10/01/21 – 1 John 2:18-23
1 John 2:18 – Little
children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come,
even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.
We covered this verse in some detail last time, so I won’t go over it all again. I looked at that term “antichrist” and researched just what John could have meant by that and how it could apply to us today.
1 John 2:19 – They went out
from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would [no
doubt] have continued with us: but [they went out], that they might
be made manifest that they were not all of us.
went out – exerchomai (to
go or come forth of or from; leave a place of one’s own accord; can also mean
those who are expelled or cast out; forsake an assembly)
They went out from us – They separated themselves from us (from our
fellowship; from our church; from us as Christians). John has made it clear
earlier on that he is writing to genuine Christians (1 John 2:12) so therefore
“us” here refers to Christians. See 1 John 2:12 where John says he is writing to them because
their sins have been forgiven.
they were not of us – Clearly these who separated themselves from the
genuine Christians were not genuine Christians themselves.
have continued – meno (remain;
abide; sojourn; continue to be present; last; endure) It is most often
translated as “abide” or “abideth”, such as in 1 John 2:6 – He
that saith he abideth in him ought himself
also so to walk, even as he walked.
meno here is in the pluperfect tense which
can be similar to the perfect tense but indicates an action completed before
another action, whereas the perfect tense indicates that the action has been completed
in the past with reference to the present time. Perfect may be seen as present
perfect (Eg I have washed the car.) while pluperfect
may be seen as past perfect (Eg I had washed the car
before you arrived.)
John uses meno 11 times in 1 John Ch.2. In fact
he uses it 3 times in 1 John 2:24
alone. It is clear that John sees one of the characteristics of the genuine
Christian as abiding or continuing especially under testing conditions.
they would [no
doubt] have continued with us – Thus “they would have remained with us”, that is, they would never
have left us in the first place and therefore this issue would never have
arisen before this. If they had been of “us” (that is, they were genuine
Christians whose sins have been forgiven as per 1 John 2:12) they would have remained with us (they would never have left us)”.
John makes it clear that it is their departure that defines them as not of “us”
(the Christians).
The mark of the
genuine Christian is that he will persevere to the end and not fall before the
end.
Hebrews 3:14 – For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of
our confidence stedfast unto the end;
The “P” of
calvinism stands for the perseverance of the saints. Most calvinists assume
this to mean that if you are a committed calvinist, then you are guaranteed a
place in heaven when you die. Sonship Theology (on which the New Calvinism is
based) actually claims that if you are one of the elect,
then you are a child of God, and there is no sin that you can possibly commit
that can prevent you from entering heaven. Sonship Theology is seen quite
correctly by many critics as a licence to sin, for their God will ensure that
they get to heaven regardless of what sin they might commit on the way.
However, the Bible
teaches that it is the other way around: that the genuine Christian is proven
to be so by not falling away before the end. This raises another question
concerning backslidden Christians: are they backslidden or were they never
saved in the first place? My answer is that a genuine Christian, even if
backslidden, never can refuse to acknowledge God’s sovereignty. I do not
believe that any genuine Christian, backslidden or not, can turn against God.
Deny God before others, yes – Peter did this before the crucifixion – but never
turn against Him. Genuine Christians cannot be traitors!
They – Clearly this refers to those “many antichrists” of Vs 18 above.
manifest – exposed; revealed
they were not all of us – If some went out from them, then before they went they may have appeared to be of them (that is, genuine Christians). It was the point of desertion that defined where they really stood.
2 Timothy 4:10a – For Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world Therefore not all that were with them (or appeared to be with them) were really with them as fellow believers.
It is somewhat like the parable of the wheat and the tares (Matthew 13:24-30) where the wheat are the children of the kingdom (Christians) and the tares are the children of the wicked one (children of satan). At first it is difficult to tell the difference because the tares act like good Christians. It is only their fruit that clearly defines the tares. This parable of Jesus makes it clear that the church today will have tares planted among the wheat and that it will not be easy to tell the tares from the wheat. In 1 John 2:19 we see that the non-Christians may appear to be genuine Christians until they depart from the fellowship of the true church. They are not only antichrists (according to John) but also tares among the wheat.
1 John 2:20 – But ye have an
unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things.
But – The other side of the coin; the
other group – the genuine Christians. John does focus a lot on these
dichotomies (two mutually-exclusive groups – the Christians vs the deserters).
an unction – chrisma (anything
smeared on, unguent. ointment, usually prepared by the Hebrews from oil and
aromatic herbs. Anointing was the inaugural ceremony for priests) This word is
only used 3 times in the NT, here and twice in 1 John 2:27 – But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie,
and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
The Christian has an anointing from God, a calling to serve (or minister).
the Holy One – hagios (holy;
characteristic of God; separated to God; worthy of veneration; applied to
persons as separated to God’s service; in a moral sense, of sharing God’s
purity; of pure, clean sacrificies and offerings. Its
highest application is to God himself, in his purity, majesty and glory.) an adjective.
hagios is derived from hagos (an awful thing).
know – oida (know; see – mentally; pay
attention to; to experience any state or condition; observe; look at; behold;
to know how; to be skilled in something) Perfect tense, thus “have known all things
already”.
oida has more of a mental understanding of how things work or how to do things. It is a different word to that which John has mostly used so far (ginosko) for “know”. So we’ll look at Ch. 2 to compare the usages of each.
John’s first use of oida
in 1 John is 1 John 2:11 – But he that hateth his brother is in darkness, and walketh in darkness,
and knoweth (oida)
not whither he goeth,
because that darkness hath blinded his eyes. He then uses it again in 2:20; 2:21;
and 2:29.
John has commenced using ginosko in 1 John 2:3 and again in 2:4; 2:5; 2:13; 2:14; 2:18; and 2:29. It is clear that he has used both words a number
of times for some reason. Therefore we must assume
that he was using the word “know” in 2 different ways for a good reason.
So, here is a comparison between the 2 words.
ginosko
– to learn to know; a knowledge grounded on personal experience
oida
– to know or see how to do something; to see with the mind’s eye; it signifies
a clear mental perception
Thus ginosko would refer to those things that you know
through experience, such as facts and truths which you have personally
experienced, while oida would refer more to an
understanding of the knowledge that you have, or need to have.
ginosko
refers to the gaining of factual knowledge (including learning to know), while oida refers to the understanding of those facts and
how to apply them.
So, in 1 John 2:3, ginosko
(“…. we know him ….”) refers to an actual
experiential knowledge of Jesus, something more than just a head knowledge that
might be gained from someone else. It must define a personal knowledge through
experience. We don’t just know about Him, we know Him!
On the other hand, oida
in 1 John 2:20
must refer to an understanding of what you already know. Thus
it would apply understanding to the personal knowledge that ginosko
would refer to. Knowing all things (perfect tense) would not mean knowing all
the facts, but rather having an understanding of all the facts that you already
know.
Therefore, “and ye know (perfect
tense) all things”
becomes “and you have already understood all
the things you have already experienced (about those things we have been discussing)”.
It cannot mean that we know (ginosko)
all things because 1 Corinthians
13:12
says “now I know (ginosko) in
part”,
thus seemingly contradicting “ye know (oida) all things”.
So to be consistent with 1 Corinthians 13:12 we would have to
note the difference between ginosko
(experience) and oida (understanding) as 2
different aspects of knowing as explained above.
2 Timothy 2:15 (“….
rightly dividing the word of truth ….”) refers to an understanding of what we
read in the Bible; thus it would firstly require
knowing (ginosko) what the Bible says and then
applying understanding (oida) to that
knowledge.
Because John is traditionally associated with Ephesus, he would have had
a problem with the Nicolaitan heresy that had infected the church there (Revelation 2:6). The
Nicolaitans, were a Gnostic sect (gnostic = possessing
intellectual or spiritual knowledge), and taught that salvation was gained by the perfecting of
all knowledge (including of all worldly pleasures). They claimed to be
Christian and probably knew all the facts concerning being a Christian, but
lacked the personal experience of such, and therefore could not have understood
how to apply it to their lives. To them, knowledge itself was more important
than Jesus Himself.
In the above verse (1 John 2:20) John equates knowing (oida) all things with those who also have an anointing from God for service. Therefore, John is stating a fact that must apply to those who have an anointing from God to serve (that is, genuine Christians): they will already understand all that they have learned by experience in obtaining their salvation in Jesus Christ. Without Christ, they lacked true knowledge. This must have been a slap in the face for the Nicolaitans who believed that they were the ones who had access to the true knowledge for salvation (enlightenment).
1 John 2:21 – I have not
written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and
that no lie is of the truth.
know (twice) – oida It is perfect tense each time.
lie – pseudos (a lie; conscious and
intentional falsehood; something that is not what it seems to be; of perverse,
impious and deceitful precepts)
John is assuring them that he has not written to them because they have
not known (understood) the truth. He assures them that they (the genuine
“forgiven” Christians – see 1 John 2:12) have already known the truth, and therefore are not the ones who lie
because no lie is of the truth that John says they already know and understand.
Once again we have an implied dichotomy here,
the existence of 2 mutually-exclusive groups: (a) genuine Christians who know
and understand the truth and therefore do not lie about this, and (b)
non-genuine pseudo-Christians who do not understand the truth and therefore are
lying when they claim to know God (Christ). This is leading directly into the
next verse (Vs 22 below) where John re-presents those who are antichrists as
the liars here.
1 John 2:22 – Who is a liar
but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is
antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
This passage (1 John 2:18-23) focuses upon John’s exposure of antichrists. We looked at the term “antichrist” in detail last time. These antichrists claim to know Christ but deny that Jesus is the Christ. They are like the JWs who claim to be Christian but deny Jesus any godhood. I had them on my doorstep a few years ago. They told me they were Christian! I said that their Jesus wasn’t God and therefore couldn’t save himself, let alone anyone else, and therefore they could not be Christians. The older of the two almost blew a gasket, red in the face, and started to shout angrily. Then she must have realised that she had a younger one (a trainee) next to her and stopped after only a word or two. They want to be declared Christians without acknowledging that Jesus is God. Such people are antichrists. They have a false doctrine that claims to save them, yet it denies the gospel of salvation in the Bible. Deny Christ’s gospel and you deny Christ Himself!
The JWs were first known as Jehovah’s Witnesses in 1931. Before that they were known as the Watch Tower Society which developed from a group that Charles Russell formed in 1870. Russell denied (a) the immortality of the soul, (b) a literal hell, (c) that Jesus would return in the flesh, and (d) that Jesus was God. He taught that Christ returned invisibly in 1874 to set up the reaping of the gospel age and that God would set up his kingdom on earth in 1914. Of course, this failed prophecy defined Russell as a false prophet, one of the antichrists that John was writing about. After the failed prophecy for the 1914 setting up of God’s kingdom, Rutherford (who took over after Russell in 1917) prophesied in 1920 that Abraham and Isaac would be resurrected in 1925 to begin Christ’s millennium. In 1929 Rutherford even built a mansion (“Beth Sarim” = house of princes) for them to live in. This was just another failed prophecy from another of their antichrist “prophets”.
The Seventh Day Adventists (SDAs) initially commenced as the Millerites (under their leader William Miller). Miller prophesied that Christ would return to set up his kingdom in 1844. Soon after this failure, Ellen White began her false prophesies (spanning from 1844 to 1863).
The SDAs had first proposed 1844 as the second coming of Christ. However, Christ failed to materialise, and it was thus called the Great Disappointment. They were quite reluctant to admit that they had made a mistake, and maintained that Christ had indeed returned, but to the heavenly sanctuary (quoting Daniel 8:14) where he was alleged to be carrying out the cleansing before setting up his kingdom. This cleansing was termed the “Investigative Judgement” and has supposedly been carried out from that time until now (and until he should bodily return. The SDA prophetess, Ellen White, declared it to be a pillar of SDA belief.
This SDA doctrine is so non-biblical that it demonstrates both Miller and White to be false prophets and consequently also antichrists by dictating a false agenda and timeline for the true Christ. By their false prophecies they have denied Christ; John declares them to be liars and antichrists.
Not all false doctrine is condemned as such. There are some areas of doctrine that genuine believers disagree on, yet without sacrificing their genuine Christian status. These may include such as the following:
(a) Being baptised again (believer’s baptism) if one has already been baptised as a child. It may be more biblically correct to be baptised again as a believer but this should not condemn to hell the person who does not agree with believer’s baptism.
(b) While I believe that the church will be raptured before a 7-year tribulation period, it should not define any who disagree as unbelievers.
However, there are some doctrinal issues that must be agreed upon at least in principle. A major area of doctrine upon which all other doctrines either stand or fall is the gospel of salvation. If your gospel is wrong, then everything else will be likewise skewed. Some minor disagreements may be permissible but any significant disagreement here must point to an unacceptable false gospel. For example, the SDAs appear to preach a biblical gospel but require adherence to the law of Moses in order to ensure your salvation. Many pentecostal churches likewise preach a good gospel but assess those who demonstrate spiritual manifestations to be saved regardless of any sinner’s prayer. The catholic church requires infant baptism, and attendance at their mass and confession, in order to have any hope of redemption.
Any gospel that denies Jesus Christ defines the antichrist religion. And, it is how you assess your converts that best defines your gospel. Thus to be seen as a good puritan (or calvinist) and attending regular communion is likely to define you as one of the elect in the Presbyterian church. Thus their gospel is to be a good puritan and attend church (especially communion) regularly.
1 John 2:23 – Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: [(but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also].
This is yet another dichotomy: that one group denies the Father, and the other group acknowledges the Father. John points out that if you deny the Son, you must also be denying the Father. John himself apparently hasn’t stated the other side of the coin here but it is easily assumed by logic: that by acknowledging the Son you must also be acknowledging the Father.
“he that hath seen me hath seen the Father” (John 14:9)
John states this dichotomy more clearly further on in
1 John 5:10-13 – 10He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son. 11And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 12He that hath the Son hath life; [and] he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. 13These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.
So much of doctrine
is either right or wrong. We might find some room for minor disagreements but
overall, as John continues to point out, you will be found in one group or the
other, definitely not in both. The Bible is full of these dichotomies.
(a) In the
judgment you will go to either heaven or hell. There is no middle ground. (John 5:29)
(b) You
decide your eternal future by choosing this day whom you will serve. If you
genuinely call upon the name of the Lord you will be saved. If you don’t, you
won’t! (Joshua 24:15; 1 Kings 18:21; 2 Corinthians 6:2; Romans 10:13)
(c) If you
love God (Christ) you will keep His commandments. If you don’t keep His commandments,
you do not love God (Christ) (1 John 2:3-5).
(d) Every
decision you make in life will be for either God or mammon (the world). You
cannot serve both God and mammon (Matthew 6:24).
(e) The
church will include both wheat and tares (Matthew 13:24-30). You can be one or the other but
never both.
2 Timothy 2:11-13 – 11[It is] a faithful
saying: For if we be dead with [him], we shall also live with [him]:
12If we suffer, we shall also reign with [him]: if we deny [him],
he also will deny us: 13If we believe not (apisteo
– be unfaithful), [yet] he abideth
(meno)
faithful (pistos): he
cannot deny himself.
To Messages and Teachings page
List of all my posts on this site
Hoppers Crossing Christian Church homepage