1 John 2:1

τεκνία μου. The diminutive does not imply that the Apostle is addressing persons of tender age: it is a term of endearment. Wiclif has ‘litil sones’ as a rendering of the filioli of the Vulgate; Tyndale, Cranmer, and the Genevan Version all waver between ‘babes’ (which is far too strong) and ‘little children.’ Setting aside Galatians 4:19, where the reading is uncertain, the word occurs only in this Epistle (1 John 2:12; 1 John 2:28; 1 John 3:7; 1 John 3:18; 1 John 4:4; 1 John 5:21) and once in the Gospel (John 13:33). Possibly it is a reminiscence of Christ’s farewell address in John 13. S. John’s conception of the Church is that of a family, in which all are children of God and brethren one of another, but in which also some who are elders stand in a parental relation to the younger brethren. Thus there were families within the family, each with its own father. And who had a better right to consider himself a father than the last surviving Apostle? “The Apostles loved and cherished that name, and all that it implied, and all that illustrated it. They much preferred it to any title which merely indicated an office. It was more spiritual: it was more personal; it asserted better the divine order; it did more to preserve the dignity and sacredness of all domestic relations” (Maurice). Comp. the story of ‘S. John and the Robber’ (p. xxxii).

ταῦτα γράφω. Probably refers to what precedes rather than to what follows. They must not think that because he insists on the reality of sin and the sinfulness of all (1 John 1:6-10), therefore he would have them acquiesce in sin as inevitable. Henceforward he drops the Apostolic first person plural and uses the more personal singular in harmony with τεκνία μου.

ἵνα μὴ ἁμάρτητε. In order that ye may not sin. The aorist is conclusive against the rendering ‘that ye may not continue in sin.’ He would help them to avoid every act of sin. Comp. ἵνα τις ἐξ αὐτοῦ φάγῃ καὶ μὴ� (John 6:50); and contrast 1 John 1:3; 1 John 3:11; 1 John 4:21; 1 John 5:3, where the present subjunctive is used. This is the moral effect of the death of Christ;—to unite men to the God who is Light, and to enable them to hate and avoid the darkness of sin. His aim throughout is ὁμοίωσις τῷ Θεῷ (1 John 3:2).

καὶ ἐάν τις ἁμάρτῃ. Et si quis peccaverit. And if any one have sinned. The aorist again shews that it is an act, and not a state of sin, that is contemplated. Not merely the habitual offender, but he who falls into a single sin, needs and has an Advocate. Sin and its remedy are placed in close proximity, just as they are found in the Church. Note the changes of construction: ‘that ye sin not. And if any one … we have.’ S. John’s habit of writing in the Hebrew form by co-ordinating rather than by subordinating his clauses comes out here. A Greek would more probably have written: ταῦτα γράφω ἵνα μὴ ἁμάρ. καὶ ἵνα εἰδῆτε ὅτι, ἐάν τις ἁμ., π. ἔχομεν.

παράκλητον ἔχομεν. Just as we always have sin (1 John 1:8) so we always have One ready to plead for pardon. S. John does not say ‘he hath an Advocate,’ but ‘we have’ one: he breaks the logical flow of the sentence rather than seem not to include himself in the need and possession of an Advocate, comp. 1 John 2:28. On Advocate or Paraclete (παράκλητος) see on John 14:16. It means one who is summoned to the side of another, especially to serve as his helper, spokesman (causae patronus), or intercessor. The word occurs in N.T. only in S. John; here in the Epistle and four times in the Gospel (John 14:16; John 14:26; John 15:26; John 16:7). It is unlikely that S. John would use the word in totally different senses in the two writings, especially if the Epistle was written to accompany the Gospel. We must therefore find some meaning which will suit all five passages. Two renderings compete for acceptation, ‘Comforter’ and ‘Advocate.’ Both make good sense in the Gospel, and (though there is by no means agreement on the point) ‘Advocate’ makes the best sense. ‘Advocate’ is the only rendering which is at all probable here: it exactly suits the context. ‘We have a Comforter with the Father’ would be intolerable. Moreover, the passive form of the word is decisive, as well as the use of it in the Greek Orators; although some of the Greek Fathers give it an active meaning, as if it were παρακλήτωρ. The older English Versions (excepting Taverner, who has ‘spokesman’) all have ‘Advocate’ here; and (excepting the Rhomish, which has ‘Paraclete’) all have ‘Comforter’ in the Gospel: and of course this unanimity influenced the translators of 1611. But ‘Advocate’ as the one rendering which suits all five passages should be adopted throughout. Then we see the full meaning of Christ’s promise (John 14:16), ‘I will pray the Father, and He shall give you another Advocate.’ Jesus Christ is one Advocate; the Holy Spirit is another. As S. Paul says, ‘the Spirit Himself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered’: and it is worthy of remark that he uses precisely the same language (ἐντυγχάνειν) to express the intercession of the Spirit and the intercession of Christ (Romans 8:26-27; Romans 8:34). Comp. Hebrews 7:25; Hebrews 9:24; 1 Timothy 2:5. Philo’s use of the word ‘Paraclete’ throws considerable light upon its meaning. He often uses it of the high-priest with his breastplate of judgment (Exodus 28:29) interceding on earth for Israel, and also of the Divine Word or Logos giving efficacy in heaven to the intercession of the priest upon earth: ‘It was necessary that the priest who is consecrated to the Father of the world should employ as an Advocate most perfect in efficacy the Son, for the blotting out of sins and the obtaining a supply of abundant blessings’ (De Vita Mosis, III. xiv. 155). It is evident that the whole passage—‘the blood of Jesus cleanseth us,’ ‘to cleanse us from all unrighteousness,’ ‘Advocate,’ ‘propitiation’—points back to the Mosaic purifications by the blood of victims, and especially to the intercession of the high-priest with the blood of the bullock and the goat on the Day of Atonement. That great type, S. John affirms, has been fulfilled in Jesus Christ. Comp. Hebrews 9:24; and an Easter Collect in the Gelasian Sacramentary: “Be propitious to our supplications, that our supreme High Priest interceding for us may reconcile us, in that He is like unto us, and absolve us, in that He is equal to Thee.”

πρὸς τὸν πατέρα. The πρός expresses either turning towards in order to plead, or (as in 1 John 1:2; John 1:1) ever before His face. Cyprian has apud Patrem, Augustine sometimes ad and sometimes apud, Jerome apud. Πατέρα rather than Θεόν, because our Advocate is His Son, through whom we also become sons. It is not a stern Judge but a loving Father before whom He has to plead.

δίκαιον. Much more forcible placed here as a predicate than if it had been added as an epithet to παράκλητον. It is not merely that we have a righteous advocate, but that we have as our advocate One who is in His own nature righteous. Thus He can so well plead with the ‘righteous Father’ (John 17:25; 1 John 1:9) for those who are unrighteous: justus namque advocatus injustas causas non suscipit (Bede). ‘For such a high-priest became us, holy, guileless, undefiled, separated from sinners’ (Hebrews 7:26). It is the Sinless Man, the perfected and glorified Jesus, who pleads for sinners before the Throne of God. Note that neither in the body of the Epistle, any more than in the body of the Gospel, does S. John speak of Christ as ‘the Word.’ In both cases that title is used in the Introduction only. When he speaks of the historic person Jesus Christ, S. John uses the name by which He is known in history. Of the perfect righteousness of this Man S. John has personal knowledge, and he alludes to it repeatedly in this Epistle.

1. He has just been stating that the world is on the wane and that its dissolution has already begun. 2. He has just declared that the obedient Christian shall abide ‘unto the age’ of Christ’s kingdom of glory. 3. He goes on to give as a proof that it is the ‘last hour’, that many Antichrists have already arisen; it being the common belief of Christians that Antichrist would immediately precede the return of Christ (Matthew 24:23-24). 4. Ἡ ἐσχάτη ἡμέρα is a phrase peculiar to S. John (John 6:39-40; John 6:44; John 6:54; John 11:24; John 12:48), and invariably means the end of the world, not the Christian dispensation. 5. S. John’s Gospel contains the prophecy, ‘There cometh an hour (ἔρχεται ὥρα), in which all that are in the tombs shall hear His voice, and shall come forth, &c.’ (John 5:28). 6. Analogous phrases in other parts of N.T. point in the same direction: ‘In the last days grievous times shall come’ (2 Timothy 3:1); ‘Ye are guarded through faith unto a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time’ (1 Peter 1:5); ‘In the last days mockers shall come with mockery’ (2 Peter 3:3). These and other passages shew that by ‘the last days’, ‘last time’, ‘last hour’, and the like, Christian writers did not mean the whole time between the first and second coming of Christ, but only the concluding portion of it. 7. We find similar language with similar meaning in the sub-apostolic age. Thus Ignatius (Eph. XI.) writes; “These are the last times (ἔσχατοι καιροί). Henceforth let us be reverent; let us fear the longsuffering of God, lest it turn into a judgment against us. For either let us fear the wrath which is to come, or let us love the grace which now is.”

Of other interpretations of ‘the last hour’ the most noteworthy are these. (1) The Christian dispensation, which we have every reason to believe is the last. Comp. Acts 2:17. This is the sense in which S. John’s words are true; but this is plainly not his meaning. The appearance of Christ, not of Antichrist, proves that the Christian dispensation is come. (2) A very grievous time; tempora periculosa pessima et abjectissima. This is quite against usage whether in classical or N.T. Greek: comp. 2 Timothy 3:1. The classical phrase, ‘to suffer the last things’, i.e. ‘to suffer extremities’ (τὰ ἔσχατα παθεῖν), supplies no analogy: there the notion of ‘grievous’ comes from the verb. (3) The eve of the destruction of Jerusalem. How could the appearance of Antichrist prove that this had arrived? And Jerusalem had perished at least a dozen years before the probable date of this Epistle. (4) The eve of S. John’s own death. Antichrists could be no sign of that.

It is admitted, even by some of those who reject the obvious interpretation, that “the Apostles expected a speedy appearing or manifestation of Jesus as the Judge of their nation and of all nations” (Maurice): which is to admit the whole difficulty of the rejected explanation. Only gradually was the vision of the Apostles cleared to see the true nature of the spiritual kingdom which Christ had founded on earth and left in their charge. Even Pentecost did not at once give them perfect insight. Being under the guidance of the Holy Spirit they could not teach what was untrue: but, like the Prophets before them, they sometimes uttered words which were true in a sense far higher than that which was present to their own minds. In this higher sense S. John’s words here are true. Like others, he was wrong in supposing ‘that the kingdom of God was immediately to appear’ (Luke 19:11), for ‘it was not for them to know times or seasons which the Father hath set within His own authority’ (Acts 1:7). He was right in declaring that, the Messiah having come, it was the ‘last hour.’ No event in the world’s history can ever equal the coming of Christ until He comes again. The epoch of Christianity, therefore, is rightly called the ‘last hour,’ although it has lasted nearly two thousand years. What is that compared with the many thousands of years since the creation of man, and the limitless geological periods which preceded the creation of man? What again in the eyes of Him in whose sight ‘a thousand years are but yesterday’?

“It may be remarked that the only point on which we can certainly say that the Apostles were in error, and led others into error, is in their expectation of the immediate coming of Christ; and this is the very point which our Saviour says (Mark 13:32) is known only to the Father” (Jelf).

καὶ καθὼς ἠκούσατε ὅτι�. And even as ye heard that Antichrist cometh. For ὅτι�. [570] reads ὁ�. For καθώς see on 1 John 2:6. This seems to be a case in which the aorist should be retained in English. As in 1 John 2:7, the reference is probably to a definite point in their instruction in the faith. See on 1 John 2:11. ‘Cometh’ points to the analogy between the Christ and the Antichrist. The one was hoped for, and the other dreaded, with equal certainty; and hence each might be spoken of as ‘He that cometh’ (ὁ ἐρχόμενος). ‘Art Thou He that cometh?’ (Matthew 11:3; Luke 19:20). Comp. Mark 8:38; Mark 11:9; John 4:25; John 6:14; John 11:27, &c. &c. And as to the coming of Antichrists the N.T. seems to be as explicit as the O.T. with regard to the coming of Christ. ‘Many shall come in My name, saying I am the Christ; and shall lead many astray.… There shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect’ (Matthew 24:5; Matthew 24:24). Comp. Mark 13:22-23; Acts 20:29; 2 Timothy 3:1; 2 Peter 2:1; and especially 2 Thessalonians 2:3, which like the passage before us seems to point to one distinct person or power as the one Antichrist, whose spirit animates all antichristian teachers.

[570] 5th century. Brought by Cyril Lucar, Patriarch of Constantinople, from Alexandria, and afterwards presented by him to Charles I. in 1628. In the British Museum. All three Epistles.

The term ‘Antichrist’ in Scripture occurs only in the First and Second Epistles of S. John (1 John 2:18; 1 John 2:22; 1 John 4:3; 2 John 1:7). The earliest instance of its use outside Scripture is in S. Polycarp (Ep. ad Phil. VII.), in a passage which shews that this disciple of S. John (A.D. 112–118) knew our Epistle: see on 1 John 4:3. The term does not mean merely a mock Christ or false Christ, for which the N.T. term is ψευδόχριστος (Matthew 24:24; Mark 13:22). Nor does it mean simply an opponent of Christ, for which we should probably have ἐχθρὸς τοῦ Χριστοῦ, like τοὺς ἐχθροὺς τ. σταυροῦ τ. Χρ. (Philippians 3:18) and ἐχθρὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ (James 4:4). But it includes both these ideas of counterfeiting and opposing; it means an opposition Christ or rival Christ; just as we call a rival Pope an ‘antipope’. The Antichrist is, therefore, a usurper, who under false pretences assumes a position which does not belong to him, and who opposes the rightful owner. The idea of opposition is the predominant one.

It is not easy to determine whether the Antichrist of S. John is personal or not. But the discussion of this question is too long for a note: see Appendix B.

ἀντίχρ. πολλοὶ γεγόνασιν. Have there arisen many Antichrists. The Christ was from all eternity (1 John 1:1); the Antichrist and his company arose in time: they are come into being. We have a similar contrast in the Gospel. Ἐν�ἦν ὁ λόγος (1 John 1:1). ἐγένετο ἄνθρωπος� (1 John 1:6). Note the difference of tense between ἐγένετο and γεγόνασιν: the perfect indicates that these antichrists are for the most part still alive. The word occurs nowhere else in this Epistle. For καθὼς … καὶ … instead of καθὼς … οὕτως … comp. 1 John 2:6; 1 John 4:17; John 17:18; John 20:21. These ‘many antichrists’ are probably to be regarded as at once forerunners of the Antichrist and evidence that his spirit is already at work in the world: the one fact shews that he is not far distant, the other that in a sense he is already here. In either case we have proof that the return of Christ, which is to be heralded by the appearance of Antichrist, is near.

ὅθεν γινώσκομεν ὅτι ἐσχ. ὥρα ἐστίν. Whence we come to know that it is the last hour. Ὄθεν in the sense of ‘from which data, from which premises’ hardly occurs elsewhere in N.T., excepting perhaps in Hebrews (Hebrews 2:17; Hebrews 7:25; Hebrews 8:3), where it is uniformly rendered ‘wherefore’ in both A.V. and R.V. It is similar in meaning to ἐκ τούτου (1 John 4:6).

It is difficult to see what S. John could have meant by this, if by the ‘last hour’ he understood the Christian dispensation as a whole and not the concluding portion of it (comp. 2 Timothy 3:1). The multitude of false teachers who were spreading the great lie (1 John 2:22) that Jesus is not the Christ, were evidence, not of the existence of Christianity, but of antichristianity. Nor could evidence of the former be needed by S. John’s readers. They did not need to be convinced either that the Gospel dispensation had begun, or that it was the last in the history of the Divine Revelation. The Montanist theory that a further dispensation of the Spirit, distinct from that of the Son, was to follow and supersede the Gospel, as the Gospel had superseded Judaism, the dispensation of the Father, was a belief of later growth. (For an account of this theory as elaborated by Joachim of Flora [fl. A.D. 1180–90] see Döllinger’s Prophecies and the Prophetic Spirit in the Christian Era, pp. 114–119.) In the Apostolic age the tendency was all the other way;—to believe that the period since the coming of Christ was not only the last in the world’s history, but would be very brief. It was thought that some of the generation then existing might live to see the end (1 Thessalonians 4:15-16; 1 Corinthians 15:51-52).