1 John 2:15-27: The antichrists vs.

the Anointing
Do not love [2S Pres. Act. Impv.] the world nor the in-the-world-things. If someone loves [3S Pres. Act. Indic. Or Subj.] the world, the love of the Father is [3S Pres. Act. Indic.] not in him. 16For all that is in the world, the desire of the flesh and the desire of the eyes and the ostentation of material goods [tou biou], is not [3S Pres. Act. Indic.] from the Father but from the world it is [3S Pres. Act. Indic.]. 17And the world is passing away [3S Pres. Pass. Indic.], but the doing-the-will-of-God one abides [3S Pres. Act. Indic.] forever. Children, the last hour it is [3S Pres Act Indic], and just as you heard [2Pl 1 Aor Act Indic] that antichrist is coming [3S Pres Mid Indic], also now many antichrists have become [3Pl Perf Act Indic], hence we know [1Pl Pres Act Indic] that the last hour it is [3S Pres Act Indic]. 19From us they went out [3Pl 2 Aor Act Indic], but they were [3Pl Impf Act Indic] not from us: for if from us they were [3Pl Impf Act Indic], they would have remained [3Pl Perf Act Indic] with us: but in order that it might be made manifest [3Pl Aor Pass Subj] that each is [3S Pres Act Indic] not from us. 20And you anointing have [2Pl Pres Act Indic] by the Holy One [apo tou hagiou] and you all know [2Pl Pres Act Indic] it. 21I did not write [1S 1 Aor Pres Act Indic] to you because you do not know [2Pl Pres Act Indic] the truth but because you know [2Pl Pres Act Indic] it and because every lie from the truth is [3S Pres Act Indic] not. 22Who is [3S Pres Act Indic] the liar except the denying-one [MS Nom Pres Mid Part] that Jesus is [3S Pres Act Indic] the Christ? This one is [3S Pres Act Indic] the antichrist, the denying-one [MS Nom Pres Mid Part] the Father and the Son. 23Every denying-one (MS Nom Pres Mid Part] the Son neither the Father has [3S Pres Act Indic], the confessing-one [MS Nom Pres Act Part] the Son also the Father has [3S Pres Act Indic]. 24You, what you heard [2Pl 1 Aor Act Indic] from the beginning, in you let it abide [3S Pres Act Impv]. If in you abides [3S Pres Act Subj] what from the beginning you heard [2Pl 1 Aor Act Indic], also you in the Son and in the Father you will remain [2Pl Fut Act Indic]. 25And this is [3S Pres Act Indic] the promise which he promised [3S 2 Aor Act Indic] to us, eternal life [ten zoen ten aionion]. These things I wrote [1S 1 Aor Act Indic] to you concerning those leading you astray [MPl Gen Pres Act Part]. 27But you the anointing which you received [2Pl 2 Aor Act Indic] from him, abides [3S Pres Act Indic] in you and not need you have [2Pl Pres Act Indic] that someone should teach [3S Pres Act Subj] you, but as his anointing teaches [3S Pres Act Indic] you concerning all things and is truth [3S Pres Act Indic] and is [3S Pres Act Indic] not a lie, also just as it taught [3S 1 Aor Act Indic] you, remain [2S Pres Act Impv] in him.
26 18 15

2:15: In v. 15, John begins with a command (Do not love the world or the things in the world), but he quickly moves to an explanation for why someone would end up breaking that command: If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. Does love of the Father mean love for the Father (objective genitive), or the Fathers love (subjective genitive)? On this subject, see John 17:26, at the end of Jesus high priestly prayer: I made known to them your name and I will continue to make it known, that the love with which you have loved me may be in them, and I in them. Jesus prays that we might have in us the love of the Father for the Son. In this case, we are talking about a subjective genitive. More than that, remember what John wrote in 1 John 2:5: but whoever keeps his word, in him truly the love of God is perfected. Lenski takes this as a subjective genitive (Gods love for this person will be perfected), but it perhaps could be taken as an objective genitive as wellthe love of God will be perfected in a person, and that person will, in turn, keep the commandments. My point is that this genitive is deliberately ambiguous. If our love is captivated by the world and the things of the world, then Gods love will not be perfected toward us, and we will not know experientially the love of the Father for the Son. We will be captured and destroyed by the world. Thomas Chalmers preached a famous sermon on this passage, The Expulsive Power of a New Affection, in which he argued, There are two ways in which a practical moralist may attempt to displace from the human heart its love of the world; either by a demonstration of the worlds vanity, so as that the heart shall be prevailed upon simply to withdraw its regards from an object that is not worthy of it; or, by setting forth another object, even God, as more worthy of its attachment; so as that the heart shall be prevailed upon, not to resign an old affection which shall have nothing to succeed it, but to exchange an old affection for a new one. My purpose is to show, that from the constitution of our nature, the former method is altogether incompetent and ineffectual and that the latter method will alone suffice for the rescue and recovery of the heart from the wrong affection that domineers over it. This is the direction to preach this section of the passagewe cannot simply stop trying to love the world; we must cultivate our love for God. As our love for God grows, our love for the world will vanish. 2:16: One interesting observation on the contrast in v. 16, but the same is true in v. 15 (not, though, from v. 17): John does not contrast what is in the world with God, but he compares what is in the world with the Father. In v. 17, though, John speaks of the one who does the will of God. There may not be much to that, but it seems like God would have been the right word choice to make there unless there was a specific reason that John has for talking about the Father here. Augustine writes, Brothers, if a bridegroom made a ring for his bride, and she loved the ring that she had received more than her bridegroom, who made the ring, in the same way wouldnt an adulterous soul be detected in the bridegrooms very gift, even though she loved what the bridegroom gave her? To be sure, she loved what the bridegroom gave her. Yet, if she said, This ring is enough for me; not I dont want to see his face again, what sort of person would she be? Who wouldnt detest this crazy woman? Who wouldnt convict her of an adulterous mind? You love gold instead [page] of the man, you love a ring instead of your bridegroom. If this is how it is with you, that you love a ring instead of your bridegroom and dont want to see your bridegroom, then he gave this earnest to you not to pledge himself to you but to keep you away from him. A bridegroom gives a pledge for the purpose that he himself may be loved in his pledge. That is why God gave you all these things, then; love him who made them. There is more that

he wants to give youthat is, himself, who made them. But if you love these things, although God made them, and you neglect the creator and love the world, wont you love be considered adulterous?1 On All that is in the world, the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and the pride in possessions [or perhaps better, the ostentation of material goods], see the very close parallel in Genesis 3:6: So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food [desire of the flesh], and that it was a delight to the eyes [desire of the eyes], and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise [ostentation of material goods], she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate. The reasons we sin are neither complicated nor newwe sin because of our flesh, our eyes, and our desire to be built up in some way by what we own, possess, and conquer. These are the reasons that Eve took the fruit and gave some to her husband who was with her, and these are the reasons that we sin still today. These reasons do not excuse what we dothey merely explain why we do what we do. On the phase, pride in possessions, Lenski explains, This pretense does not ask regarding the Fathers will but acts as though it had the sovereign direction of its course of life.The translations the pride of life (A.V.), the vainglory of life (R.V.) convey the wrong idea; John has in mind that hollow arrogance which presumes that it can decide and direct the course of life without God, determine what it will do, gain, achieve, enjoy.2 2:17: Just as the darkness is passing away (he skotia paragetai, 1 John 2:8), so also the things of this worldand, most importantly, the worlds desiresare passing away. By parallelism to 1 John 2:8, then the one who does the will of God is someone in the true light. Once again, John spirals through his ideas of Light Commandment Love The Will of God. These ideas are very interconnected, and John continues to work his way through them. I love Lenskis exhortation: Does the siren voice of the world tickle your ears? Hear the word of truth: The world is passing away! The bank is breaking, it was never solventwill you deposit in it? The foundation is tottering, it was never solid but only shamwill you build on it? The mountain is rumbling, quaking, it was never anything but volcanic, ready to blow off its head at any timewill you build your city there?3 2:18: Addressing his readers as children (paidia, the only other use of the word in this book after 1 John 2:13), John explains to them that it is indeed the last hour. Why? Well, they have heard that antichrist is coming, but now already many antichrists have already come to be (gegonasin). Lenski helpfully explains that The term [last hour] is plainly qualitative.4 In other words, final hour does not necessarily mean that the end is near, but the term has to do with the quality of the timethis is a time when antichrists run rampant. John may have in mind some final Antichrist who will rule the world in the absolute final days before Christ returns when he mentions antichristos, but he doesnt pay much attention to that kind of
1

Augustine of Hippo, Second Homily, Homilies on the First Epistle of John (Tractatus in Epistolam Joannis ad Parthos), The works : a translation for the 21st century. (Hyde Park: New City Press, 2008), 47-48. 2 R.C.H. Lenski, The interpretation of the Epistles of St. Peter, St. John and St. Jude (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1966), 426. 3 R.C.H. Lenski, The interpretation of the Epistles of St. Peter, St. John and St. Jude (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1966), 427. 4 R.C.H. Lenski, The interpretation of the Epistles of St. Peter, St. John and St. Jude (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1966), 429.

antichristos. Instead, Johns main concern is with those (and there are many) who oppose Christ in all kinds of ways. Lenski points out an interesting parallel in 2:18-28: Six times John writes menein, to remain, in v. 2428 just as he six times writes commandment in v. 3-8. These antichrists did not remain; they went out from us. The governing idea is thus still the fellowship, the koinonia with God, which is also the koinonia we have with one another (1:6, 7). To remain is salvation, to go out is damnation.5 2:19: Shockingly, the antichristoi came out from us, but (as John is careful to note), they were not of us. If in fact these antichristoi were of us, they would have remained with us. John almost seems to be suggesting that the purpose of their going out was in order that it might be made manifest (hina phanerothosin) that they were not of usin other words, the purpose of their apostasy was to demonstrate the falseness of their faith. Lenski makes an interesting observation on this point: One mark of the antichrists is the fact that they originate in the church. In II Thess. 2:4 Paul makes this clear regarding the great Antichrist who sits in the very temple of God. However hostile to Christ and to Christianity paganism, Judaism, Mohammedanism, Masonry, and political power and movements may be, none of these is an antichrist.6 2:20: Almost, then, as though John feels the need to comfort his paidia lest they worry that they too are not ex hemon, John reassures them that they have the anointing from the Holy One (chrisma echete apo tou hagiou), and that all of them know. In this way, the chrisma is connected to knowledge, and chrisma comes from the Holy OneLenski argues that the Holy One is Christ, and cites John 6:69; Acts 3:17, 4:27, etc. in support.7 This makes good sense, since chrisma is obviously a word very closely related to Christosthe Christ is the Anointed One, and John is now saying that his children too have anointing in them from the Holy One. Who better than the Anointed One to anoint others? 2:21: John clarifies why he brings up the subject of the chrisma: he is writing not to tell them something new that they do not already know, but to confirm for them that which they already know through the chrisma they have received from the Holy One. This is a fascinating thought because it cuts against both the idea that only the initiated (e.g., clergy, theologians, etc.) can know spiritual truths (for all of them have the chrisma) and against the idea that none of us need teachers at all (for John still needs to write to them, and he does so precisely because of what they already know!). In other words, both the populists and the elitists are mistaken. The populists trumpet the fact that they all have knowledge and that there is a priesthood for all believers, but John explains the reason for his letter: I write to youbecause you know [the truth], and because no lie is of the truth. They need what John says in order to properly understand/make use of/appropriate/apply what they already know. On the other hand, the elitists claim that only the smartest, the most credentialed, and those in power have any knowledge, but John insists the opposite: But you have been anointed by the Holy One, and you all

R.C.H. Lenski, The interpretation of the Epistles of St. Peter, St. John and St. Jude (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1966), 429. 6 R.C.H. Lenski, The interpretation of the Epistles of St. Peter, St. John and St. Jude (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1966), 433. 7 R.C.H. Lenski, The interpretation of the Epistles of St. Peter, St. John and St. Jude (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1966), 435.

have knowledge. I write to you, not because you do not know the truth The elitists do not have a monopoly on the truthtruth belongs to the entire people of God. 2:22: The lie in question is very specific, yet also very far-reaching: the lie is that Jesus is not the Christ. Such a person who affirms that Jesus is not the Christ is ho antichristos, whoever denies the Father and the Son. It is interesting that the antichrist is not exactly opposed to the Christ (i.e., working against the Christ), but simply denies that Jesus is, in fact, the Christ. Moreover, this person denies the Father and the Sonor, put another way, denies the relationship of the Father to the Son. 2:23: That the relationship of the Father to the Son is in view is clear from v. 23, where John says that someone can only have the Father and the Son as a package deal: no one who denies the Son has the Father, but all who confess the Son have the Father also. If it is the Father you want, you cannot have him unless you come to him through the Son. To insist otherwise is, according to 2:22, antichrist. 2:24: The solution? John urges them to Let what you heard from the beginning [overtones of 1:1 and 2:7] abide in you. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, then you too will abide in the Son and in the Father. What is supposed to abide in us? The word of God (1 John 2:14), the anointing (1 John 2:27), the love of God (1 John 3:17; 4:12), the Son Jesus Christ (1 John 3:23-24), the Spirit (1 John 3:24), God (1 John 4:12, 13, 15-16), and the testimony of God (1 John 5:10). 2:25: Finally, John turns to the promise that God made to us, which is eternal life. It is not immediately apparent to me why the subject of eternal life comes up, unless this is a way that John speaks about abiding in the Son and in the Father. Augustine, who sees this in light of his struggle against the Donatists, hears this verse for what it is: encouragement to remain faithful to the end! Listen and dont give up. If you were giving up in your toil, be strong for the sake of the promised reward. Who is it that works in a vineyard and lets it escape his heart what he is going to receive? Suppose that he has forgotten his reward and his hands droop. The recollection of the promised reward makes him persist in his work, and it was a human being who promised this, who is capable of failing you. How much stronger must you be in Gods field, when Truth has made the promise, whose place no one can take, who cannot die, who cannot fail the one to whom he made his promise!8 2:26: John is writing, then, about those who are trying to deceive his children. This is a tender, fatherly concern that John shows toward his people. 2:27: John once more returns the anointing that you received from him, which abides in you. Not only do all of them have this anointing, but John argues that you have no need that anyone should teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about everythingand is true and is no lie, just as it has taught you In other words, there is a total teaching that comes through this anointing. Nevertheless, we should read Johns final command in this passage (abide in him) in light of his comments earlierprecisely because all of them have the anointing, John writes to them (2:21). I would read Johns message then, thus: Precisely because you have the anointing, and you have no need that anyone should teach you, then I will write to you to abide in him. The anointing that they have received should confirm the message that they are to abide in him.

Augustine of Hippo, Third Homily, Homilies on the First Epistle of John (Tractatus in Epistolam Joannis ad Parthos), The works : a translation for the 21st century. (Hyde Park: New City Press, 2008), 61.

Augustine writes, Now see a great sacrament here, brothers: the sound of our words strikes the ears; the teacher is within. Dont think that a person learns anything from a human being. We can offer a suggestion by the sound of our voice, but if he who teaches isnt within, our voice is of no avail. Well, brothers, do you want to know more? Havent all of you heard this sermon? How many will leave from here untaught? As far as my role is concerned, I have spoken to everyone. But those to whom that unction doesnt speak within, whom the Holy Spirit doesnt teach within, depart untaught.He who teaches, then, is the inner teacher: Christ teaches; his inbreathing teaches. Where his inbreathing and his anointing dont exist, words sound without to no avail.9

Augustine of Hippo, Third Homily, Homilies on the First Epistle of John (Tractatus in Epistolam Joannis ad Parthos), The works : a translation for the 21st century. (Hyde Park: New City Press, 2008), 63.