fellowship with God, which is solely the result of confession of Jesus the Christ.

3. Fellowship with God is not the act of men but the act of God through Christ. It begins in the word which is preached and heard, continues in the communication and reception of the Chrisma, the Holy Spirit, and it consists in the truth and in the constancy of faith and confession. The Word of Christ and the Spirit given of Him must first come to us and do His work and in us and then we shall be able to abide with Him in virtue of His power.4. The question here is as to what constitutes the difference between esse in ecclesia and esse de ecclesia. As surely as these two conditions must be distinguished from each other, so certain it is that in point of fact they do coëxist alongside each other. So Confess. Aug. Art. 8.: “Quid sit ecclesia?—in hac vita multi hypocritæ et mali admixti—; Apol. IV. de ecclesia §. 1John 11: malos nomine tantum in ecclesia esse, non re, bonos vero re et nomine: Hieronymus enim ait: qui ergo peccator est aliqua sorde maculatus, de ecclesia Christi non potest appellari nee Christo subjectus dici.”—“Like tares they stood in the same field alongside the wheat (Matthew 13:23 sqq.) and had part in the divine manifestations of grace whereby the whole field is made fertile and the genuine wheat brought to ripeness. But they shewed themselves to be tares and by their seceding did execute on themselves the divine judgment. Augustine and Bede, with whom Luther agrees in his second exposition, also compare the antichrists with the evil humours of the body. The body of Christ also, so long as it is undergoing the process of being cured, that is so long as it has not attained to perfect health through the resurrection, has such noxious humours (quandoquidem adhuc curatur corpus ipsius et sanitas perfecta non erit nisi in resurrectione mortuorum; sic sunt in corpore Christi, quomodo humores mali). Their expulsion liberates the body and enables it to attain unto perfect health (quando evomuntur, tunc relevatur corpus). But this does not happen to keep up Bede’s figure, with the providential care of God” (Düsterdieck).

5. The present section cannot be pressed into the service of predestinarianism. Augustine, indeed, says with reference to this passage (de bon. perse1John 2:11; John 2:8): “non erant ex nobis, quia non erant secundum propositum vocati, non erant in Christo electi ante constitutionem mundi—non erant prædestinati secundum propositum ejus, qui universa operatur.” So Calvin, Inst. III. 24, 7. But although Calvin the theologian [German “Dogmatiker,” not=dogmatist, i.e., one who is certain or presumes to say he knows, whether he be mistaken or in the right, but the teacher of a theological dogma—M.] cannot be corrected by Calvin the interpreter, yet Augustine the theologian can be corrected by Augustine the interpreter in his Tractat. ad h. 1., where he says: “De voluntate sua unusquisque aut antichristus, aut in Christo est; qui se in melius commutat, in corpore membrum est, qui autem in malitia permanet, humor malus est.” The Apostle distinguishes inward and true Christian fellowship from that which is only outward and in appearance; those who belong to the former are so thoroughly fettered in their believing and regenerated mind, that, as Lücke thinks, they can nevermore separate from that fellowship. It is, to use the striking language of the Oxymoron of Didymus, a voluntaria necessitas, but no contrarietas naturarum, although in the course of moral development there should arise a diversitas substantiæ.—The phrases οὐκ ἐξ ἡμῶν εἶναι and ἐξ ἡμῶν εἶναι used by the Apostle to denote simply the opposite results of the ethical life-process, which in the former case leads to ἐξελθεῖν and in the latter to μένειν μεθ’ ἡμῶν. But, as Augustine says, every Christian may become an antichrist, according as his will refuses to he determined to μένειν ἐν Χριστῷ, which beginning with the hearing of His word and advancing to πίστις εἰς αὐτόν, to childlike and unremitting trust and cleaving to Him, develops itself by ever determining guiding, strengthening, purifying and confirming the will, is a veritable history of the word heard with the outward ears and inwardly in the heart filling and conquering the heart until it has become wholly believing, but for all that may and does offer resistance at every point, so that it often does resist for some length of time and so undoes all its previous acquirements, that it often conceals unpardoned sins which may again draw it down or at least arrest its progress and bring it to the point that, unless it submit to being cleansed anew, it will apostatize and thus a Christian may become an antichrist, which is however of rare occurrence, because the eternal powers of the word of Christ and His Spirit are very strong and mighty and the heart of man has been created for and with special adaptation to said powers. Hence the universal experience that it is difficult to get to Christ through self-denying and world-renouncing penitence, but that it is even more difficult to get away from Christ through the denial of the conscience and of faith as well as of the word of Christ quickened in the conscience by faith,—and the Apostle speaks from this experience. But in all this there is neither predestination nor necessity, especially since the Apostle’s exhortation to abide leaves room for the possibility of their apostasy, as to the reality of which the Apostle confidently entertains no fear in the case of those who are vital Christians. Nor is it to be overlooked that John does not throw out the faintest allusion to the difference between the electi and vocati and the donum perseverantiæ. In the passage Hebrews 6:4-6 the lapse of the truly regenerate (as is evident from their description) is supposed to be possible, but the re-conversion of such apostates only is said to be impossible, so that we ought to be afraid. [Huther: the words εἰ ἦσαν ἐξ ἡμῶν, μεμενήκεισαν ἄν μεθ’ ἡμῶν contain the idea that he who truly belongs to the Church will never leave it, but he that leaves it shows thereby that he did not truly belong to it. This confidence of the Apostle in the love of the Lord which keeps and preserves those who are His, and in the fidelity of those who have been redeemed by Him, seems to contradict the idea pre-supposed in Hebrews 6:4-6, that they also who were once enlightened and had tasted of the heavenly gift and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, can fall away. But John speaks here, as he does throughout his Epistle, absolutely, without any reference to the state of gradual development, from whence however it does by no means follow that he did not know it. The one circumstance that he exhorts believers, as such to abide in Christ, is sufficient to show that he does not wish to deny the possibility of their apostasy, all he is sure of, and rightly so, is this that he that does not abide, had never truly entered into fellowship with the Lord with his whole heart, but although he was touched by His love and felt somewhat of its power, he had not entirely abandoned and renounced the world.”—M.].

6. The Apostle here asserts a double law of historical development in its definite application to the development of the kingdom of God. “Evil by a gradual process of development culminates, then in the conflict between the kingdom of God and evil, the former develops itself, and at length, through a new coming of Christ in power, the kingdom of Christ is once more subdued.” (Neander). This is the one, and of the other the same author speaks thus: “In this respect also we shall see how the workings of one uniform law ever appear in the course of the development of the kingdom of God, that in good and evil there are certain individual personages constituting as it were, the centre and appearing especially as representatives of the conflicting principles, uniting and concentrating in themselves as one great whole, the fragments scattered in many individuals.” “When in the times before the Reformation the secularized Church under the secularized papacy, was especially instrumental under the cloak of Christianity to obscure and oppose true Christianity, people might believe that they saw in this the visible manifestation of antichrist, and Matthias of Janow, the Bohemian reformer before Huss, might suppose to have detected the effect of Satan’s craft in the circumstance that believers instead of identifying antichrist in the present, viz., the rule of the secularized Church and the sway of a superstition even unto the idolizing of the human, were beguiled into seeking it at some distant period.” The increasing revelation of the depths of evil in the world, runs therefore parallel to the development of the kingdom of God even up to its ultimate completion and both pass through personages in whom the former does concentrate. See also Düsterdieck: “The development of the Christian principle and that of the antichristian principle are reciprocally related. Christian truth cannot be revealed without forthwith exciting the contradiction of the darkness. The wheat and the tares grow together until they are ripe. The antichristian spirit works already in many antichrists; but the one antichrist is still future, still to come, and is only announced by his precursors. Although therefore the last hour has already come, yet its full close is still to come, viz., the real, personal advent of the Lord which will take place immediately after the appearance of the personal antichrist. But John did neither tell us when this antichrist would come nor give us a chronological clue to the exact time of the personal advent of Christ. In both respects he confines himself to the statement that the events are to take place.”—

7. Athough John in giving prominence to the marrow and vitalizing centre of Christianity, viz., to the belief that Jesus is the Christ and the Son of God, does not warrant us to undervalue the articulated confession of faith as a whole or as to its component parts, which are only developments of the pushing germ, he yet attaches, and for this very reason, the greatest importance to the faithfulness of abiding, the fides qui creditur, with reference to said centre.

8. His account of the χρῖσμα and its gifts, characteristically and emphatically adverts to the universal priesthood, indicating its origin and glory.

9. The “critical ability” (Düsterdieck) of Christians founded on the full knowledge or the truth, like the advancing knowledge of the truth itself, goes hand in hand with progressive holiness. The point throughout is not mere knowledge, tidings or information of a life in and of (from) God, but the actual possession and enjoyment of this life, the life itself and the personal converse of the human soul, with the living and revealed God; and it concerns man’s inmost and most profound being, which is neither the understanding nor the reason, but the will, and the point in question is not science but conscience.

10. It is only in the way of obedience to the word and will of God that man is able to keep and intensify fellowship with Him in order that he may become a partaker of the divine Being, the divine Nature. It is contrary to the will of God that man departs from the Being of God until he is wholly rejected.

11. The decision and the separation will not take place until the last, the last judgment; consider this.—

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

See what time it is in the kingdom of God? 1. Hearken to the word which is preached (1 John 2:18; 1 John 2:24); 2. be led by the Spirit whom thou hast received (1 John 2:20; 1 John 2:27); 3. take note of the separations which take place in the Church (1 John 2:19; 1 John 2:22); 4. hold fast to Jesus the Christ, who is the Son of the Father (1 John 2:26; 1 John 2:28).—In all the separations in the Church be sure not to forget to decide.—In every separation the sorrow of having been deceived before is connected with the joy of 

greater purity hereafter.—In the uncertainty as to who are true vital Christians take care lest thou lose the conviction that the vital Christian abides constant.—Act as Gideon did who encountering the Midianites numbering 135,000 with an army of 32,000 at the Lord’s bidding reduced the same by 22,000 and made a selection of 300 from the remaining 10,000 even as directed by the Lord, and then gained a glorious victory with them (Judges 7:0).—The source of the anointing is the Holy Ghost, its pre-requisite regeneration, its power an assured conviction of the importance of the truth, its impulse an earnest desire to bring it home to the hearts of others; it was a protection from the hierarchism and episcopalianism of the 2d and 3d centuries. Isaiah 41:15 applies to it. [I should rather say in more strict agreement with the text that the chrism of the Holy Ghost from Christ is a sure protection from any and every form of spiritual secessionism, separatism and individualism.—M.]. Because of a sorrowful experience in the Church do not give up the joy of the glory of the Church.—Comparison of the ointment as the figure or symbol of the Holy Spirit: 1, its value; 2, its use in the anointing of kings, priests and prophets; 3, its power of strengthening and stimulating the spirit of life; 4, its influence on a life well-pleasing to God; 5, its far-spreading fragrance.—The fundamental doctrine of salvation is: Jesus is the Christ. 1, With it and in it we find our way into the rich heart of God and bring God into our poor heart; 2, in opposition to it we bring eternal ruin into our heart and ourselves into eternal ruin. Or, 1, By it you learn the corrupting false teachers; 2, in it the true and living Christian shows himself: 3, out of it you pass to the inheritance of God.—Do not drive Christ and His word from thy heart, or Christ will drive thee from His kingdom.—1 John 2:28. Confirmation-address.

Gregory:—“Nisi Spiritus Sanctus intus sit qui doceat, doctoris lingua extus in vanum laborat.”

Augustine:—“Cathedram in cœlo habet, qui intus docet.”

Luther:—It is dangerous and terrible to believe something against the uniform testimony, faith and doctrine of the universal holy Church, which has now thus held it unanimously in every place from the beginning these fifteen hundred years past.—Many a man has a paternoster round his neck and a rogue in his heart.

Starke:—As the betrayer of Christ was one of His most intimate Apostles, so antichrist did not arise among Jews or Turks, but in the very midst of Christendom.—The Church remaineth not without offences of which that is not least that within her fold there arise men who hold false doctrine and apostatize from the known, truth; the tares do not grow by themselves, but in the midst of the wheat.—Constancy in good is an infallible sign of a true Christian, just as temporizing and changeableness indicate a false heart.—Christians are anointed, and their name should daily remind them of what they owe to God and their neighbour as spiritual kings, priests and prophets.—A teacher ought not to despise his hearers, for they also, if they believe, are anointed with the Holy Spirit and the knowledge of divine truths, although there may be differences in the measure of their anointing.—He also denies Christ the Saviour, who does not prove in deed that He is His Saviour who has indeed delivered him from the guilt and punishment of sin.—We have need to be especially on our guard against the denial of Christ which takes place, not only in words and in doctrine, but also in our life.—The word of God must remain in the whole man, and not only enter his understanding.—A Christian, an anointed one, that is his name, but also the greatest prerogative to divine wisdom, it opens to him the school in which the most learned are seated below on the bench of humility, who follow in the simplicity of their heart, who know all things, and ever learn what they know, love and do.—As is a king without a kingdom, a ruler without subjects, a general without soldiers, so is a Christian without the anointing. Because the last coming of the Lord will be terrible, we should be diligent to be so well prepared that we may be found worthy to stand before the Son of Man.—The day of our Lord’s coming may properly be called the believers’ day of honour, for they shall be manifested, declared righteous, and advanced to the full enjoyment of heavenly blessing.

Spener:—It is a great blessing that God does not allow the heavenly [?] deceivers to remain in the Church but overrules it that they are made known and we learn to be on our guard against them, that they must manifest themselves and make themselves known, whereby the danger is lessened and believers rendered more cautious and prompted to be diligent in prayer and to work out their own salvation with fear and trembling.—Even those who truly believe and have made great advances in the faith, may be deceived, and therefore let those who think that they stand, take heed lest they fall. None but those who have the Holy Spirit and the anointing can be sufficiently on their guard against the lies of antichrist. All other knowledge is too weak by far to be able to withstand temptation and spiritual conflicts.

Uhlhorn:—He only has God, who has Him as the Triune God. Let us only begin with what the Apostle puts in the middle, He that hath not the Son, neither hath he the Father, add that with which he begins, of the Son we can only know through the Holy Spirit, and conclude the statement in virtue of what the Apostle says, that the anointing cometh from Him who is holy: The Holy Ghost cometh from the Father and the Son.

Lavater:—Every one who is not an evangelical Christian, does not believe in Jesus Christ, is an atheist.

Heubner:—A hostile power, an opposition to Christianity, has stirred from the beginning. And this is a recommendation of Christianity; a proof of the mighty power of Christianity against evil, which is terrible to the wicked one. The more the good raises itself the more also does evil bestir itself. Where God builds a temple, Satan is sure to build a chapel by the side of it.—It serves also to exercise and try the soldiers of Christ. Without an opposing power, the divine drama would be without life or interest.—Unbelief which pretends that the kernel and characteristics of Christianity are irrational, is a very important epoch in this history.—Who thought Christianity imperilled by the growth of antichrist would betray great weakness of heart and understanding and want of confidence. The Christian should rejoice at every further manifestation: the end is drawing nearer: the catastrophe in the kingdom of Christ is the point to which the eyes of Christians are longingly directed.—The enemies of Christianity draw nourishment from the Church: it is in their interest not to suffer themselves to be deprived of the name “Christian;” they would then accomplish less and be less dangerous.—The manifestation of all, the good as well as the bad, is the design of the Kingdom of God. The evil cannot long conceal or disguise itself or stand back: it only waits for the time of coming out. God wills it thus. The appearance of evil tries and purifies the Church. It is a refreshing relief to Christians to see the separation of the unclean.—A Christian is insured and protected from false teachers. He has the Holy Spirit 1. Who interpenetrates every thing like precious perfume, enters into every thing, and imparts to it fragrance and the breath of life—to his thinking, judging, feeling and willing. The Christian is thereby clothed with a royal and priestly dignity in the Kingdom of God (Revelation 1:6). The anointing is the signature of the Christian. 2. The Spirit enables him to try, to identify the spirit of error, to judge; to such a Christian no false teacher can be dangerous.—The Christian has a fine sense of discrimination (sagax odoratus); he quickly perceives the essence and tendency of every doctrine; hence his Christian severity of judgment and his antipathy to syncretism.—Bad opinions, seductive principles among Christians, originate not in Christianity. The Church of Christ must not be charged with the evil that is in it.—He that will not know God in Jesus—where else will he know God?—There is no revelation of God which resembles the revelation in Christ; if one is not satisfied with this revelation, which revelation will satisfy him?—Whether they like or do not like it, neologians are obliged to assert that true Christianity was unknown before them; for what they now call Christianity is known to the whole antiquity.—The true Christian faith is immutable and needs no perfecting.—This faith is of the utmost importance; our eternal salvation depends upon it; it is not a useless, subtle question raised by the schools, but it concerns the promise of eternal life, and the virtue of this promise depends on the Person of Jesus; only if He is truly the Son of God He is able to promise and give eternal life. This must attach us strongly to the faith, and those who have felt the power of this faith, live and die for this faith.—Even anointed Christians stand in need of warning and admonition, because deceivers are never quiet and because within us there is not wanting that which meets them half-way.—Other gifts decrease in the course of time, the Holy Spirit does not decrease. Other frames of mind and tendencies of thought change, the Holy Spirit does not change. Yield to the promptings of the Spirit and be vigilant lest thou mistake thy own spirit for the Holy Spirit and be deceived. Be pure and meek.—Abiding with Christ and in Him in steadfastness of faith and faithful following Him is the more honourable, the more fall away from Him, and it is necessary, because our acceptance depends on it. If one becomes unfaithful to Christ, how can he appear before Him with joyfulness [confidence?]? That thought has an overwhelming influence on the heart of a Christian. How shall unbelievers appear before Him who to please the world leave Christ, and esteem the world’s honours more highly than the grace of Christ? How well it would be if all men would only examine themselves in all their judging and doing; could you act thus in the presence of Jesus? would you dare to say such and such a thing in the presence of Jesus? would you dare to maintain such an opinion before Him? If you are honest and conscientious according to your interpretation, so that He may not even blame you, why have you twisted my words after your liking?

Besser:—It is the last hour. But those who read the history of the Church wrongly, and consider the time of her highest inward beauty and manifest power over the world to belong to an earthly future, will be inclined to suspect the holy Apostle, to have been in error for assuring us to have experienced the beginning of the last hour; those, on the other hand, who consider that the Sun of the Gospel shone in his brightest splendor, when in the preaching of the Apostles he came forth as a bridegroom out of his chamber and rejoiced as a giant to run his race from one end of the heavens back to the same end again and that there sounds through the whole history of the Church the sigh of the saints “Abide with us, Lord Jesus, for it is toward evening”—aye, that even her most glorious victories, like the victory of the Reformation, are only like the reflection of the setting sun on the darkening clouds,—those who see this cease to be surprised at what the Apostles tell us of the last hour and read the merciful cause of this prolonged duration of the last hour, prolonged for more than eighteen hundred years, in the words of the Apostle “the Lord is long-suffering to us-ward” (2 Peter 3:9).—We must not only be on our guard against one antichrist, one great adversary and deceiver, but against a multitudinous progeny of the antichristian seed.—When somebody praised the sainted Oettinger shortly before his death, on account of his great wisdom, he replied with a smile: “Yes, I have learned many things; but the most precious knowledge I learned as a child in Luther’s Lesser Catechism, which comprises every thing which I desire to keep and carry away with me to the seeing face to face.”—A learner of the Catechism, that hath the Holy Spirit, is able so far to discover all errors which militate against the Gospel, that he is protected from deception and may immoveably stand on the foundation of his faith.—Neither the Jesus of the rationalists nor the Christ of the philosophers hurts the kingdom of Satan.—The antichrists showed themselves to be antitheists.—Declension begins with men’s loathing that which they have heard from the beginning (Rieger.)—Every true doctrine the assertion of which is assigned to the church during the time of her growth, is already contained in the treasury of Holy Scripture.

Johann Tauler had preached many a learned sermon when Nicolaus of Basle, the Waldensian, visited and told him: “You are a kind-hearted man and a great priest, but have not yet tasted in truth the sweetness of the Holy Spirit.” From that time Tauler sought the true Teacher in the Scripture and the cross, who teaches us more in one hour than all earthly teachers can teach us to the last day.[Warburton:—The late appearance of antichrist was a doctrine so universally received in the primitive Church, that it was like a proverbial saying among them; and thence St. John takes occasion to moralize on the doctrine, and warn his followers against that spirit, which in after times was to animate “the man of sin.” “Little children,” says he, “it is the last time; and as ye have heard that antichrists shall come, even now there are many antichrists: whereby ye know that it is the last time.” As much as to say, we are fallen into the very dregs of time, as appears from that antichristian spirit, which now so much pollutes the Churches; for you know it is a common saying, that antichrist is to come in those wretched days. The Apostle goes on to employ the same allusion through the rest of the Epistle; 1John 5:22. 1 John 4:3; 2 John 1:7. Where we see the appellation “antichrist” is employed to signify an enemy of God and godliness in general, by the same figure of speech that Elias was designed in those times to signify a prophet, and Rachel, a daughter of Israel; and that in these times Judas is used for a traitor, and Nero for a tyrant. But as these convertible terms necessarily suppose that they originally belonged to persons of the like characters, who had them in proper, so does the name “antichrist” transferred by St. John to certain of his impious contemporaries, as necessarily suppose, that there was one who should arise in the latter times, to whom the title eminently belonged; as marked out in the prophecies by the proper name of antichrist.—M.].

[Hurd’s two sermons on 1 John 2:18, the one entitled “Prophecies concerning Antichrist,” the other “Prejudices against the doctrine of Antichrist,” are well worth reading, as they embody much of the literature on the subject.—M.].

[Whitby:—To deny the Father here, is not to deny Him to be the true God, as the heathens did: but 1. to deny the truth of His testimony, see 1 John 5:10; John 3:33; John 2:0. to deny the doctrine of the Father, or that doctrine which proceedeth from Him; “for He whom God hath sent, speaketh the words of God,” John 3:34. Whence it is evident, that he who denieth the Son, cannot thus retain the true knowledge of the Father; John 1:18; Matthew 11:27. By Him alone can we come acceptably to the Father, so as to have life; for “He is the Way, and the Truth and the Life,” John 14:6. And by Him alone are we taught how to “worship the Father in spirit and in truth,” John 4:23-24. Hence Christ so often tells the Jews, they therefore wanted the true knowledge of the Father, because they knew not Him, John 8:19; John 14:7; John 16:3.—M.].

[Abp. Sharp:—Abundance of fanaticism, enthusiasm and other mischiefs have been brought into the Church of Christ, by the misinterpreting and misapplying of those texts which speak of the gifts of the Spirit, which some men so understand as to make no distinction between the times then and the times now.—(Joel 2:28; Acts 2:17; Jer 31:34; 1 John 2:27.)—Hence they conclude that in these days, which are the last days, the Spirit of God is poured upon all flesh, and that every one hath a right to expect immediate impulses and revelations, as to what he is to believe and to practise: that by this assistance of the Spirit, every brother may understand the mysteries of the Holy Scriptures, without the troublesome way of studying human learning; nay and may take upon himself the pastoral office, and become a guide and teacher of others, without any warrant from human authority, merely upon the impulse of the Spirit of God. These consequences have been drawn from these and such texts of Scripture: and so far have they been promoted and improved by several amongst us, that reason and prudence and all acquired learning, are rather accounted by them hinderances to the work of God’s Church, than any ways contributing to it. Nay, they are arrived to a pitch above the Scriptures themselves, which they look upon as a dead letter in comparison of the light within them, the witness, the anointing which they have received from above, which is the only measure with them of truth and falsehood, of good and evil. The colour, which these enthusiasts derive for this their notion from the letter of some passages of the Old and New Testament, would quite vanish, if they would but take care to distinguish between the effects of the Spirit, which belonged to the converting of the world, and those which were to be His constant permanent operations among such as were already Christians. There is no one will deny but the Apostles, and those in their times, had these inspirations, these revelations they speak of: and the texts, that they produce, are some of them plain proofs that those promises were made good. They did see visions, and were endowed with extraordinary talents of wisdom and knowledge, without human methods, and might expect particular impulses of the Holy Ghost upon occasions, where they wanted either light or direction; and all this was indeed little enough for the discharge of that great work they had upon their hands, namely, the bringing of the world over from Judaism and heathenism to Christianity. But that being done once, and the Gospel of Christ, and all things pertaining to it, being plainly left in writing by the Apostles or Apostolical men, as there would be from henceforward no need of those assistances of the Spirit, so it would be a vain thing to expect them. We are not to desire those immediate revelations, nor to expect that God should vouchsafe them, if we prayed for them. God hath declared all His will, that is necessary for us to know, by our Saviour and His Apostles: and the rules which they have given us, together with our own natural light and reason, and the other outward means and helps of instruction, which are every day at hand among us, are sufficient, abundantly sufficient, to guide and direct us, both as to belief and practice, through all the cases and emergencies that can ordinarily happen to us. And in extraordinary cases God will take care, some way or other, that we shall not be at a loss. And therefore to pretend to the Spirit in these days, either for preaching, or praying, or prophesying, or denouncing God’s judgments, or for any other thing, in such a way as implies immediate inspiration; or to set up a light within us, contrary to the light of reason, or different from the light of Scripture without us, is the extreme of folly, enthusiasm and madness.”—M.].

[The chrism Isaiah 1. a general gift, vouchsafed to all Christians;

2. not transient but permanent;3. leads them into all truth;4. moves them to the practice of all the precepts of Christ;5. assures them of their Christian privileges; (children of God, members of Christ and inheritors of the kingdom of heaven);6. teaches them in all things; they are therefore disciples and learners all the days of their life;7. preserves their fellowship with the Father and with the Son; (abide).

8. and makes them the Temples of God.—M.].

Footnotes:

[25] [1 John 2:18. ἐσχάτη ὥρα=the last hour.—M.]

[26]B. C. Sin. read ὅτι after ἡκούσατε. Est lectio difficilior.

[27]B. C. Sin. omit the Article before ἀντἱχριστος. In Sin. it is clearly a later addition. It would hardly have been omitted, had it been originally there. [Lachm. Tisch. Buttm. reject it.—M.]

[28] [German: “Even now have there come into existence” Lillie: “even now are there many become.”—M.]

[29][ὅθεν=whence.—M.]

[30] [German: “that there is a last hour.” Lillie: “that it is the last hour.”—M.]

[31] [1 John 2:19. Better to retain the Greek order with German: “From us they went out.”—ἐξῆλθαν, A. B. C. Lach. Tisch. Buttm. Huther, is more authentic than ἐξῆλθον G. K., but less common.—M.]

[32][No doubt supplied by E. V. is arbitrary and unnecessary.—M.]

[33][No reason why μεμενήκεισαν should be rendered “continued,” since “abode” makes as good sense here as other forms of the same verb in other places. Better to render μένειν uniformly abide.—M.]

[34] [German: “but—that they might be made manifest,” i.e. nothing is supplied, although the context requires something to be supplied. E. V. supplies “they went out,” Beza, following the Syriac “egressi sunt ex nobis,” Wakefield: “this was done,” Newcome, “this hath come to pass,” Lillie “it was,” etc. See below in Exeget. and Critical.—M.]

[35] [German: “that not all are from us” better than the more inferential rendering advocated by Lillie “that none of them are of us,” and the less correct translation of E. V. “that they were not all of us.”

[36] [1 John 2:20. German: “And.” There seems to be no necessity for “but,” although καί may here have slightly adversative force—M.]

[37] [German omits the Article before unction and renders “and ye have unction.”—M.]

[38] [German omits “ye;” B. omits καί before οἵδατε.—M.]

[39]B. Sin read πάντες instead of πάντα, August. “Ut ipsi vobis manifesti sint.”

[40] [1 John 2:21. German: “and that every thing which is lie is not out of the truth,” but the rendering of E. V. is a happy inferential translation of the Greek idiom.—M.]

[41] [1 John 2:22. German: “who is the liar.” The Article is emphatic here and must be retained.—M.]

[42] [German: “This is the antichrist, who.” οὕτος has demonstrative force.—M.]

[43] [1 John 2:23. German: “Every one that denieth;” omnis qui, Vulg. Aug. Calv. Bengel, and “every one that” Greenfield, Allioli, de Wette, Lillie.—M.]

[44] [German: “Hath also not the Father.” Better render with Rhemish and most foreign versions “neither hath he the Father.”—M.]

[45]A. B. C. Sin. [Griesb., Scholz, Lachm., Tisch. Buttm. Wordsw. Lillie.—M.] have the final clause: “ὁ ὁμολογῶν τὸν υἱὸν καὶ τὸν πατέρα ἔχει,” and it is required by the parallel passage 2 John 1:9 as well as by John’s fondness of antithesis. [ὁμολογῶν however should be rendered “confesseth” and not “acknowledgeth” as in E. V.—M.]

[46] [1 John 2:24. German: “You, that which ye have heard from the beginning, let that abide in you.” In this rendering οὖν is left out; but the emphatic you, in the sense of as for you, is decidedly in favour of the German rendering; translate, “you, let that which ye have heard from the beginning, abide in you.”—A. B. C. Sin. Vulg. al. omit οὖν. M.]

[47] [German: “If that abide in you which ye have heard from the beginning, ye also shall abide in the Son and in the Father.” The three-fold rendering of μένω in one verse: “abide, remain, continue,” adopted in E. V. should by all means be avoided. Lillie calls this sacrificing of the simple beauty and force of the original to “a great number of good English” words an “unprofitable exuberance.”—M.]

[48] [1 John 2:25. German: “And this is the promise which He Himself;” αὐτός. The reference seems to be to an oral promise.—M.]

[49]A. C. Sin. read ἡμῖν. The context warrants the transition to the Plural.

[50] [German: “The eternal life.” The supplement in E. V. is hardly necessary, the Article is indispensable and the order “life eternal” seems preferable; see on the last point E. V. Matthew 25:46; John 4:36; John 17:3; Rhemish version, Wakef. Macknight, Berleburg Bible, and Lillie.—M.]

[51] [1 John 2:26. πλανώντων ὑμᾶς, “who would deceive you.” “The context (1 John 2:20-21; 1 John 2:27) shows that this is a case of the Present ‘de conatu, i.e. an endeavour or purpose’ (Buttm. § 137. n. 10), and so it is generally understood.” Lillie.—M.]

[52] [1 John 2:27. German: “And you—the ointment which ye received from Him, abideth in you.”—M.]

[53] τὸ αὐτοῦ χρῖσμα is the reading of C. Sin., many versions (Syr. unctio quæ est a Deo) and fathers instead of τὸ αὐτὸ χρῖσμα A. B. G. K. and the Greek fathers.—Cod. Sin. reads really πνεῦμα afterwards corrected into χρῖσμα [or χάρισμα]; B reads χάρισμα. [But both in point of authority and in point of sense to τὸ αὐτὸ χρῖσμα seems to be the right reading. German, following the less authentic reading, renders “but as the ointment of Him;” E. V. follows τὸ αὐτὸχρῖσμα.—M.]

[54][καὶ =and is true, better than “and is truth” of E. V.—M.]

[55] The reading μένετε A. B. C. Sin. is on external and internal grounds preferable to μενεῖτε [G. K. al. Tisch.—M.]

[56] 1 John 2:28. A. B. C. Sin. read ἵναἐὰν instead of ἵνα ὅταν [G. K. Theoph. Oecum. Tisch.—M.]

[57] [German: “shall be manifested” decidedly preferable both for the sake of uniformity and on doctrinal grounds (“the agency and love of the Father in the second as well as the first coming of the Saviour” Lillie) to “when He shall appear” E. V.—M.]

[58] σχῶμεν.—B and Cod. Sin. give it as a correction of ἔχωμεν.

[59] German: “and not be put to shame away from Him in His coming.” Calvin: Pudefiamus ab ejus præsentiâ; Steph. ab eo discedamus pudefacti; Hammond: “Turned with shame from Him;” Green and Bloomfield: “shrink from Him with shame;” Peile: “put to confusion of face as being cast away from Him.” Wordsworth: “Driven to shame from Him;” Lillie: “Shamed away from Him at His coming.”—M.]