1 John 2:12-14

Threefold Statement of Reasons for Writing

"Hitherto St John has stated briefly the main scope of his Epistle. He has shewn what is the great problem of life, and how the Gospel meets it with an answer and a law complete and progressive, old and new. He now pauses, as it were to contemplate those whom he is addressing more distinctly and directly, and to gather up in a more definite form the charge which is at once the foundation and the end of all he writes" (Westcott).

These verses have given rise to much discussion (1) as to the different classes addressed, (2) as to the meaning of the change of tense, from -I write" to -I wrote" or -have written".

(1) It will be observed that we have two triplets, each consisting of little children, fathers and young men. There is a slight change of wording in the Greek not apparent in the English, the word for -little children" in the first triplet (τεκνία) being not the same as in the second (παιδία). But this need not make us give a different interpretation in each case. -Little children" throughout the Epistle, whether expressed as in 1 John 2:14; 1 John 2:18(παιδία), or as in 1 John 2:1; 1Jn 2:12; 1 John 2:28, 1Jn 3:7; 1 John 3:18 1 John 4:4, 1 John 5:21 (τεκνία), probably means the Apostle's readers generally, and has nothing to do with age or with standing in the Christian community. It indicates neither those who are of tender years, nor those who are young in the faith. It is a term of affection for all the Apostle's -dear children". But this is not the case with either -fathers" or -young men". These terms are probably in each triplet to be understood of the older and younger men among the Christians addressed. This fully accounts for the order in each triplet; first the whole community, then the old, then the young. If -little children" had reference to age, we should have had either -children, youths, fathers", or -fathers, youths, children". There is, however, something to be said for the view that allS. John's readers are addressed in all three cases, the Christian life of all having analogies with youth, manhood, and age; with the innocence of childhood, the strength of prime, and the experience of full maturity.

(2) The change of tense cannot be explained with so much confidence. But an important correction of reading must first be noticed. We ought not to read with A. V. -I write" four times and then -I have written" twice: but with R. V. -I write" thrice and then -I have written" or -I wrote" thrice. This correction confirms the explanation given above of the different classes addressed. The following interpretations of the change from the present to the aorist have been suggested. 1. -I write" refers to the Epistle, -I wrote" to the Gospel which it accompanies. The Apostle first gives reasons why he is writingthis letter to the Church and to particular portions of it; and then gives reasons, partly the same and partly not, why he wrotethe Gospel to which it makes such frequent allusions. On the whole this seems most satisfactory. It gives a thoroughly intelligible meaning to each tense and accounts for the abrupt change. 2. -I write" refers to this Epistle; -I wrote" to a former Epistle. But of any former Epistle we have no evidence whatever. 3. -I write" refers to the whole Epistle; -I wrote" to the first part down to 1 John 2:11. But would S. John have firstsaid that he wrote the wholeletter for certain reasons, and thensaid that he wrote a portionof it for much the same reasons? Had -I wrote" preceded -I write", and had the reasons in each triplet been more different, this explanation would have been more satisfactory. 4. -I write" refers to what follows, -I wrote" to what precedes. This is a construction loucheindeed! The objection urged against the preceding explanation applies still more strongly. 5. -I write" is written from the writer's point of view, -I wrote" from the reader's point of view: the latter is the epistolary aorist, like scripsior scribebamin Latin (comp. Philippians 2:25; Philippians 2:28; Philemon 1:12, and especially 19 and 21). But is it likely that S. John would make three statements from his own stand-point, and then repeat them from his readers" stand-point? And if so, why make any change in them? 6. The repetition is made for emphasis. This explains the repetition, but not the change of tense. Hence -What I have written, I have written" (John 19:22), and -Rejoice … and again I will say, rejoice" (Philippians 4:4) are not analogous; for there the same tenseis repeated. 7. S. John may have left off writing at the end of 1 John 2:13, and then on resuming may have partly repeated himself from the new point of time, saying -I wrote" where he had previously said -I write". This is conceivable, but is a little fine-drawn. Without, therefore, confidently affirming that it is the right explanation, we fall back upon the one first stated, as intelligible in itself and more satisfactory than the others.

little children All his readers; as in 1 John 2:1; 1Jn 2:28, 1 John 3:7; 1 John 3:18, &c.

because your sins are forgiven you Some would render - thatyour sins are forgiven you"; and so in each of these sentences substituting -that" for -because". This is grammatically quite possible, but is otherwise highly improbable: comp. 1 John 2:21. S. John is not telling them whathe is writing, but whyhe writes it. The forgiveness of sins is the very first condition of Christian morals (1 John 1:7); therefore he reminds them all of this first.

for His name's sake Of course Jesus Christ's. It was by believing on His Namethat they acquired the right to become children of God (John 1:12). -The Name of Jesus Christ" is not a mere periphrasis for Jesus Christ. Names in Scripture are constantly given as marks of character possessed or of functions to be performed. This is the case with all the Divine Names. The Name of Jesus Christ indicates His attributes and His relations to man and to God. It is through these that the sins of S. John's dear children have been forgiven.