Chapter 2

Starts with "My little children...".  John is very old, especially by the standards of his time.  He's just said some pretty strong things.  Now his face softens, he smiles, and switches from authoritative directness to benevolent grand parenting.  Jesus is the propitiation for our sins, and for the sins of the whole world.  This sounds like unlimited atonement.  Pretty good proof text for it in fact.  MSB says this is "a generic term for mankind in general, not for every single individual.  Then MSB states clearly "Christ actually paid the penalty only for those who would repent and believe."  This is at the heart of Calvinism.  John MacArthur is Calvinist.  What then does he disagree with Spurgeon about?  (2023 - John MacArthur is also a dispensationalist, which I'm guessing Spurgeon is not.  I am pretty sure that I am not a dispensationalist.  I wonder if the few places I have agreed with MacA are related to dispensationalism.  I will check as I get to them again.)

2022 - This verse:

2 He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world. [1Jo 2:2 ESV]

(((2023 - Hard to swallow, but looking at BLB today it appears that this whole conflict between TR and mGNT is non-existent.  I compared TR and mGNT word for word for word, and they are exactly the same on this verse.  There are no differences at all.  SO this huge paragraph below where I complain about spending hours on one word?  Well that was all wasted time because I got something in my head that wasn't there.  And today, I just don't feel like I have the time to unravel it all.  Reading on through, just need to get it read.)))

2023 - Well...no I am not just reading it on through.  Here are some other verses where that phrase "whole world" is used:

6 In days to come Jacob shall take root, Israel shall blossom and put forth shoots and fill the whole world with fruit. [Isa 27:6 ESV]

26 For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what shall a man give in return for his soul? [Mat 16:26 ESV]

14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come. [Mat 24:14 ESV]

36 For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his soul? [Mar 8:36 ESV]

Not that in every case, "whole world" is about geography, never about people.  So when it says that he is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world, it means that no matter where in the world you live, his propitiation reaches you.  It doesn't mean for every individual in the whole world, it means that there is no place IN the world that it does not reach.  So given that, my conclusion is that this verse is not about unlimited atonement at all.  It is just not a good proof text for that.

(2023 - For some reason, today, in 2023, I am hesitant to delete the erroneous paragraph below.  Perhaps to remind me that when I get into something this difficult, the FIRST thing to do is make sure I'm reading it right.  So I'll leave this huge error here for now.)

If we deny that the meaning here is unlimited atonement, then what does it mean?  How are we to explain it without sounding tautological?  We could say that he has atoned for the sins of all who are currently saved, the"our sins" part, and for those lost now who will be saved, for generations yet unborn and unknown to us who are yet to be saved "the whole world" part.  Is that fair?  The Greek word translated "our" in the first phrase is "ego".  Hmm...It has the list of how this word is translated, as it is used 370 times in the KJV.  "our" does not appear in that list.  Yet here is 1J2:2 in the KJV:  2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for [the sins of] the whole world. [1Jo 2:2 KJV].  KJV clearly uses "our", but here is the thing.  The above use of ego is based on the ESV translation, and ESV is based on the mGNT.  The KJV is based on the TR.  AND, in the TR, the word is not "ego", it is "hemon".  This word "hemon" is NEVER used in the mGNT!  In 313 of 410 instances in the TR, "hemon" is translated "our".  In the TR, in 365 of 370 uses, "ego" is translated "I".  Very difficult situation for a Greek non-scholar.  I will keep on though.  In the mGNT, there are 2,581 instances in 17 unique forms of the Greek word we transliterate as "ego".  That is a tremendous number!  The precise form of the word that appears here in 1J2:2 occurs 470 of those 2581 times in the mGNT.  In this form, the word is a Genitive plural.  So that would never be translated "I", except of the Trinity.  We are not here speaking of the Trinity, so it is translated "our" based on the underlying word in the mGNT.  Instead of "our", the same word in the same Greek form is here translated "us".  23 "Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel" (which means, God with us). [Mat 1:23 ESV]  In 1J, as "our", it is a possessive plural pronoun.  But in Matthew, it is a pronoun still, but not possessive.  God with us, not "our God with".  In both places it is genitive case.  The genitive case shows ownership.  So I get "our sins", we certainly own them.  But that does not apply to "God with us".  Maybe context determines...no!  Genitive is genitive, context nothwithstanding.

So I have been locked up on this verse now for almost half an hour.  On this one word for half an hour.  I am at least as confused now as I was when I started - in fact much more so.  Given the number of forms this little three letter word can take, I suspect that even a Greek scholar could do little better in explaining the reasons for these two very different translations of the same root word in the same form.  Come on.  Who can explain such a thing? 

So my conclusion, what I see as the result of this, is the rise of two very different doctrines from the same verse.  You have the Calvinist saying this does not undo the third point of Calvinism - limited atonement - and all their hand waving to prove that.  Perhaps they say there are obvious translation problems here, there is obviously much more going on here - much assumed based on what was "commonly meant" by this phrasing in NT Ephesus - that just isn't concisely stated in this verse.  After all, this verse is not about whether atonement is limited or unlimited, it is about Christ's death being applicable to all men...and the Calvinist add, if they are elect.  His blood COULD cover all sins, but is only actually applied to the elect.  And the Arminians say that "whole" means exactly that and nothing more with no caveats. 

It seems like every time we start to take apart a verse used as a proof text for something as "theological" as Calvinism vs Arminianism we find one of these contested and very complex translations, of which this is maybe the most profound I have yet encountered, having roots in whether or not the TR or the mGNT ought to be followed, and then just getting more complex from there!  What are we to think?  Perhaps, and I think what is most likely, is that both are correct, but the "mental resilience" for both to be true is lacking in human beings.  God has not clearly revealed how atonement can be both limited and unlimited at the same time.  This isn't the only such thing, and if we correctly identify the horse and the cart, it is clear that the horse is how God constructed the efficacy of the crucifixion, and the cart is just a dilapidated, worn out derelict version of the perfect wagon God designed.  We should spend our time enthralled about the very  idea of a perfect sacrifice, a mortal man without sin (for what could ever be excluded as too much for such a sacrifice to cover) and not worry so much how exactly that blood is applied to mankind.  Let the theologians work on that.

AND, I have used up my whole time on this one verse, really this one word.  So I am moving on now at a much more rapid pace.

2021 - This verse:

3 And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments. [1Jo 2:3 ESV]  In this little book, the Apostle John has said some very direct things in his first chapter.  He said, literally, that if we are allowing/tolerating/embracing habitual sin in our lives, then we are not Christians, not children of God, not regenerated, and headed straight to hell when we die.  He cuts them no slack at all.  But then in chapter 2, his approach changes from "schoolmaster" to "grandfather".  He lays out a test.  A pretty simple test.  But this is not presented as a litmus test, that will reveal one of only two possible answers.  This is more like asking "is the check engine light on?"  If we don't pass this test, it means that something is wrong somewhere, and we need to check further to determine how serious the problem really  is.  The problem might be an indulgent attitude toward some sin, a wholesale slide into carnality, or it may indicate a previous lack of true conversion that shows a rejection of offered salvation.  Whichever the case may be, failing this test ought to prompt us to see a good "mechanic".  We should talk to someone well grounded in faith (we should know a lot of people who are well grounded!) and get an outside, objective opinion of what is going on.  We should get some guided study to help us diagnose the real extent of the problem, the "cost" to repair that problem, and an informed decision about how we want to go forward.  This is not a check engine light that we should ignore, or paint over.  Failing this simple test should give us a sense of urgency.  Ignoring this warning light will almost certainly lead to problems that are increasingly difficult and expensive to correct.  (John does not stay in Grandfather mode very long, but soon follows with this verse:  4 Whoever says "I know him" but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him, [1Jo 2:4 ESV])

This is a really good FB post.

2023 - This verse:

4 Whoever says "I know him" but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him, [1Jo 2:4 ESV].

So...do I just tack this onto the bottom of the 2023 summary at the bottom of chapter one?

If we claim salvation, and act like heathens, we are liars.  That's four things now that John calls lies.  Actually...he calls those who SAY these things LIARS.  That is really the word he's focused on.  Not lies, but liars.

Then a shift from grandfather back to authority:

5 but whoever keeps his word, in him truly the love of God is perfected. By this we may know that we are in him: 6 whoever says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked. [1Jo 2:5-6 ESV]

So keeping God's laws "perfects" us.  Living as the false teachers said, and indulging all physical pleasures because they don't matter anyway, does the opposite.  In keeping God's laws, we find real pleasure, we find fellowship, our spirit agrees with His Spirit, and we just know - we are internally assured - that we are "in Him".  There is that phrase again, this time John is using it, not Paul.  the paragraph concludes that if we say we are "in Christ", we ought to live as Christ lived, in full accord with the commandments of God, not as indulgent brats.

John says what he is saying is nothing new, but is in fact very old.  He doesn't actually name the command until later, but he is talking about "love".  Jesus required that we love each other as he loved us.  While this was in the OT, it was not emphasized as the core of all the commandments.  Jesus gave it a central place in the lives of believers, even to their own hurt.

2022 - The verse is like this:

7 Brethren, I write no new commandment unto you, but an old commandment which ye had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word which ye have heard from the beginning. [1Jo 2:7 KJV]

John says the new stuff is not to be embraced, but rather held up against the old word, heard from the beginning.  Orthodoxy before innovation in every case is what John is saying here.  What a lesson for us today!  New doctrine is bad doctrine!

This might be turned into a pretty good FB post!

No...because the next verse introduces considerable complexity.  What John is really saying is that he is going to restate something that was there before, but never conceived in these same words.  We see it now because the light - Jesus - has come into the world and clarified this commandment - which he certainly did and in so many words.  But I think trying to just FB what is above as standalone is to oversimplify in an unacceptable way.  So I'm taking it back off the list.

Vs 9 gets direct and unequivocal again.  If you hate your brother, you are NOT in the light, but still in darkness.  You have it wrong.  This is likely directed at what the false teachers are saying about those who oppose them, as mentioned in the introduction.  John is "shining the light of love" right on them, undermining their false teaching by pointing out that they are not even believers.  Then John uses a sort of "poetic construction" to make the same point repeatedly: that living in the light makes us God's children, while living in the darkness of sin makes us children of the world - and the world is controlled by Satan.

In the NASB the verbs in vss 13c-14 are translated "I have written", instead of I write.  There is a contrast with 12-13b where the tense is different - I am writing.  This section would be easy for John's readers to memorize I expect.  It would be interesting to take a look at it in Greek...

These tremendous verses:

15 Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 16 For all that is in the world--the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride of life--is not from the Father but is from the world. [1Jo 2:15-16 ESV]

John just won't leave them any room at all to indulge in sin.  He makes it clear over and over that committing sin DOES matter, and it is NOT acceptable, and it means - it makes it certain - that you are not saved.

In vs 18 John says that the prediction that antichrist must come before the end of time is fulfilled.  Many antichrists are here already, therefore he identified his own time as "the last hour".  This is the man who wrote Revelation saying that the "end times" are upon them.  I think.  MSB though, says the term antichrist appears only in John's epistles, and this is the first appearance in them.  Its first use is singular, referring to the world ruler who is predicted to come.  It's second use in the same verse is plural, referring to many individuals already present.  So...John is not saying the final antichrist is visible.  He makes THE antichrist, and those who have followed the false teachers essentially "of the same mind and intent" as that last antichrist that will come.  He doesn't say those who follow the false teachers have made a mistake and need to be corrected and urged back, but that they are of the same stuff as the evil ruler of this world.  Man.  He is not leaving any wiggle room at all.

2022 - This, I think, contradicts what Bobby Kelly said.  I do not remember Kelly pointing out that one is singular and one is plural.  When John uses it as singular, he could well be speaking of the spirit of antichrist, as the idea of direct opposition, refutation and denial of Christ is now showing up to influence demonically these false teachers that are the subject of his letter so far.  They are all of one mind - anti-Christ - and there are many of them with that mind, the plural.  However, if you want to justify calling that predicted world ruler "THE Antichrist", you can pull it out of this verse.  I think to do so would put you on shaky ground though, as John specifically says "Therefore we know that it is the last hour".  He is saying that the predicted world ruler is there, because that is what signaled the last hour.  It seems to me that is how John meant it.  Bobby may be right...but he may not.

I think the spirit of antichrist is what John means in the singular, and that the false teachers, plural, are a part of that spirit.  John isn't talking about "THE Antichrist" when he uses the singular.  What verse is John referencing when he says "You have heard...."  Find that verse, and unlock John's real intent.  MSB references Dan. 8:9-11; 11:31-38; 12:11; Mt 24:15; and 2Th 2:1-12.  See MSB notes on Rev 13:1-5; 19:20.  So these are where you start, and I bet it is a very interesting study...but not for today.  Moving this paragraph to End Times note.

2023 - Hmm...I wonder if I am as mistaken in the two paragraphs above as I was in the vs 1!?!?  Here is verse 18, in the ESV:

18 Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. Therefore we know that it is the last hour. [1Jo 2:18 ESV]

The first use of "antichrist is as a nominative singular masculine noun.  Nominative is the subject of the phrase "antichrist is coming".  It is singular, but there is NO definite article in here anywhere. 

The second use is actually "antichristoi", and is nominative plural masculine, the subject of the phrase "many antichrists have come". 

I think - though I am no Greek scholar - that if John was equating antichrist with the end times world ruler, with that specific human person - there would be a definite article here to make that clear.  It is not here.  Look at the two phrases:  Sometime in the past, the saved to whom John is writing, heard that antichrist, singular, would come.  And John is here to tell us that the predicted antichrist is here in spades.  So does John mean that they were all told that teaching against Christ would arrive, and that now, such teaching is present in many variations?  I don't think he is talking so much about persons here as about what these persons teach, he is talking about a message that is against Christ with the intent of making Christ of no consequence.  Does that hold up in the rest of the verses where John uses it?  If it is a concept, and not a man, then we would expect it to always be a concept.

2023 - The word "antichristos" is used 5 times in 4 verses in the mGNT.  Twice in 1Jn 2:18, once in 1Jn 2:22, once in 1Jn 4:3, and once in 2Jn 1:7.  And that is it.  John does not use the word in his gospel, John does not use the word in Revelation.

18 Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. Therefore we know that it is the last hour. ... This is the original use that we postulate is (looks like I misplaced something here...Checking website to see if it is still there...Nope.  Missing there also.  No idea what this said in 2023 and no other place to look.)

22 Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son. [1Jo 2:18, 22 ESV].  So...Here, the word antichrist does seem to be applied to specific individuals.  The definite article IS present in vs. 22.  John seems to be saying that any man whose teaching includes a denial of the Father and the Son belongs in the category of those who teach antichrist.  That seems weak...

3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already. [1Jo 4:3 ESV].  This is about the spirit of antichrist.  Like the underlying motivation in the world to teach against Christ.

7 For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist. [2Jo 1:7 ESV].  Definite articles are present in both places.  THE deceiver, THE antichrist.  But look back...at the beginning of the verse John tells us that there are MANY of these?  Many "THE antichrist".  Perhaps the deceivers are the ones who are doing the teaching, and they will proclaim all sorts of refutations showing that Jesus, the Christ, did NOT come in the flesh.  Any such teaching is ANTI-Christ.  Maybe that's the problem?  We try to make antichrist a single word, where in English it is better understood as TWO words. 

18 Looking back...ANTI-CHRIST teachings will arise.  Many teachings are now extant that are ANTI-CHRIST.

22 He who denies Father and son is ANTI-CHRIST.

3 Every "idea" categorizing JESUS as just a man is an idea that is ANTI-CHRIST.

7 Such a person is ANTI-CHRIST.

Wow!  Putting that little dash in there, and so changing the pronunciation, put the emphasis on a different aspect.  It fits ALL the instances when paraphrased this way.  Teaching that is anti-Christ was predicted.  Many teachings are now in the world that are anti-Christ.  If you want to ferret out teachings which sound plausible but are in fact anti-Christ, then look for these tell tale signs:  They deny that Jesus is the Christ.  So simply an anti-Christ teaching!  That he is not who we say he is.  If they teach that Father and Son   These all work very very well.  Just change the way you write it down!

2024 - Going still further with this, it is plain as can be that antichrists are already in the world in John's time.  They were previously members of the church, but went out from them, indicating that these who embrace anti-Christ teachings were never saved to start with.  There is no way to get an end of the world diabolical world tyrant out of what John says in this chapter.  And John is the only NT writer who ever uses the word anti-Christ.  How did we get this so messed up?  John is warning us about a teaching, not about a man.  In Revelation we will get the number of a man, the number of THE beast.  But John isn't talking about that beast here, and antichrist is not the name of that beast that is to come.  Satan wants us to know as little about the beast as possible so that he can put off recognition as long as possible.  Having us refer to the beast as THE Antichrist is one of the ways he does that.  There is no "THE Antichrist".  There is the MoL, SoP.  A man in both instances.  Antichrists have been around since John's day.  The ones he's talking about start inside the church, do all the harm they can, and then go out.

2023 - Using the two 2023 paragraphs above, vs 19 now makes perfect sense.  The ones who have "left" are those who have embraced teaching that is anti-Christ.  Against Christ.  I think John is talking now not about the rank and file, but about the teachers, the leaders, the liars who are promoting beliefs that are not orthodox at all, but new teachings which according to the signs and tests John has given us, are anti-Christ.

He speaks to the ones who have not left, and says he writes to them BECAUSE they are holding to the truth, not to correct them for NOT holding to it.  Those who have left are not the ones he is writing!  He's let them go.  He does another sort of summary verse that I suspect draws a stark contrast with the teachings of the antichrists that have led many away from the church:

23 No one who denies the Son has the Father. Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also. [1Jo 2:23 ESV]

Another verse that makes me want to find a good book on Christology!

2022 - Sort of backing up just a bit to this phrase:

22 Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son. [1Jo 2:22 ESV]

First, look at the last phrase: "...he who denies the Father and the Son".  Is that not Islam in a nutshell?  Are they not here predicted?  The word antichrist here is Nominative Singular Masculine in the Greek.  He is using a singular noun to describe multiple "subscribers".  ANY singular person who denies the Father and the Son is "the antichrist".  Is the definite article there, before antichrist?  Yes!  "ho antichristos" is the phrase.  So take this back to the 2022 note above on vs 18.  Antichrist is singular there also, but it does not refer to "The Antichrist" as we use the term.  I think the argument is very very compelling that John did not mean it that way.

This verse confirms that John is not writing those who are following false teachers, but those still in the church and holding to the true faith:

26 I write these things to you about those who are trying to deceive you. [1Jo 2:26 ESV].

2023 - I think this verse also means that the above analysis relying on "anti-Christ" instead of antichrist is all about identifying the men who are teaching doctrine, philosophy, theology that is anti-Christ.  He is not looking out to the coming of the Man of Lawlessness in any way at all.  It is just NOT about "the antichrist", and our referring to the end times world leader AS "The Antichrist" is a complete misnomer.

Look at this in vs 27!!!:

27 But the anointing that you received from him abides in you, and you have no need that anyone should teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about everything, and is true, and is no lie--just as it has taught you, abide in him. [1Jo 2:27 ESV]

A reference to fulfillment of the prophecy that says "a new heart will I put within you, and no man will teach another, because all will know the truth".  I thought this prophecy was only about the Jews in the last days but here John seems to apply it to the Gentile church in Ephesus!  MSB does not make this connection...so I am likely off the track.  But still...

2022 - And still one more verse to appreciate in this chapter:

28 And now, little children, abide in him, so that when he appears we may have confidence and not shrink from him in shame at his coming. [1Jo 2:28 ESV]

If we are in him, we know absolutely that we are, we live "in him" in all that we do, and so when the trumpet sounds and the light flashes, and every eye turns, we don't have a rock in our bellies wondering if we were right, but lift our hands and welcome him at his appearing.  Think of this contrast!  And how is this confidence gained?  By abiding in him, living his words, his ways, his teaching...and by turning everything outward and loving those whom he has put near us to love!  Love close by, not continents away!  God calls some to that, but he calls us all to love close by!

2025 - Perhaps shrinking in shame won't mean doubting salvation, but trying to hide because we have been such poor, unproductive, useless sheep to the Shepherd?  This would be a reference to the bema seat, in heaven, where the rewards will be given for all to see.  It is pretty easy to generalize this to include all the rapture, both dead and alive.  We stand in line, either confidently awaiting our turn or shaking uncontrollably for our failures about to be exposed to all.  What we have here is a description of the bema seat. have to be compatible, on so many levels, yet I cannot find the thread.  Another time perhaps.