Down an Unfamiliar Road

• 

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

By Dr. Robert R. Seyda

FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

CHAPTER TWO (Lesson LXIII) 06/17/21

^2:21 Do you think I am writing this letter because you don’t understand the truth? No, I am writing because you do know the truth. And you recognize that no tales come from the truth.

COMMENTARY

And thirdly, John does not teach that a Christian knows everything there is to know. Some respond by pointing to John’s saying in verse twenty-seven, “For the Spirit teaches you everything you need to know, and what He teaches is true.” How ridiculous it would be, says Lloyd-Jones, if they understood that it included all the earth’s arts, sciences, and languages. That’s why we must always keep every verse within the context of the narrative. John is not even suggesting that this broad umbrella of knowledge covers all things spiritual. In verse twenty-six, John gives us the setting by saying, “I am writing these things to warn you about those who want to lead you astray.” That’s why John ends verses twenty-seven and twenty-eight by reminding them, “So just as He has taught you, remain in fellowship with the Anointed One . . . so that when He returns, you will be full of courage and not shrink back from Him in shame.”^[1]

D. Edmond Hiebert (1928-1995) tells us that our assurance of acceptance before God depends on the inner experience of a noncondemning conscience. The Apostle John says, “if our heart does not condemn us, we have confidence before God.” The statement of the specification, “if our heart does not condemn us,”[2] leaves open the question of the present reality of that condition. While this might mean “does not condemn us at first,” John probably intends that it will not condemn us. That’s because there are no misgivings as to our spiritual state. We already resolved such issues before God. While every believer does experience occasions when his conscience condemns him, it implies that this is not characteristic of mature believers. No believer should expect to live a life free from an accusing conscience.[3]

2:22 And, who are the liars? Anyone who says that Jesus is not the Anointed One. That means anyone who denies the Father and the Son is an enemy of the Anointed One.

EXPOSITION

John is not satisfied with identifying those with the antichrist spirit as living in the darkness of ignorance; he calls them out as liars and enemies. There’s no reason to doubt that John still remembered what Jesus said to the cynics and critics who doubted His authenticity by telling them their father is the devil. He has them in his grip. They only want to do what Satan wants them to do. He was a murderer from the beginning. He was always against the truth. There is no truth in him. He is like the lies he tells. Yes, the devil is a liar. He is the father of lies.^[4] And in his revelation, John heard a similar message.^[5]

The same chains once bound the Corinthians through idolatry. Paul reminded them that before they were Christians, they worshiped false gods. None of these gods could speak. So, Paul warned them that no one communicating with the Holy Spirit’s help could say that they hate Jesus. No one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the approval of the Holy Spirit.^[6] In fact, John would address this same dilemma in his day.^[7] And the Apostle Jude would speak about the same people who were already active during his ministry.^[8] Unfortunately, it is still swirling around God’s people today.

COMMENTARY

Andreas (600-700 AD) speaks of the heresy of Simon,^[9] which said that Jesus and the Anointed One were two different people. According to them, Jesus was a man, the son of Joseph and Mary, but the Anointed One descended from heaven in the form of a dove and anointed Him as God’s Son, the Messiah. John is quick to condemn those who think like that and brands their belief as Satanic. There were still others who made a distinction between the Father and some nameless deity beyond Him, whom they called the Father of the Anointed One. These too denied Jesus, saying that he was a mere man and did not have God’s nature.^[10]

Adam Clarke (1762-1832) defines what he sees as an antichrist. Any person is an antichrist, says Clarke, who denies the supernatural and miraculous birth of Jesus the Anointed One, who denies Jesus to be the Son of God, and who denies God to be the Father of the Lord Jesus; thus, he denies the Father and the Son. The Jews, in general, and the Gnostics, in particular, rejected the miraculous conception of Jesus. He was considered no more than an ordinary person, the son of carpenter Joseph and Mary. But the Gnostics held that a Divine person named Aeon, [11] is an angelical being, dwelt in him, but all things else relative to his miraculous generation and Divinity they rejected. These were antichrists who denied Jesus to be the Christ. That’s why the Apostle John calls them “liars.”^[12]

Richard Rothe (1799-1867) says that John makes it obvious that the antichrist spirit is more lethal than some may think. By denying that Jesus was the Anointed One, you also deny that He is the Son of God. You also deny that His coming and death on the cross was for no reason and that His resurrection was a myth. Therefore, God is a liar when He said He sent His Son to save the lost from eternal damnation. John cannot comprehend, says Rothe, how such a person could deny this truth without renouncing truth altogether. Not only that, but denying the facts about the Anointed One indicates they cannot recognize the truth at all.^[13]

Sir Robert Anderson (1842-1918) takes what Paul says here about Jesus being “THE CHRIST.” It is not that He died, nor even that He died for our sins, for demon doctrine will accept this and dwell upon it with exquisite feeling. But that “He died for our sins according to the Scriptures;” died to make atonement for our sins; died as the completion of the typical teaching of the Divine religion of Judaism – fulfillment of “all things written in the law of Moses, and in the Prophets, and in the Psalms, concerning Him.”[14]This is the doctrine of the Anointed One, says Anderson. If a person does not believe it, then, no matter how unique their teaching is in all respects, no matter how impressive their character and life, the Holy Spirit declares that “the spirit of the Antichrist” if they deny the Father and the Son. And let Christians who are fooling with these false gospels recognize these false ministers and warn them that they will give an account of their conduct before God.^[15]

Rudolf Schnackenburg (1914-2002) agrees that there are very few eye-catching phrases to get readers interested in what a person is about to say than what the Apostle John uses here in verse nineteen, “Who are the liars?” or “Who is telling lies?” These are those who openly reject the teachings of the Apostles. Indeed, they are liars par excellence, as the forceful mode of speech “who?” indicates. It is not some misguided error but a designed battle originating from the dark powers opposed to God and directed against any fellowship with Him, which Jesus opened up to humanity. They declare their false opinions publicly, seeking to spread confusion among the faithful. They know they cannot bring Jesus down from His exalted place as Savior and high priest at God’s right hand, so they hope to divide and conquer His followers. If the Light on earth goes out, then the Light in heaven has no meaning or purpose.^[16] No wonder, John was so adamant about the believers sticking together, holding on to God’s Word for strength and comfort. He strongly advises this in verses twenty-three through twenty-six.

After examining the word antichrist as it appears in the Epistles of John, J. Dwight Pentecost (1915-2014) tells us these references will reveal that John is principally concerned with an immediate doctrinal error – the denial of the person of the Anointed One. The emphasis is not on a future revelation of an individual, but the present manifestation of false doctrine. To John, the antichrist was already here. The question arises then about the relation between the “antichrist” of John’s epistles and the “beasts” in the Book of Revelation. The prefix “anti” in antichrist may be used for “instead of” or “against.” Prophecy writer Roy Aldrich correctly observes: The solution to the problem of the identification of Antichrist would depend upon how much light they have on whether he is primarily the great enemy of the Anointed One or whether he is an imitation christ.[17]

---

[1] Lloyd-Jones, Martyn, Life in Christ, op. cit., pp. 249-250

[2] 1 John 3:20-21

[3] Hiebert, D. Edmond: 1 John, Bibliotheca Sacra, op. cit., p. 315

[4] John 8:44

[5] Revelation 3:9

[6] 1 Corinthians 12:2-3

[7] 2 John 1:7

[8] Jude 1:4

[9] This is a reference to Simon Magus and the Simonians who claimed him to be the founder of their doctrines.

[10] Andreas: Bray, G. (Ed.), op. cit., 1-3 John, p. 189

[11] Aeon, also spelled Eon, (Greek: “age,” or “lifetime”), in Gnosticism and Manichaeism, one of the orders of spirits, or spheres of being, that emanated from the Godhead and were attributes of the nature of the absolute; an important element in the cosmology that developed around the central concept of Gnostic dualism  – the conflict between matter and spirit.

[12] Clarke, Adam: First Epistle of John, op. cit., p. 375

[13] Rothe, Richard: The Expository Times, op. cit., August 1892, pp. 506-507

[14] See 1 John 5:9-13

[15] Sir Robert Anderson: Redemption Truths, Ch. 11, p. 62

[16] Schnackenburg, Rudolf, The Johannine Epistles, op. cit., p. 145

[17] Pentecost, J. Dwight. Things to Come: op. cit., Kindle Locations 6115-6121

• 

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

By Dr. Robert R. Seyda

FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

CHAPTER TWO (Lesson LXII) 06/16/21

^2:21 Do you think I am writing this letter because you don’t understand the truth? No, I am writing because you do know the truth. And you recognize that no tales come from the truth.

COMMENTARY

Albert Barnes (1798-1870) puts what the Apostle John says here in verse twenty-one into context to understand better the point the Apostle is trying to make. You are not to regard my writing to you in this earnest manner as any evidence that I do not suppose you to be acquainted with Christianity and its duties. Some, perhaps, might have been disposed to put this construction on what he had said, but he assures them that that was not the reason why he had thus addressed them.

Barnes continues by noting that the very fact that they did understand their Christian faith. John says this is why he wrote to them because they knew. It was the basis of his hope that his appeal would be sufficient. If they had never known what Christianity was, if they were ignorant of its nature and its claims, he would have had much less hope of being able to guard them against error and of securing their steady walk in the path of holiness. We may always make a solid and confident appeal to those who understand their faith and its truth because no lie is of the truth.

For Barnes, no form of error, however plausible it may seem, however ingeniously one defends it, and however much it may seem to be favorable to human virtue and happiness, can be founded on truth. What the Apostle John says here has somewhat the aspect of a truism. Still, it contains a fundamental truth of vital importance and should greatly influence our minds regarding any proposed opinion or doctrine. Error often appears believable. It seems to be adapted to relieve the mind of many difficulties that perplex and embarrass it on what the Bible teaches. It seems to be adapted to promote one’s doctrine.

It appears to make those who embrace it happy to enjoy religion. But John says that no matter how plausible all this may be, it may only be to prove that the doctrines they embraced are of God. Here is an impressive and vital maxim: “No error can have its foundation in truth, and, of course, that makes it worthless.” The great question is, what is truth? When that is determined, we can quickly settle the inquiries that come up about the various doctrines being practiced around the world. Mere reasonable appearances, or temporary good results that may grow out of an ideology, do not prove that it is based firmly on the truth. Whatever the results may be, it is impossible that any error, no matter how convincing, will have its origin in facts.[1]

William Sinclair (1850-1917) says that if any promoters of the Antichrist movement had the unction of the Anointed One, [2] they must have grieved God’s Spirit. But the Apostle John’s hearers were still in union with the true Vine, and, therefore, had the divine instinct which “guided them into all truth.” If they trusted the Spirit in simple questions about morality and religion and their effect on the soul, it would be sufficiently plain to them to explain. He does believe this about them. So, he humbly begs them not to think that he distrusts them. If he did not feel that they had the eye of understanding spiritually enlightened, he would know that there would be no response in their hearts to his words, nor interest about them in their minds.^[3]

Alan E. Brooke (1863-1939) agrees with other scholars that to know what is false, you must first understand what is true, for those who know the truth are in a position to immediately detect the true character of that which is opposed to it. In the first case, they must be taught that something is a lie, and they will at once reject it. In the second case, their knowledge of the truth enables them to detect if it is agreeing to the text and context. If the teacher can awaken their perception, it completes his or her task. Learners possess the means if they will only use them. That is the object of this Epistle, “to stir up the gift that is in them.”[4] [5]

Harry A. Ironside (1876-1951) speaks about the anointing of the Holy Spirit and relates a story he heard some years earlier to illustrate it. It concerned a well-known English minister who shared it with him.

One night, when he was just ready to retire, there came a knock at his door. When he went downstairs, he found a poor, wretched little girl standing at the door dripping wet. She walked through a storm, and she said, “Are you the minister?”   “Yes,” he said, “I am.” He was at that time one who had turned away from the simplicity of the Gospel. “Will you please come and get my mother in?” she asked.   The minister replied, “I was just about to retire, and besides, it is hardly proper for me to go out in this weather and bring in your mother. If she is drunk, you can get a police officer to fetch her. He has his raincoat on and prepared for the storm.”   “Oh no,” said the little girl, “you don’t understand! My mother is not out in the storm, and she is not drunk. She is at home dying, and she is afraid to die. She is afraid she is going to be lost forever. She wants to go to Heaven and doesn’t know how, so I told her I would get a minister to get her in.”   He asked where she lived, and she told him of a district so corrupt that even in daytime, respectable people did not go there without a police escort. “Why,” he said, “I can’t go down there tonight.” He reasoned it would ruin his reputation to be caught with a girl like this in that district in the middle of the night. No, he said to himself, I cannot go. I am the preacher of a large and influential church. What would my congregation think if it should get into the newspapers?   So, he said to the girl, “I’ll tell you what to do. Go down and get the man who is running the Rescue Mission. He will be glad to help you.” He felt ashamed as he said it but decided his reputation had to be maintained.   “He may be a good man,” replied the girl, “but I don’t know him. I told my mother I would get a real minister, and I want you to come and get her in. Please come quickly; she’s dying.”   I couldn’t resist the challenge in those eyes, the preacher confessed. He felt ashamed, so he said to her, “Very well, I will come.” He went upstairs, got dressed, and put on his overcoat.   Then the girl led him down through the city, into the slum district, into an old house, up a rickety stairway, and along a long dark hall into a small room where the poor woman lay. “I have gotten the preacher of the biggest church in the city,” said the girl. “He will get you in. He didn’t want to come, but he’s here. You tell him what you want and do just what he tells you to do.”   The woman looked up and said, “Oh, sir, can you do anything for a poor sinner? All my life, I’ve been a wicked woman, and I am going to Hell. But I don’t want to go there. I want to be saved and go to Heaven. Tell me what I can do.”   The preacher related how he stood there looking down at that poor anxious face and thought, whatever will I tell her? I have been preaching in my church on salvation by character, ethical culture, and reformation. But I can’t tell her about salvation by character, for she hasn’t any. I can’t tell her about salvation by ethical culture, for there’s no time for culture, and besides, she most likely wouldn’t know what I meant. I can’t tell her about salvation by reformation, for she has gone too far to reform. Then it came to me, why not tell her what my mother used to say to me? She’s dying, and it can’t hurt her, even though it will not do her any good. And so, he said, “My poor lady, God is very gracious, and the Bible says, ‘God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.’”   She replied, “Does it say that in the Bible? My! It should help get me in. But, sir, my sins! What about my sins?”   The minister said it was amazing how the verses came to him, verses he learned years ago and never used. He said to the woman, “The blood of Jesus Christ, His Son, cleanses us from all sin.”[6]   “All sin?” she asked. “Does it actually say that the blood will cleanse me from all sin? That ought to get me in.”   The minister continued, the Bible also says, “This is a faithful saying, and worthy of acceptance that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.”[7]   “Well,” she said, “If the chief got in, I can get in too. Pray for me!”[8]

Martyn Lloyd-Jones (1899-1981) sees similarities with the many misinterpretations of verses twenty and twenty-one, further down, verse twenty-seven. Some feel that their understanding and interpretation of the Scriptures are without error. It’s a case of assuming infallibility. There always seems to be some whose guidance is foolproof and who cannot go wrong, and so you find this principle of perfection reasserting itself again and again. The first thing to do, says Lloyd-Jones, is to realize that the Apostle John is not dealing with the question of guidance from the Holy Spirit. It is not a matter of our ability to tell others what God wants them to know about particular decisions. John is discussing here knowledge of the truth, an understanding of doctrine; his concern is the doctrine’s truth and that he is the one and only Anointed One. That is the context in which to understand these three verses.

Secondly, says Lloyd-Jones, John does not teach that every Christian receives fresh truth directly and immediately, as the apostles did. John already told these people that he writes to them to have fellowship with him and the other apostles. They received the truth when they believed through the apostle’s witness and teaching and preaching. They did not get to know what they now know because it was delivered to them individually from above. How can you expect to have fellowship when each congregation member claims to have the infallible truth straight from God?

---

[1] Barnes, Albert: New Testament Notes, op. cit., p. 4830

[2] Cf. John 15:26; 2 Corinthians 17, 18; Ephesians 16; Philippians 1:29

[3] Sinclair, William: First Epistle of John, op. cit., p. 480

[4] 2 Timothy 1:6

[5] Brooke, Alan E., International Critical Commentary, op. cit., p. 57

[6] 1 John 1:7

[7] 1 Timothy 1:15

[8] Ironside, H. A., Addresses on the Epistles of John (Ironside Commentary Series Book 43), op. cit., pp. 24-25

• 

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

By Dr. Robert R. Seyda

FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

CHAPTER TWO (Lesson LXI) 06/15/21

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

COMMENTARY

Priestly L. Greville (1891-1976) feels that the KJV rendering of “ye know all things” is better translated from older manuscripts as “you all know.” The NIV reads: “all of you know.” Under the First Covenant, only those chosen by God received revelations to share with the people. But in the Final Covenant, every believer is eligible to receive the Holy Spirit through the Anointed One and thereby become aware of what the Spirit of Truth teaches us about the knowledge of God. The saving knowledge of regeneration was not just for a cultured few, says Greville, but to every genuine member of the Body of the Anointed One. That is what Jesus was talking about when He said we would know the truth, and the truth would set us free.^{[1] [2]}

Raymond E. Brown (1928-1998) says that John’s use of the Greek noun chrisma (“anointing”) makes sense only if that ointment has effects. There is no such thing as anointing for anointing’s sake. When used literally, it means consecration of the flesh for prayer. For example, scriptures tell us that if any of you are sick, you should call for the elders of the church to come and pray over you, anointing you with oil in the name of the Lord.^[3] It is also used figuratively for calling, illumination, and enlightenment.^[4] Not only that, but it is used frequently in the sense of being under the anointing while preaching or teaching.^[5]

Stephen S. Smalley (1931-2018) says that the Apostle John finishes with pointing out all the heretics’ antichrist errors and lies; now, he’s focused on the genuine believer. So, he introduces the identification marks of the authentic children of God. So, in the following few verses, we see a sharp contrast between the position of the fundamental and radical members in the congregation. Furthermore, John separates those who stayed behind with the loyal member from those who deserted the faithful.

It contrasts the basic concepts of truth and error represented by their positions with God, says Smalley. His Son, His Word, and His Spirit. John emphasizes three leading ideas: responsibility, remembering what they heard, and remaining steadfast. Together, these three themes highlight the concept of God’s indwelling word.^[6] If it worked back then, indeed, it should work today. How many believers are there that confess the indwelling presence and Spirit of God, but the library of God’s Word is empty?

Peter Pett (1966) tells us that the word for “anointing” appears only three times in the Final Covenant, here and twice in verse twenty-seven, below. It signifies “that with which believers are anointed.” It initially had within it in the First Covenant the idea of applying oil to set a man aside in God’s service. The question, therefore, is whether it refers to such a literal “means of anointing” (that is, the oil or ointment itself applied to someone), or anointing with the “anointing,” that is, with the Holy Spirit, where the Holy Spirit replaces the oil.^[7] It brings up whether a person is anointed because they preach, or do they preach because they are anointed? One of these must occur first. It seems clear that a person must first be anointed before they can preach under the anointing.

Douglas S. O’Donnell (1972) reminds us that the Greek noun chrisma means “anointed.” Now here, John uses a play on words by saying to his readers, they too have the “anointing.” It has become commonplace, says O’Donnell, to use the word anointed in ways that are foreign to its usage in Scripture. For example, we might call preachers, sermons, songs, or worship services as anointed. Widespread use speaks of a person or event in which there is an awareness of God’s power or presence. However, to anoint someone in the Bible has to do with setting a person apart for a particular purpose. Such anointing was the privilege of the chosen few – priests, prophets, and kings. Christ fulfilled these offices. Now, God bestowed this priestly, prophetic, and kingly anointing upon all who confess that Jesus is the Anointed One arrived in the flesh.[8] [9]

Current Bible scholar John W. (Jack) Carter points out that there is a play on words working here where the text states literally, “you have an anointing from the Anointed One.” Reminded of Jesus’ baptism, some would argue that this anointing refers explicitly to the believer’s baptism. Some attempt to connect the statement with the traditional act of anointing with oil. Let’s consider this passage in the context of a believer’s water baptism. We must remind ourselves that Jesus’ command was to baptize (or immerse) believers in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit from whom the anointing flows.

The command embraces Jesus’ plan for making disciples: by immersing them in the knowledge of God. The “Name” of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, refers to the whole nature and identity of the trinity. Jesus immersed His disciples in the knowledge of God. Stopping this process with a water immersion is a poor substitute.[10] However, we should notice that only after John baptized Jesus in water that the Holy Spirit descended from above in the form of a dove and landed on Him. It was only then that the Spirit led Him out into the wilderness for testing. It should be enough to convince us that the baptism of the Spirit follows the baptism of water.

2:21a So I am writing to you not because you don’t know the truth but because you see no lie ever comes as part of the truth.

Just in case his readers may have understood that John was accusing them of not knowing all they should know about God and the Anointed One, he wanted to clear that up immediately. Didn’t King Solomon say that it would be the wise among us to listen to good advice?^[11] In fact, says Solomon, don’t try to correct those who think they know it all, for they will hate you for it. But correct those who are wise, and they will love you. Teach the wise, and they will become more discerning. Instruct those who live right, and they will learn even more. The Apostle Paul felt confident that the Roman believers were those who had grown in their knowledge of the truth. However, there was still more that they could learn.^[12] The Apostle Peter said the same thing to his readers.^[13]

John Bunyan (1628-1688) tells us in Pilgrim’s Progress how pilgrim Christian asked his fellow Pilgrim Hope if there was any truth in what Mr. Atheist said?  Pilgrim Hope responded by saying, be careful; Mr. Atheist is one of the Flatterers. Remember what it cost us already for listening to such kinds of fellows. What, no Mount Zion? Did we not see, from the Delectable Mountains, the gates of the city? Also, are we not now to walk by faith?[14] Let us go on, said Pilgrim Hope, in case the man with the whip overtakes us again. You should have taught me that lesson, with which I filled your ears: “If you stop listening to instruction, my son, you will turn your back on knowledge.”[15] So I say, my brother Christian, don’t listen to him anymore and continue to believe in saving the soul.

So, Christian answered: My brother, I did not put the question to you because I doubted the truth of our belief, but to prove you and gather the fruit of the honesty of your heart. As for Mr. Atheist, I know that the god of this world has blinded him. So let you and I go on, knowing that we have the truth, and no fiction comes from facts.^[16] This story provides us with a good lesson on not listening to those who oppose or try to tear down our doctrines and teachings as if they are saying anything true. They may misquote Scripture or cite some known Christian scholar, but it is all an effort to promote lies.

As Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758) sees it, the Apostle John, in his general epistle, plainly manifests that all readers were supposed to have true grace since he declares this to be the qualification he respects; he lets them know. So, he writes to them for that reason because they are supposed to be persons with the same character as those who’ve known God and overcame the wicked one, and had their sins forgiven them.[17] ^[18]

---

[1] John 8:32

[2] Greville, Priestly L., The Johannine Epistles, op. cit., p. 65

[3] James 5:14; see Mark 6:13

[4] 1 John 2:27

[5] See Luke 4:18

[6] Smalley, Stephen S., Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 51, op. cit., p. 104

[7] Pett, Peter: Commentary on the New Testament, op. cit., loc. cit.

[8] 1 John 4:2

[9] O’Donnell, Douglas Sean. 1-3, op. cit., (Kindle Locations 1769-1774)

[10] Carter, Dr. John W. (Jack). 1,2,3, John & Jude, op. cit., p. 61

[11] Proverbs 1:5

[12] Romans 15:14-15

[13] 2 Peter 1:12

[14] 2 Corinthians 5:7

[15] Proverbs 19:27

[16] Bunyan, John: Pilgrim’s Progress, Vol 9, p. 169

[17] 1 John 2:12-14, 21

[18] Edwards, Jonathan, The Works of: Vol. 3, A Humble Inquiry into the Rules of the Word of God Concerning Qualifications Requisite to a Complete Standing and Full Communion in the Visible Christian Church. Part 2, Section 7, p. 272

• 

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

By Dr. Robert R. Seyda

FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

CHAPTER TWO (Lesson LX) 06/14/21

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

COMMENTARY

Father Haydock states that Robert Witham says the real children of God’s family remain in unity under the guidance of their lawful pastors. There, they partake of the grace of the Holy Spirit, promised to the Church and her pastors. They also have all the necessary knowledge and instruction in the Catholic Church, so do not look for it elsewhere. You can only find it in the Church of which they are members.^[1]

German Protestant Richard Rothe (1799-1867) says that the Apostle John may have thought he was sending the wrong message to the faithful in the congregation by this time. It might suggest to them that he did not credit them with sufficient insight on the matter and that he looked at them as being on their way to backsliding. That’s why John tells them; they have the gifts the Anointed One gave them, so they know the truth. Then he apologizes and lets them know he did not write to them because they did not only comprehend the truth, but they know that facts do not come from the fiction.

It was another way of saying, compare what I’m telling with what the Anointed One said you’ll see they are in perfect harmony. But at the same time, John was aware that it never hurts to remind believers where their spiritual life started and where they are now, so they can better see if they are on the right road.^[2] Some long-time Christians often feel uncomfortable when a pastor preaches a salvation message on Sunday morning, even giving an altar call. The truth is, they prefer not to know where they are in their spiritual union with the Anointed One.

Robert Candlish (1760-1854) says that mere human study might master everything said or written about God and His works and ways. However, knowledge obtained this way runs the risk of being one-sided and partial; we must examine all the creeds thoroughly to discover their doctrinal, controversial, and historical bearings. The all-knowing theologian may be able to discuss them all and know everything about them. But left to himself without any “unction” from the Holy Spirit, he is vulnerable to allow some peculiar leaning, some personal bias, or personal concept to prevail.

It generally leads, says Candlish, to some portion, aspect, or feature of the divine plan to be seen through a cloud of intellectual dust. In the end, it may cause endless perplexity and doubt to blemish the simplicity of the Gospel, which is the Anointed One. It is not, therefore, any such knowledge of all things that John recommended. Instead, it is that of which our Lord spoke when He prayed, “O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, thank you for hiding these things from those who think themselves wise and clever, and for revealing them to the childlike. Yes, Father, it pleased you to do it this way!”[3]

John James Lias (1834-1923) is happy that John tells his readers, and all true believers, you are not like what he described in the previous verse. There can be no doubt that the unction^[4] here references the Anointed One and the Antichrist. The disciples of the Anointed One partake of His unction, of which those who reject Him are utterly lacking. We must ask, what is the connection between this verse and the previous one? And what is meant by “unction?”

First, however, Lias notes that the English translation of the Greek conjunction kai is “but.” For him and others, it seems there is no immediate connection with what precedes. There appears to be no apparent concern about the influential Hebrew element behind the Greek of this Epistle. What John says here is no doubt in fierce opposition to the traitors of the previous verse. Anyone acquainted with the various shades of meaning knows that they do not connect two opposite thoughts with “but,” we see that in Genesis 1:1 of heaven and earth. We notice the same here in the antithesis between true and false believers. Lias offers a better translation by changing “but” into “instead.” That way, the verse reads: “Instead, He gave the Holy Spirit to you.”^[5]

Lias addresses another factor in this verse where John says that God gave His Spirit so that “all of you know the truth.” God does not regard each of us as standing alone but as parts of a great whole. However, there may be some people who object to the infallibility of the Pope. So, they withdraw into the safety of allowing each Christian to establish the truth for themselves. But how could any single individual sum up for themselves all the graces and perfections of Christian character?

No one who has grasped the foundation of all Christian virtue, humility, would think of pretending thus to stand alone, says Lias. When we are challenged, we must take counsel with God and our brethren, following what the Apostle Paul told the Corinthians, “If someone sitting in the meeting gets some special word from God, the one who is speaking should stop.”^[6] Nor would anyone who seeks true enlightenment despise the voice of the “Apostles and elders” of the Christian Church. Here the Apostle John does not speak about the option to official authority, but the unction bestowed upon the whole Church.^[7]

James Morgan (1859-1942) opens the door to a very enlightening discussion about the Holy Spirit. It is doubtful whether we should understand “the Holy One” to mean the Spirit Himself given to the believer or by the Anointed One who sent Him. He is customarily known as the Holy Spirit, and both His nature and His operations in the hearts and lives of humankind entitle Him to do His work. Yet, on the other hand, He is represented to be the Spirit of the Anointed One. He is the great gift which the Anointed One was to confer upon the Church. In His exaltation, it reveals the Savior as dispensing this gift. “I saw a Lamb standing in front of the twenty-four leaders. It was before the throne and in front of the four living beings. The lamb looked as if it had been sacrificed. It had seven horns and seven eyes. These are the seven Spirits of God sent out into all the world.”[8]

We know that to the Hebrews, the number seven means “completeness, perfection.” But it is also a spiritual number associated with “intuition, mysticism, inner wisdom, and deep inward knowing.” Understanding this, we can see how the seven spirits tied to the seven eyes of the slain Lamb can be taken to mean the “fullness” of the Spirit of the Anointed One. It would distinguish them from the “Gifts of the Spirit” outlined by the Apostle Paul.[9]

It seems natural, therefore, says Morgan, to understand the “Holy One” as the “Anointed One.” And we are thus presented with a most engaging and encouraging view of the truth. Jesus presides over His people and confers His Spirit upon them as His gifts and graces as needed. He does so either for preservation or their faithfulness and efficiency to others. To obtain the Spirit, they only have to appeal to Him. Therefore, they have at hand a never-failing supply of grace to which they may continually come. And having the “unction” from the Holy One, they may realize His gracious promise, “Whoever drinks the water that I will give him will never be thirsty. The water that I will give him will become in him a well of life that lasts forever.”[10] ^[11]

Robert Law (1860-1919) gives us a special note on the meaning of the Greek noun chrisma (“anointing.”) This word is the last descendant of a long and interesting Biblical lineage, says Law. He then offers the following successive steps briefly explaining the progress:

1. Practiced in the anointing of the body with oil as a means of invigoration.[12]   2. From the refreshing and pleasurable sensations thus produced, anointing (especially with fragrant ointments) is an act of courteous hospitality, betokening favor towards the guest.[13] Failure to observe this custom is a mark of unthinking and stingy hospitality.[14]   3. It naturally becomes a symbol of joy and strength.[15] It symbolically identifies the appointment of persons to high and sacred office as a mark of Divine favor and Divine endowment with the gifts and aptitudes required by the office.[16]   4. It is given to Jesus and accepted by Him[17] and becomes a proper name of Jesus.   5. The charisma in Jesus’ anointing is the Holy Spirit.[18]   6. This charisma is, after His Ascension, fully imparted to the Church.[19]

It does not follow that the use of the word charisma (which is unique in the Final Covenant) was a technical ecclesiastical term, or that the ceremony of actual christening, which very soon became a recognized addition to baptism and the laying on of hands, which was already in use.^[20]

---

[1] Haydock, George: First Epistle of John, op. cit., loc. cit.

[2] Rothe, Richard: The Expository Times, op. cit., August 1892, p. 506

[3] Matthew 11:25-26

[4] The English word “unction” translates the Greek noun chrisma, which means an ointment usually used in anointing the priests at their inaugural ceremony.

[5] Lias, J. J., The First Epistle of John with Exposition, op. cit., p. 144

[6] 1 Corinthians 14:30

[7] Lias, J. J., The First Epistle of John with Homiletical Treatment, op. cit., pp. 147-149

[8] Revelation 5:6

[9] 1 Corinthians 12:4-11

[10] John 4:14

[11] Morgan, J. (1865)., An Exposition of the First Epistle of John, op. cit., (pp. 121–122) Edinburgh: T&T Clark.

[12] Ezekiel 16:9 upon infants; James 5:14 upon the sick.

[13] Psalm 23:5

[14] Luke 7:46

[15] Proverbs 27:9; Isaiah 61:3; Matthew 6:9

[16] (a) Kings are anointed (1 Sam. 10:1; the anointing being accompanied by the gift of the Spirit); (b) Priests are anointed (Lev. 8:12, 30, Ps. 133:2); (c) Prophets are anointed (1 Kings 19:16, Ps. 105:15, Isa. 61:1); (d) the title “Anointed” (Messiah, Christ) is applied specifically to the kings of David’s line (Ps. 2:2; 84:9); and becomes the title of the expected Deliverer and Redeemer of Israel (Dan. 9:25, 26, John 4:25; 7:27, 31).

[17] Matthew 16:16, 20, John 6:69; 11:27, Luke 24:26 etc.

[18] Acts of the Apostles 10:38; cf. Luke 4:18, John 3:34

[19] John 16:3, Acts of the Apostles 2:32; cf. 10:45, Ephesians 4:8ff., 2 Corinthians 1:21

[20] Law, Robert: (1909)., The Tests of Life: A Study of the First Epistle of St. John, op. cit., p. 127

• 

CANCER IN OUR FAMILY – BULLYING

A pastor was once asked: What is bullying?” Here is his answer: Although we do not find the word bullying in the Bible, we see the word “brutish,” a synonym of the brutal thuggery associated with thieves, assassins, and savage beasts.[1] The Hebrew and Greek words translated as “brute” or “brutish” mean “stupid, foolish,” and “irrational,” like cattle. We can derive from this that those who bully are acting as cows or other beasts incapable of rational thought. It is, unfortunately, not uncommon to see this type of disgusting behavior in fallen mankind – even in the church—in both males and females throughout all life stages.

Even though the Bible does not speak specifically about bullies or bullying, many biblical principles apply to the issue. First, it is crucial to understand what bullying is. A simple definition would be “using superior strength or power to intimidate people.” Bullies prey on people they perceive as weaker and threaten them with harm or end up hurting them to get their way. Obviously, bullying is not godly. God called Christians to love others and look out for weaker ones, not intimidate or manipulate people.[2] Christians should not become bullies but learn how to respond to bullying.

Generally, there are two situations in which a Christian may need to respond to bullying: when he is the victim of bullying and when he is a witness to bullying. When being bullied, the proper response might be turning the other cheek or self-defense. When Jesus spoke of “turning the other cheek,”[3] He taught us to refrain from retaliating for disrespect. The idea is not to return an insult with contempt. When someone verbally abuses us, we do not respond to their affront with outrage. When someone tries to assert their position or power to intimidate or force us into acting in a wrong way, we can resist their manipulation without being manipulative in return.

In other cases, mainly if the bullying is physical, self-defense may be appropriate. The Bible does not advocate total pacifism. God’s instructions to Israel[4] and Jesus’ instruction to His disciples to get a sword[5] are informative. Christians are to be loving and forgiving but not to dismiss evil as being too unchristian.

When a Christian observes bullying, it may be appropriate to step in and help prevent the attack against the victim. Each situation will be different, and many times, stepping in will add to the problem, but it often takes just one person to stand up on behalf of a weaker party to stop the bullying and prevent it in the future. In fact, a Christian could talk with a victim of bullying after the incident and help the victim with any needs, including assistance in reporting the incident.

God’s wisdom is necessary for all instances of confronting bullying. Those who follow Christ have the Holy Spirit living within them. He helps us understand God’s Word, guide us, and equip us to obey God in whatever situation we find ourselves.

We also need to consider our thoughts and attitudes toward bullies. It is easy to demonize bullies and think of them as hateful people. However, this is not a godly attitude. Every human being is born a sinner, and we all need salvation in Jesus.[6] At the very least, we should pray that the bully would have a change of heart and know God’s salvation.[7] Many times, though, bullies act the way they do in responding to their hurt. Perhaps they were bullied in the past. Maybe they feel insecure, and the only way they can feel acceptable to themselves is by belittling others. We can empathize with their hurt and extend God’s compassion, love, and grace while also maintaining solid boundaries to address their wrong behavior. Whether a person is driven to bullying by past pain or simply sinful tendencies, God is the one who can bring healing, restoration, and change. It is always appropriate to pray for both bullies and their victims. Similarly, when we are victims of bullying, we can go to God with our hurt and seek His reassurance and healing.

The Apostle Paul has good advice for us: “If someone does you wrong, don’t pay them back by hurting them. Try to do what is right. Do the best you can to live peacefully with everyone. Don’t try to punish everyone who does you wrong. Wait for God to punish them. In the Scriptures, the Lord says, ‘I am the one who punishes; I will pay people back.’ But you should do this: If you have hungry enemies, give them something to eat. If you have thirsty enemies, give them something to drink. In doing this, you will make them feel sorry for treating you in a bad way. Don’t let malicious intentions defeat you, but conquer them by doing good out of love. God has shown us incredible mercy. We should show this to others in how we behave – not by bullying, but by standing up to defend the weak, being willing to forgive, preventing bullying as best we can through appropriate channels, and praying for the bullies and bullied. The love and grace of God are enough to heal every wound.”[8]

---

[1] Psalm 49:10; Proverbs 12:1; Isaiah 19:11

[2] Galatians 6:9-10; James 1:27; 1 John 3:17-18

[3] Matthew 5:38-42

[4] Exodus 22

[5] Luke 22

[6] Romans 3:23; 6:23

[7] 1 Timothy 2:1-4

[8] Romans 12:17-21

• 

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

By Dr. Robert R. Seyda

FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

CHAPTER TWO (Lesson LIX) 06/11/21

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

COMMENTARY

Severus of Antioch (488-538 AD) says that not only did the prophets and holy men who lived in the past receive God’s anointing to share His Word but also those who came later. That’s because they all believed in a coming Messiah who would be the Anointed One, our Savior. Just like John the Baptizer, they preached baptism as a form of regeneration through cleansing. As the priests anointed them with myrrh, so God christens us with the Holy Spirit. And as they were promised a seat at the banquet of Abraham, so are we pledged to be joint-heirs with the Anointed One.^[1]

Bede the Venerable (672-735 AD) says that the spiritual unction is the Holy Spirit Himself, given in the Sacrament of Anointing. John says that they all have this blessing and can distinguish good people from evil ones so that he does not need to teach them what they already know because of their anointing. Because he is talking about heretics in this passage, he points out that they have received their endowment from the Holy One to underline that the heretics and all antichrists are deprived of that gift and do not belong to the Lord but rather are servants of Satan.^[2]

John Calvin (1509-1564) states that the kingdom of the Anointed One consists of the Spirit, not in earthly delights or grandeur. That way, to be partakers with Him, we must renounce the world. The people saw such a visible symbol of anointing at the baptism of Jesus. That’s when the Spirit rested upon Him in the form of a dove. It also served to identify Him as the Anointed One.    

Calvin goes on to say that to designate the Spirit and His gifts by the term “unction” is not new. John uses the Greek noun charism, which means “a special endowment of the Holy Spirit,” which is translated here as “unction” and in verse twenty-seven as “anointing” (KJV).[3] That’s why we should not view it as being absurd.[4] It is the one area, says Calvin, from which we gain life, especially in what regards the heavenly life. There is not one drop of spiritual vigor in us except what the Holy Spirit instills. He came as a result of our Lord’s bidding of the Father, [5] bringing with Him the heavenly riches which we lacked so desperately to flow to and through us in bountiful abundance. And because believers stand unconquerable in the strength of their King, and His spiritual riches flourish among them, it is only right to call them Christians.^[6]

John Owen (1616-1683) speaks of using the word “unction” in the Judaic congregation. Often, unction serves as a reference to the offices for which believers are consecrated and ordained. But these are at the bottom of the list led by the special anointing of Jesus the Anointed One. As the Anointed One, He holds office as Prophet, High Priest, and King, including Mediator.[7] According to the measure of our faith, we, who have the Spirit, are anointed with the oil of gladness.[8] The Anointed One is the fullness of the Spirit from which our anointing comes so that in all things He may have the pre-eminence.[9] ^[10] We, in turn, derive our calling and authority from these in carrying out His command to go into all the world and preach the Gospel, healing, and baptizing under the jurisdiction of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

In a pamphlet written by John Wesley (1703-1791), he states that what the Apostle John says here in verses twenty and twenty-seven about “unction,” some scholars have misapplied as being peculiar to the times of the Apostles. If that were so, then the anointing to preach the Gospel would have died with them. But God has armed His children to stand against false teachings. Some as teachers, others as preachers, and yet others as witnesses to the truth. Our being able to proclaim the Gospel through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit is unique to Christianity.^[11]

Responding to what the Apostle John says here in verse twenty, John Gill (1697-1771) tells us that the Jews say that all of [the original oil, used for many purposes] remains stored for the “age to come,” namely, the times of the Messiah.[12] ^[13] Now, God told these saints to reserve this oil for “Me.” That does not mean anyone other than the Messiah, our Lord Jesus the Anointed One. And since we who represent Him in this world are in union with Him, that anointing is meant for us as well. So, if anyone attempts to preach the Gospel without having the Anointed One in them and they being in union with the Anointed One can expect no anointed upon their preaching.^{[14] [15]}

James Macknight (1721-1800) says that the way to tell the difference between factual teachers and false teachers is that gifted teachers have the “unction” of the Holy Spirit. In his Greek Lexicon, Joseph Thayer says that the way the Apostle John employs unction here is to denote the “gifts of the Holy Spirit.” Macknight agrees with this interpretation. And the best way to determine if those gifts reside in a preacher or teacher is when our spirit agrees with the Holy Spirit that what the speaker is saying is valid.^[16]

Samuel E. Pierce (1746-1829) tells us that Christ – the Anointed One, is the Person here designed. He is inherently holy. And as the Holy One of Israel, He alone is holy. By nature, He is independently holy, a fountain of holiness. It is from Him, elect saints, angels, and people, both in heaven, and earth, receive all their sanctity. The Anointed One is God’s Holy One. He is the most Holy. The seraphim worship Him in Isaiah’s vision: “I saw the Lord. He was sitting on a lofty throne, and the train of His robe filled the Temple. Attending Him were mighty seraphim, each having six wings. With two wings, they covered their faces; with two, they covered their feet, and with two, they flew. They were calling out to each other, ‘Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of Heaven’s Armies! His glory fills the whole earth!’”[17] ^[18] I’ve often suggested that the three “Holy’s” are one for the Father, one for the Son, and one for the Holy Spirit.

Charles Simeon (1759-1836) laments that in every age of the Church, persons have arisen from within to torment the Church herself. They not only to “speak perverse things” and “draw away disciples after them” but even introduce “damnable heresies” and “deny the Lord who bought them from sin’s slavery.” Our Lord foretold the coming of such antichrists. Even in the apostolic age, they existed in large numbers.

For a length of time, these persons, says Simeon, could not be distinguished from dedicated saints. The more eminent Christians, who had “the gift of discerning spirits,”^[19] might see something wrong in their spirits and attitudes. Yet, since their defects were not generally visible or detrimental, they call for public disapproval. They were allowed to grow up as tares[20] among the wheat till they manifested their character before all by their unconcealed heresy. However, the Spirit protected the upright from contamination. And that which was instrumental to their preservation was “an unction from the Holy One,” whereby they were enabled to “discern all things,” and consequently, by “proving all things, to hold fast that which was good.”^[21]

Adam Clarke 1762-1832) has a particular viewpoint on the meaning of this verse as the Apostle John meant it to be. Clarke says that John is guarding the Christians against seducers and deceivers, disturbing and striving to corrupt the congregations. As a consequence, he desires them to try the spirits to see if they were of God.^[22] But how were they to try them? Mainly by their anointing – that spiritual light and discernment which they received from God. Also, by comparing the doctrine of these men with what they heard from the beginning. The anointing mentioned here seems to mean the spirit of illumination or deep knowledge and discernment in spiritual things. By this, they could readily distinguish the false apostles from the real.^[23]

We can deduct from what Clarke says there that when we detect that a speaker is under the anointing of the Holy Spirit, it is not because of the preaching form or style of delivery. It is how enlightened we become with the Scripture illuminated by the speaker by God using one of His holy instruments or vessels to transmit the truth. George Leo Haydock (1774-1849) gives us the Roman Catholic view of verse twenty. John tells the members they received sufficient instructions by the grace and spirit of God against such false teachers. Catholic biblical scholar Robert Witham (1667-1738) calls it unction. That is, grace and wisdom from the Holy Spirit. Bishop Richard Challoner (1691-1781) explains – And you know all things, says John, as to what you ought to believe and practice. Therefore, I have not written to you as to ignorant persons.

---

[1] Severus of Antioch: Bray, G. (Ed.), op. cit., 1-3 John, p. 188

[2] Bede the Venerable: Bray, G. (Ed.), op. cit., 1-3 John, p. 188

[3] The New Century Version (NCV) translates it as “gift” in all three places.

[4] 1 John 2:20, 27

[5] John 14:16

[6] Calvin, John: Institutes, op. cit., Bk. 2, Ch. 15, pp. 521-522

[7] See Daniel 9:24; Hebrews 1:9; John 3:34

[8] Psalm 45:7

[9] Colossians 1:18

[10] Owen, John: Of Communion with God, Vol 3, Part 3, Ch. 3, p. 328

[11] Wesley, John, The Works of: Vol. 8, A Farther Appeal to Men or Reason and Religion, p. 99

[12] Exodus 30:31

[13] Jerusalem Talmud: Tractate Horayot, Jacob Neusner Edition, Ch. 3, p. 73

[14] See 1 John 2:27

[15] Gill, John: Exposition of the Entire Bible (Kindle Location 340547)

[16] Macknight, James: First Epistle of John, op. cit., p. 53

[17] Isaiah 6:1-3

[18] Pierce, S. E., An Exposition of the First Epistle General of John, op. cit., Vol. 1, p. 224

[19] See 1 Corinthians 12:10

[20] Tares are a wheat-like species of rye-grass, the seeds of which are a strong soporific poison. It bears the closest resemblance to wheat until the ear appears, and only then the difference is discovered. It grows plentifully in Syria and Palestine. (cf. Matthew 13:24-30)

[21] Simeon, Charles: First Epistle of John, op. cit., p. 411

[22] 1 John 4:1

[23] Clarke, Adam: First Epistle of John, op. cit., p. 375

• 

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

By Dr. Robert R. Seyda

FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

CHAPTER TWO (Lesson LVIII) 06/10/21

^2:19 These traitors were in our group, but they left us. They were not ours. If they had been part of our group, they would have stayed with us. But they left. This clearly shows that they not in unity with us.

Donald W. Burdick (1917-1996) points out that the words “they went out from us” are not found in the original Greek text. The verbatim text reads: “Out of-us they-out-came.” The Greek verb exerchomai means to leave, depart, forsake. John was not disappointed to see them go, but he did worry if other congregations would accept them. John prayed that their departure would serve a divine purpose, that is, to show they were never part of the body of the Anointed One.^[1]

D. Edmond Hiebert (1928-1995) says that the added words, “but they went out, so we could see how they were,” point to a divine purpose behind their departure. “But” (all) leads to a sharp contrast between their indefinite continuance and their actual withdrawal. The Greek verb exerchomai (“they went out”) verifies their leaving. The Greek verb phaneroō helps illustrate that God used their departure to lay bare the true nature of these departing heretics. It was decisive proof “that they all are not of us.”^[2]

Simon J. Kistemaker (1930-2017) points out that John uses the plural pronoun “us” five times in this verse. He believes that John does this so that the readers will have no doubts that while those who left were in the congregation, they were not of a substantial part of the assembly. He and the leaders stood firm on the premise that Jesus was the Anointed One and the Son of God. The heretics who left were okay with Jesus being the Anointed One, but they against Him being the Son of God. It is crucial that unless Jesus is the Son of God, He cannot be the Anointed One.[3] ^[4]

Zane C. Hodges (1932-2008) sees the phrase “They did not belong to us” as a paraphrase of an expression more literally rendered, “they were none of us.” The writer’s point was that these men did not share the spirit and perspective of the apostolic circle, for if they had, their secession from the group would not have occurred. Heresy in the Christian church unmasks disharmony with its attitude and articles of faith. That is whether it rises on the part of the regenerated members or the unregenerate people in it. A person in touch with God will submit to Biblical instruction.[5] [6]

James Montgomery Boice (1938-2000) sees an incidental but significant influence upon two great Christian doctrines here in verse nineteen: the “perseverance of the saints” and the “nature of the visible church.” It implies that perseverance is the ultimate test of genuine participation in unity with the Anointed One. Those who persevere will have an eternity to live.^[7] Furthermore, light now illuminates the distinction between the visible and invisible church.^[8] The visible church meets on Sunday morning, and the invisible church goes to work on Monday morning.

The world looks at the visible church by its name on the door or sign. But they hear the invisible church in their workplace, social gatherings, and other venues. Their stereotype understanding often brings confusion between what they’ve heard about who we are and what they see in how we act and speak. It caused some in John’s Christian community to leave because they could no longer identify with the visible church. But as the invisible church, they could say and believe as they pleased. That’s why it is so critical that the visible and invisible churches be the same.

Michael Eaton (1942-2017) believes that these heretics were no mystery to the Apostle John. He knew all along that they were not born-again Christians when they started attending the services. Perhaps, he was hoping they would come to Jesus and have Him change their lives and attitudes. It is no wonder then that John told everybody, “They were never in union with us in the first place.” In fact, John may have already heard that they were trying to win members of the congregation over to their side. But since they failed to do so, they decided to leave and find more fertile pasture for their doctrine. And John was glad to see them go. That’s also why verse twenty is so relevant in this disaster by the Christ-haters.^[9]

2:20a But you have the gifts that the Holy One gave you by His Spirit, so all of you know the truth.

EXPOSITION

John now references the idea that God is not only for us but with us. David felt that sense of divine presence when he wrote that not only does ADONAI prepare a meal for him while he is in the company of his enemies, but He treats him as a guest with the greeting of anointing his head with oil.^[10] Not only that, but because His children love right and hate wrong,^[11] God chose them and poured out the oil of joy on them as special ones in His family.^[12] Furthermore, to give them the strength to stand for what is right and battle against what is wrong, the Holy One anointed them with the refined oil of inspiration.^[13]

Later on, the prophet Isaiah would declare that the LORD God would put His Spirit in us. He has appointed us to share the good news of salvation to those in sin’s prison and comfort the hearts of those who feel downtrodden because they became captives of their sinful tendencies by telling them they can be free.^[14] This message was claimed by Jesus when He went to Nazareth, and because we are in union with Him, that same anointing is ours. It was the message that the Apostle Peter preached to the household of the Roman centurion, Cornelius.^[15]

The Apostle Paul would declare the same gift and blessing of the Spirit to the Corinthians by telling them that God is the one who makes all of us strong in the Anointed One. God is also the one who chose us to do His work here on earth. He put his mark on us to show that we are His. Yes, the Holy One put His Spirit in our hearts as the first payment that guarantees all His promises.[16] Furthermore, He marked us as qualified to preach His message by putting His Spirit in our hearts, not only as a means of inspiration and anointing but also as a guarantee that all His promises would be ours as well.

We can also express these gifts through worship. Even King David called out and told God, and I will praise You with a harp. I will honor Your truth. I will sing praises to You with different kinds of harps, O Holy One of Israel.^[17] Just as Jesus told the Samaritan woman one day, all of God’s children would worship Him in spirit according to the truth.^[18] How often do we lament someone who lives in ignorance because they don’t know God? But then we rejoice when the light of truth finally reaches their heart, and they accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior. King Solomon recognized this even in his day.[19] So, it is not out of the question that John wrote this, remembering what the Lord Jesus said to the Jews who refused to believe in Him.[20] And now, the Holy Spirit took up this same role of teacher and comforter^[21] as a direct result of the promise Jesus made to His disciples.^[22]

The Apostle Paul also gave assurances that those who have the indwelling Spirit will be able to make the right decisions about all the things that conform them in their Christian walk with Him. But anyone who does not have the Spirit dwelling within will be unable to make proper decisions about what it means to be a Christian in this world.[23] The writer of Hebrews echoes the words of Jeremiah about this new agreement God was making with those accepting His Son as the Messiah.[24] So, John was not speaking irrationally here, but trying his best to get his readers to understand the revelation had already gone out that God wanted people to have about Him, His Son, and His Spirit.

It is easier to love someone we see than a person we cannot see. If we cannot do the easier task, we’ll be unable to do what’s more challenging. Just professing that we love God does not mean that we possess love for Him. Professing love without having love shows that we have not understood or experienced God’s love. It is possible to claim to love God and not manifest that love toward fellow believers. Such pseudo-spirituality falls short of genuine fellowship with God. Love for fellow Christians is not optional but obligatory in God’s economy. The practice of love originates in God, so we are out of harmony with God if we are at odds with others. When we profess love for God, we also vow to love as He loves. We test our love for God by our love for one another. It does not matter what we claim; if we do not love other believers, the Apostle John says we are liars![25] 

---

[1] Burdick, Donald W., The Epistles of John, op. cit., pp. 41-42

[2] Hiebert, D. Edmond, 1 John, Bibliotheca Sacra, op. cit., p.p. 81-82

[3] See John 1:1ff

[4] Kistemaker, Simon, James and I-III John, op. it., p. 276

[5] 1 John 4:6

[6] Hodges, Zane C., The Bible Knowledge Commentary, Vol. 2, op. cit., pp. 891-892

[7] Matthew 24:13; cf. Hebrews 3:14

[8] Boice, James Montgomery, The Epistles of John, op. cit., pp. 69-70

[9] Eaton, Michael, 1, 2, 3, John, op. cit., p. 76

[10] Psalm 23:5

[11] Cf. Hebrews 1:9

[12] Psalm 45:7

[13] Ibid. 92:10

[14] Isaiah 61:1

[15] Acts of the Apostles 10:38

[16] 2 Corinthians 1:21-22

[17] Psalm 71:22

[18] John 4:24

[19] Proverbs 28:5

[20] John 8;32

[21] Ibid. 14:26

[22] Ibid. 16:13

[23] See 1 Corinthians 2:14-15

[24] Jeremiah 31:30-33

[25] Courtesy of Dr. Grant C. Richison, Interim President of Campus Crusade Canada, Verse-by-Verse Commentary

• 

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

By Dr. Robert R. Seyda

FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

CHAPTER TWO (Lesson LVII) 06/09/21

^2:19 These enemies were in our group, but they left us. They were not ours. If they had been part of our fellowship, they would have stayed with us. But they left. It clearly shows that they not in harmony with us.

Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758) says that it is evident that those who had the name “disciple” following our Lord Jesus’ ascension bore that name regarding their relationship to the Anointed One who followed Him when He was on earth. The word naturally suggests and implies that those professing Christians, who at last proved false, did, before they went out, seem to belong to the society of the faithful saints or those endued with persevering grace and holiness. They appeared to be part of the congregation and accepted based on their lifestyle.^[1] In other words, they attended worship, sang, prayed, and performed all the outward motions expected of a believer but inwardly were rebels and traitors to the Apostolic doctrines concerning Jesus the Anointed One.

Charles Simeon (1759-1836) has an appealing thought concerning the Apostle John’s warning concerning false teachers. He says John had a further reason for exposing these apostates. Our blessed Lord foretold that before the destruction of Jerusalem, “there would arise false Messiahs, and false prophets, who, if it were possible, would deceive the very elect.”[2]Furthermore, the pervasiveness of those persons was a “sign that the destruction of the Jewish portion of the Church is at hand.” The Apostle John refers to this in his message to the little children about the last hour being near. But not to fear, those who defected to the world were not part of the actual body of the Anointed One from the start.^[3]

In his commentary on verse nineteen, Adam Clarke (1762-1832) gives us the impression that those heretics who were part of the Christian assembly left to go out independently because of their heretical teaching. Furthermore, they left because such heretics never feel comfortable in the congregation of true believers. Says Clarke, John points out that we did not expel them from the community, nor did we send them out. They separated from us on their own. None of them were as inspired as the apostles were, though they pretended to have very sound teaching, their separating from us manifested that the Spirit of God was not their teacher, as He was to the Apostles. These false teachers probably drew many sincere souls away with them, and John suggests that not all were part of us. Some were; others were not.^[4]

Charles Finney (1792-1875) focuses on what John says here in verse nineteen about those who left the assembly and went out to spread false doctrines. It was John’s purpose to speak out against those who fell away from the truth and show that they were never true Christians. In other words, they were followers, but not disciples of the Anointed One. He asks us to observe the force of the expressions, “They were not of us.” Why does he say so? John assigns the reason for this assertion: “for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us, but left to manifest that they were never part of us.” I do not say, says Finney, however, that this passage unquestionably teaches this. But it’s undeniable that this is its most natural construction.^[5]

Arno C. Gäbelien (1861-1945) notes that the Apostle John’s warned that anti-Christianity was increasing on all sides till the Antichrist, the man of sin, would be revealed, reinforcing the concept of “anti-Christianity” being a movement. But every undertaking has a leader. Antichrist is not a vicious lawbreaker, an out-and-out immoral person. An antichrist rejects Christ, does not allow His claims of Messiahship, denying that He is the Son of God. It is of great significance that John speaks of the antichrists in his day as having gone out from among the professing body of Christians. They were not true believers but only professed adherents; they left the flock and went away into heresy so that we could find out who they were.^[6]

William E. Shepard (1862-1930) tells us not to be offended if we see magnificent cedars fall over, stars drop from heaven; namely, liberal professors die and decay. But do not fear; God’s elect will not fail. Some of the elect may fail, but it is hard to believe that a genuinely sanctified believer would backslide. Some think so, but they do not speak for all of us.[7] John felt compelled to send out this warning because he knew that a time of significant drifting away was coming. The real test, says Shepard, is if anyone is willing to openly profess their faith in the Anointed One if it means they may go down by the strike of a swift sword?^[8]

Paul E. Kretzmann (1883-1965) points out that when it came to the anti-Christian teachers going around in the Apostle John’s day, John makes it known that they went out from the assembly of believers because they were never in harmony with them. Had they been in unity with us, says John, they would have remained with us; but to show that they are not all of us. Numerous passages provide evidence that the most dangerous enemies and opponents of the early Christian congregations were those of men who went along at first but then turned away from sound doctrine to false teaching. What was worse, they attempted to lead others out with them into error.

Of course, they could not remain members under such circumstances, so the congregation’s leaders excommunicated them, says Kretzmann; they had to leave. However, in most cases, they probably went of their accord. In any event, their becoming manifest as enemies of the Lord by leaving the congregation made the great contrast between them and the true Christians apparent. Mark: Also, in our days, there are a great many antichrists, false believers, false teachers in the very midst of Christendom, within the ranks of those that profess to be members of the Christian Church.  And in many places, the outward organization of the Church fell victim to these anti-Christian forces are at work practically without hindrance, as just at present the exponents of social Christianity. Says Kretzmann, we must expose such antichrists using the Word of God and keep ourselves strictly uncontaminated with their vile activity.^[9]

Rudolf Bultmann (1884-1976) points out that these false teachers claimed to belong to the Christian congregation. John does not say they were excommunicated; they left on their own. Neither did they organize themselves independently in competition or opposition to the Church. John’s repeated warnings show that they constitute a present danger to the congregations and, therefore, understand themselves as legitimate congregation members. And one of the main problems was that they adhered to the orthodox faith on many points. So, John’s statement that they “do not belong to us” stipulates that neither he nor the congregation ordained them and sent them out to preach and teach their version of the Gospel.^[10]

Amos N. Wilder (1895-1993) notes that the Apostle John in his two shorter Epistles does not indicate that these heretical dissidents thought of themselves as outside the congregation. Nevertheless, John is not as subtle and states plainly, “These people belong to this world, so they speak from the world’s viewpoint, and the world listens to them.”^[11] But John is not afraid to name names. He explains, “I wrote a letter to the church. But Diotrephes wants to be the leader and put himself first. He will have nothing to do with us. So, if I come, I will show what he is doing by the bad things he is saying about us. Not only that, but he also will not take the Christian brothers into his home. He keeps others from doing it also. When they do, he puts them out of the congregation.”^[12] Although John was trying to restore these wayward brethren to the truth with humbleness and compassion, it didn’t prove easy.^[13]

Paul W. Hoon (1910-2000) joins Wilder in exposing these people with their antichrist spirit. He says that they employ the name Christian and use religion to spread everything they think is wrong with the Christian Church. In fact, they oppose the Anointed One by assuming the appearance of the anointed ones. In doing so, they attack the faith of believers by undermining the truth with their corrupt version of the truth. They are not afraid to use force and oppression to promote their understanding of peace and harmony. While claiming to be for law and order in society, they encouraged conflicts with their ambiguous theology.^[14]

In reading this, I think back to religious cults such as Jim Jones and the “Peoples Temple,” the “Unification Church” under Sun Myung Moon, the “Branch Davidians” founded by David Koresh; and “Heaven’s Gate” led by Marshall Applewhite and Bonnie Nettles. All of these, except the Unification Church, ended in tragedy and death for its leader and members. The Unification Church has evolved into dozens of social entities associated with interfaith,^[15] educational,^[16] music,^[17] political,^[18] businesses,^[19] arts and sciences,^[20] and United Nations associations.^[21]

---

[1] Edwards, Jonathan, The Works of: Vol. 3, Concerning Qualifications, Part 2, pp. 222-223

[2] Matthew 24:24

[3] Simeon, Charles: First Epistle of John, op. cit., p. 405

[4] Clarke, Adam: First Epistle of John, op. cit., p. 374

[5] Finney, Charles: Systematic Theology (1878 Edition), Lecture 49, p. 696-697

[6] Gäbelein, Arno C. The Annotated Bible, op. cit., loc. cit.

[7] Shepard is not doubt speaking of the Arminians who taught that believers could backslide into sin. John Wesley accepted this doctrine but rejected the Arminian view that it was permanent.

[8] Shepard, Thomas: The Works of: Vol. II, op. cit., Vol. 2, p. 190

[9] Kretzmann, Paul E., Popular Commentary, First Epistle of John, op. cit., loc. cit.

[10] Bultmann, Rudolf: The Johannine Epistles, op. cit., pp. 36-37

[11] 1 John 4:5

[12] 3 John 1:9-10

[13] Wilder, Amos N., The Interpreter’s Bible, op. cit., Vol. XII, pp. 244-245

[14] Hoon, Paul W., The Interpreter’s Bible, op. cit., Vol. XII, p. 244

[15] American Conference on Religious Movements

[16] International Educational Foundation

[17] New York City Symphony

[18] Christian Heritage Foundation

[19] Master Marine, shipbuilding and fishing company in Alabama

[20] George H. W. Bush Presidential Library – July/August 2006: Church & State | People & Events

[21] United Nations Economic and Social Council

• 

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

By Dr. Robert R. Seyda

FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

CHAPTER TWO (Lesson LVI) 06/08/21

^2:19 These enemies were in our group, but they left us. They did not belong with us. If they were never part of our group, they would have stayed with us. But they left. It shows that none of them truly belonged with us.

EXPOSITION

Now here comes the shocker! Some of these antichrists are already a part of the fellowship to whom John is writing. Was this some new phenomenon? Not in the lease; it happened as far back as the time of Israel is getting ready to go into the Promised Land. They were warned by Moses about troublemakers from their nation trying to persuade the people of their city to do the unthinkable. They would suggest that the people go along with them to worship other gods, gods about which they knew nothing.^[1]

The Apostle Paul ran into the same problem in Antioch when the Judaizers came down from Jerusalem under James’s guise of being sent. Later, when Paul was meeting with the council in the holy city, the members of the committee recognized what happened, and in a letter written to the congregations in Antioch, Syria, and Cilia letting them know that they had heard that some men have come to you from our group. What they said troubled and upset you. But we did not tell them to do this.^[2] Perhaps this was why Paul warned the elders of Ephesus that even some men from their group would arise and distort the truth to people to follow them.^[3]

It was also a type of disruptive activity that was not unknown to the Apostle Peter. And his message was centered on the consequences of joining such a crowd. He told his readers that people could be made free from practicing the world’s sinful ways just by knowing our Lord and Savior, Jesus the Anointed One. But if they go back into those sinful indulgences and end up being controlled by them, then they are worse off than they were before they converted. Yes, it would be better for them to have never known the truth about the way of salvation. That would be better had they never heard the Gospel than to listen to it preached, accept it, but then turn away from the holy teaching given to them.^[4] And according to the Apostle Jude, it all started with people who divide believers. The Spirit does not guide them because they don’t have the Spirit.^[5]

John then points out a critical factor in understanding why such complainers exist in the body of the Anointed One. They could not maintain harmony with the other believers. It was either their way or no way. They were right, and everyone who disagreed was wrong. Why? Because they were standing up for the truth! The problem was, they rejected the truth.

The wise man Job understood the principle of survival in such circumstances.^[6] And the Psalmist was quick to declare that the Lord loves what is right and will stand up for His followers. He will always protect them, but demonic troublemakers will be left to defend themselves.^[7]

That’s why the prophet Jeremiah could give those who would listen to a message of faith and hope. The word he received from the Lord was that He chose the people of Israel and Judah to be His people, and He would always be their God. I would give them singleness of heart and unity of purpose. They will have one goal – to worship Him all their lives. They and their children will want to do this out of their love for Him. Because of this, He would make an everlasting agreement with the people of Israel and Judah. In this contract, He promises never to run off and leave them. He would always be good to them. That should cause them to reverence and respect Him. That way, they will never turn away from Him for another god.^[8]

So, when Jesus came, He delivered the same message, only in an up-to-date version. He brought with Him living water. And whoever drank from this water would themselves become a fountain that would maintain them into eternal life.^[9] It was our Lord’s mission when He came to earth.^[10] His intention was not only to improve their experience here on earth but give them eternal life for being faithful.[11] Paul adopted it as the core of his mission statement, where Jesus would be the center of it all.^[12]

And the Apostle Peter also declared this promise made by God as available through His Son. He told his readers that God planned long ago to choose them and make them His holy people, which is the Spirit’s work. God wanted them to obey Him and to be made clean by the blood sacrifice of Jesus the Anointed One. Peter prayed that they would enjoy more and more of God’s grace and peace. But praise to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus the Anointed One. God has great mercy, and because of His mercy, He gave us a new life. This new life brings us a living hope through Jesus the Anointed One’s resurrection from death. Now we wait to receive the blessings God has for His children. These blessings are in store for us in heaven. They cannot be ruined or be destroyed or lose their beauty. God’s power protects us through our faith, and it keeps us safe until our salvation comes. That salvation is ready to be given to us at the end of time.^[13]

There’s an old saying that goes, “You can run, but you can’t hide.” It was a way of saying what Torah said, “Be sure your sins will find you out.”^[14] Paul expressed his concern that many who called themselves God’s chosen, but it quickly becomes evident that His Word has not penetrated their mind or heart.^[15] However, there was a well-chosen remnant, not by any religious ceremony, but through God’s grace by faith.^[16] So stay away from those who claim new revelations or a new word from the Lord.^[17] However, God has His eye on them and will see that they fail because the Spirit will expose them.^[18] But we must have nothing to do with them, stick with soul winning for our Lord and Savior Jesus the Anointed One.^[19]

COMMENTARY

John Calvin (1509-1564) discusses the knowledge of God in the Anointed One as the Redeemer. It was first manifested to the Jewish fathers, under the law, and after that to us under the Gospel. It looks at regeneration by faith through repentance. In this section, he addresses the sin against the Holy Spirit and asks why it is unpardonable. He notes the paralogism[20] of the Novatians^[21] who wrestle with the words of the Apostle Paul here in verse nineteen.  If we look closely, we will see that the Apostle John speaks not of one particular lapse or two but of the universal revolt by which the degenerate renounce salvation.

It is not strange that God should be cruel to those whom John, in his Epistle, declares not to have been of the elect, from whom they went out, says Calvin. He is directing his message against those who imagine that they could safely return to the Christian religion from which they revolted. John wants to make sure they understand that they have no such false and malicious choice. Once you knowingly and willingly throw off fellowship with the Anointed One, by no means can they return to it, and all will be okay. It is not, says Calvin, that those who slip out of their yoke due to inattention or overindulgence are rejecting His whole doctrine.

The better to show that this was the species of impiety intended, he afterward expressly adds the term willfully. For when he says, “If we sin willfully, after that, we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remained no more sacrifice for sins,” he denies not that Christ is a perpetual victim to expiate the transgressions of saints. Still, he says if we abandon this one, there remains no other sacrifice. And it is discarded when they shun the truth of the Gospel.^[22]

The Swiss Reformation, like the German, was disturbed and inconsistent with radical excesses. A Protestant leader in Switzerland, Huldrych Zwingli (1484-1531), claims that the two fires of Romanism and Ultra Protestantism caused a schism. They attacked the movement from the front and rear, from without and within. The Romanists countered because of tradition by the Radicals based on the Bible. In some respects, the danger from the latter was more significant. Liberty has more to fear from the abuses of its friends than from the opposition of its foes. The Reformation would have failed if it had identified itself with the revolution. Zwingli applied to the Radicals John’s words to the anti-Christian teachers: “They went out from us, but they were not of us.” Zwingli considered the controversy with the Roman church as mere child’s play compared to that with the Ultra protestants.^[23]

---

[1] Deuteronomy 13:13

[2] Acts 15:24

[3] Ibid. 20:30

[4] 2 Peter 2:20-21

[5] Jude 1:19

[6] Job 17:9

[7] Psalm 37:28

[8] Jeremiah 32:38-40

[9] John 4:14

[10] Ibid. 6:37-39

[11] Ibid. 10:28-30

[12] 2 Timothy 2:10, 19

[13] 1 Peter 1:2-5

[14] Numbers 32:23

[15] Romans 9:6

[16] Ibid. 11:5-6

[17] 1 Corinthians 11:19

[18] 2 Timothy 3:9

[19] Hebrews 10:39

[20] Paralogism is a piece of illogical or illusory reasoning, especially one which appears superficially logical or which the reasoner believes to be logical.

[21] Novatian was a Roman Catholic priest in the third century who opposed Pope Cornelius for his practice of forgiving those believers who fell away from the truth and began to worship idols by the works of the flesh as Paul describes them in Chapter 5 of Galatians. His point was that only God can forgive sins, not the priests or bishops.

[22] Calvin, John: Institutes, op. cit., Bk. 3, Ch. 3, pp. 642-643

[23] Zwingli, Huldrych: Schaff: History of the Christian Church, Vol. 8 by Philip Schaff, The Reformation in Zurich 1519-1526, Ch. 3, p. 76

WALKING IN THE LIGHT

WALKING IN THE LIGHT

• 

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

By Dr. Robert R. Seyda

FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

CHAPTER TWO (Lesson LV) 06/07/21

^2:18 My dear children, the end is near! You have heard that the enemy of the Anointed One is coming. And now, many enemies of the Anointed One are already here. So, we know that the end must be near.

For Dr. F. F. Bruce (1910-1990), the antichrist spirits in the Apostle John’s Day were the “forerunners” of the Antichrist who will eventually arrive. Since John is the only one in the Final Covenant to use this term, only he can describe his definition of the Antichrist. However, John says, “You have heard” that the Antichrist is coming. The Apostle Paul warns the Thessalonians not to be misled by other doctrines that do not identify the Antichrist as the “man of lawlessness.”^[1] It appears that both John and Paul were referencing the Lord’s warning about a very sinful manufactured god standing in the house of God.^[2]

Rudolf Schnackenburg (1914-2002) points out that in the Greek text, the article (“the”) is missing. The Greek conjunction hoti is better translated as “that because, since.” So, the rendering should be, “My children, we are near the end. You have heard (that, since because) Antichrist is coming.” The missing article (“the”) underscores the decisive importance of this sentence. In this way, they are warned not to look for a person, but an anti-Christian spirit is beginning to sweep through the world and among God’s people.[3] Unfortunately, many books, articles, and media presentations concentrate on the antichrist as a man instead of a movement in recent decades.

Dwight Pentecost (1915-2014) talks about the close of the Present Age. Within this present age between the two advents of the Anointed One, God is bringing to fulfillment two distinct programs: One will come to an end with the Church’s rapture. The other with Israel will end after the rapture at the second advent of the Anointed One. Both have descriptive passages concerning the end times of their respective programs. There are references for the Church.[4] There are references for Israel.[5] In the Apostle John’s Gospel, there is a reference to the “last days” for Israel. The usage of “day” can refer to a program rather than for a particular time frame. In these observations, it is vital to notice that the references to any period must be related to the program of which it is a part.^[6] John clarifies that these forerunners once professed to be Church members, but they were so in name only.^[7]

Donald W. Burdick (1917-1996) notes that at this point, the Apostle John turns his attention from the ethical factors of faith and fellowship with God to love one another to the doctrinal aspects that test faith and fellowship with God and each other. The standard, which he uses as a reliable test. The truth about the person of the Anointed One, the truth about fellowship with the Anointed One, and the truth about the relationship between the Father and His Son. Since John is concentrating on the Christian life as a community, there can be no fellowship without knowing the truth about all three of these doctrinal issues.^[8]

D. Edmond Hiebert (1928-1995) In the preceding portion of the epistle, [9] John presented grounds for assurance through the test of fellowship. He wrote of the contrasts between light and darkness, truth and error, obedience and disobedience, things temporal and things eternal. In the long section beginning with 2:18, John turned to offer his readers’ assurance through their conflicts of faith.[10] We can draw confidence concerning our Christian faith from the nature of the enemies he encounters. John insisted that we must expose these enemies for what they are and encourage believers to understand the dangers they present and defeat them with God’s spiritual equipment. We see these conflicts portrayed under four aspects: (1) the conflict between truth and falsehood (2:18-28); (2) the conflict between the children of God and the children of the devil (2:29-3:12); (3) the conflict between love and hatred (3:13-24); and (4) the conflict between the Spirit of God and the spirit of error (4:1-6).

Hiebert goes on to give a more detailed explanation of the term “Antichrist.” He points out that the word occurs only in 1 and 2 John, [11] but the concept is essential in Scripture.[12] As a compound term, the prefix anti may mean either “against” or “instead of.” The Biblical picture of the “antichrist” suggests that both thoughts are involved in the designation. The term is synonymous with Paul’s “man of lawlessness. . . who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship.”[13] Hiebert agrees with Alfred Plummer (1841-1926), ^[14] who remarks, “The Antichrist is a usurper, who under pretenses assumes a position which does not belong to him, and who opposes the rightful owner. The idea of opposition is the predominant one.”^[15]

Ian Howard Marshall (1934-2015) asks what did the Apostle Paul have in mind by referring to the “last days?” Early Christians certainly regarded the whole period between the first and second advents of Jesus as constituting the final days. In Peter’s Pentecost sermon, the prophecy of Joel concerning the outpouring of the Spirit is deliberately linked with the closing days.[16] Now that the coming of Jesus had inaugurated the last period in world history, it could not be long before the end. However, it is also possible that John was thinking of the final stage in the ending of days.[17] A lot of time has passed since the beginning of the Church. Now it was the last hour before the end – most commentators adopt this view. It fits in with the fact that John saw various events which Jesus prophesied would happen were still in the future.^[18]

Stephen S. Smalley (1931-2018) notes that John speaks in verse eighteen of the appearance of “many antichrists” as a sign of the end. He points out that in the original Greek manuscript, the article “the” is not present. So, John is saying, “you have heard that antichrist is coming.” He removes all doubt by following this with, “already many such antichrists have appeared.” The Apostle is not speaking of one man but a movement full of people with antichrist feelings. In fact, some of them already left the local congregation to go out and spread their false doctrine that while Jesus was God’s chosen Messiah, He was not God’s Son.^[19]

William R. Loader (1944) believes that the Apostle John speaks as though his readers were already familiar with the antichrist figure. While this only appears in John’s letters, ^[20] the people may have based their awareness on earlier predictions of false prophets^[21] and the writings in the Qumran scrolls. According to research, the first wicked priest was named Menelaus.^[22] So, it wasn’t some wild idea that John had. He wanted to give it a creative twist to bring it away from myth into reality. Although John did not identify it with any particular figure, past, present, or future, he did say the spirit of this antichrist was already at work in the world and making headway in the Church.^[23]

I like the way Marianne Meye Thompson (1954) composes a warning against the antichrist. She says that now and then, a story appears in the newspaper or TV about counterfeit money. The person who tries to pass such fake bills may purposely do so, or some unsuspecting customer who received it unknowingly. It may look like real money, but it isn’t worth anything. While a counterfeit bill is not worth the paper it’s printed on; real money can be redeemed in silver at face value – whether $1, $10, $100, or $1,000. So, it is with those counterfeit preachers and teachers and their doctrines. You cannot take what they say to God’s bank for deposit; He will reject it. Only the absolute truth taught by the Anointed One and written in God’s Word is genuine spiritual currency.^[24]

David Guzik (1984) makes a point to which we all can easily relate. We often consider Political leaders as the face of the nation they represent to the world. Josip Stalin was Russia’s Iron Man; Adolf Hitler the face of Nazi Germany; Mao Tse-tung the image of Communist China; Benito Mussolini, the icon of fascist Italy; and Franklin D. Roosevelt as Uncle Sam. As a result, their citizens were automatically considered Communists, Nazis, Fascists, or Americans. Likewise, says Guzik, with the Antichrist. He has not yet come, but those who follow his antichrist ideals are already antichrists in the world.^[25]

---

[1] 2 Thessalonians 2:3-10

[2] Mark 13:14-21

[3] Schnackenburg, Rudolf, The Johannine Epistles, op. cit., p. 132

[4] 1 Peter 1:5, 20; 1 Timothy 4:1; 2 Timothy 3:1; Hebrews 1:2; 1 John 2:18; Jude 1:18

[5] Daniel 10: 14; Deuteronomy 4: 30 Isaiah 2: 2; Micah 4: 1; Acts of the Apostles 2: 17

[6] Pentecost, J. Dwight. Things to Come: A Study in Biblical Eschatology (Kindle Locations 2876-2883)

[7] Bruce, F. F., The Epistles of John, op. cit., (Kindle Location 1143-1233)

[8] Burdick, Donald W., The Epistles of John, op. cit., p. 40

[9] 1 John 1:5 – 2:17

[10] Ibid. 2:18 – 4:6

[11] 1 John 2:18, 22; 4:3; 2 John 1:7

[12] Daniel 7:11-14; Matthew 24:24-28; Mark 13:14-23; 2 Thessalonians 2:3-12; Revelation 13:1-10; 19:19-20

[13] 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4

[14] Plummer, Alfred E., Epistles of John, op. cit., p. 107

[15] Hiebert, D. Edmond, 1 John, Bibliotheca Sacra, January-March 1989, p. 76, 79

[16] Acts of the Apostles 2:17; Cf. Joel 2:28; Hebrews 1:2; 1 Pet. 1:20

[17] Cf. 1 Timothy 4:1; 2 Timothy 3:1; James 5:3; 1 Peter 1:5; Jude 1:18

[18] Marshall, I. Howard. The Epistles of John, op. cit., p. 148

[19] Smalley, Stephen, S., Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 51, op. cit., p. 101

[20] 1 John 2:18, 27; 4:3; 2 John 1:7

[21] Deuteronomy 13:2-5; 18:20; Mark 13:22

[22] Menelaus, in Greek mythology, king of Sparta and younger son of Atreus, king of Mycenae (Argolis, Greece); the abduction of his wife, Helen, led to the Trojan War. 

[23] Loader, William R., The Johannine Epistles, op. cit., p. 27

[24] Thompson, Marianne Meye, 1-3 John, op. cit., p. 71

[25] Guzik, David: Enduring Word, op. cit, loc. cit.