Albert Barnes Commentary 1 John 2

FIRST JOHN CHAPTER 2

ANALYSIS OF THE CHAPTER

The subjects introduced into this chapter are the following:

1. A statement of the apostle that the great object he had in writing to them was that they should not sin; and yet if they sinned, and were conscious that they were guilty before God, they should not despair, for they had an Advocate with the Father who had made propitiation for the sins of the world (1 John 2:1–2).

   This is properly a continuation of what he had said at the close of the previous chapter and should not have been separated from it.

2. The evidence that we know God, or that we are his true friends, is to be found in the fact that we keep his commandments (1 John 2:3–6).

3. The apostle says that what he had been saying was no new commandment, but was what they had always heard concerning the nature of the gospel.

   But though in this respect the law of love which he meant particularly to enforce was no new commandment—none which they had not heard before—yet in another respect it was a new commandment.

   For it was one which in its peculiarity was originated by the Savior, and which he meant to make the characteristic of his religion (1 John 2:7–11).

   A large part of the epistle is taken up in explaining and enforcing this commandment requiring love to the brethren.

4. The apostle specifies (1 John 2:12–14) various reasons why he had written to them—reasons derived from the peculiar character of different classes among them: little children, fathers, young men.

5. Each of these classes he solemnly commands not to love the world, or the things that are in the world, for that which constitutes the peculiarity of the world as such is not of the Father, and all that there is in the world is soon to pass away (1 John 2:15–17).

6. He calls their attention to the fact that the closing dispensation of the world had come (1 John 2:18–20). The evidence of this was that antichrist had appeared.

7. He calls their attention to the characteristics of the antichrist.

   The essential thing would be that antichrist would deny that Jesus was the Christ, involving a practical denial of both the Father and the Son.

   Persons of this character were abroad, and they were in great danger of being seduced by their arts from the way of truth and duty (1 John 2:21–26).

8. The apostle, at the close of the chapter (1 John 2:27–29), expresses the belief that they would not be seduced.

   Instead, they had an anointing from above which would keep them from the arts of those who would lead them astray.

   He earnestly exhorts them to abide in God the Savior, that when he should appear they might have confidence and not be ashamed at his coming.

My little children. teknia mou. This is such language as an aged apostle would be likely to use when addressing a church, and its use in this epistle may be regarded as one evidence that John had reached an advanced period of life when he wrote the epistle.

These things I write to you. Namely, the things stated in chapter one.

That you sin not. To keep you from sin, or to induce you to lead a holy life.

And if any man sin. As all are liable to do, with hearts as corrupt as ours and amidst the temptations of a world like this.

This, of course, does not imply that it is proper or right to sin, or that Christians should have no concern about it.

But the meaning is that all are liable to sin, and when we are conscious of sin, the mind should not yield to despondency and despair.

It might be supposed, perhaps, that if one sinned after baptism or after being converted, there could be no forgiveness.

The apostle designs to guard against any such supposition and to show that the atonement made by the Redeemer had respect to all kinds of sin.

And that under the deepest consciousness of guilt and personal unworthiness, we may feel that we have an advocate on high.

We have an advocate with the Father. God only can forgive sin; and though we have no claim on him, yet there is one with him who can plead our cause, and on whom we can rely to manage our interests there.

The word rendered advocate (paraklētos, or Paraclete) is elsewhere applied to the Holy Spirit and is in every other place where it occurs in the New Testament rendered Comforter (John 14:16, 26; John 15:26; John 16:7).

On the meaning of the word, see the commentary on John 14:16.

As used with reference to the Holy Spirit (John 14:16 and other passages), it is employed in the more general sense of helper, or aid.

The particular manner in which the Holy Spirit aids us may be seen stated in the commentary on John 14:16.

As used here with reference to the Lord Jesus, it is employed in the more limited sense of the word advocate, as the word is frequently used in the Greek writers to denote an advocate in court; that is, one whom we call to our aid, or to stand by us, to defend our suit.

Where it is applied to the Lord Jesus, the language is evidently figurative, since there can be no literal pleading for us in heaven.

But it is expressive of the great truth that he has undertaken our cause with God, and that he performs for us all that we expect of an advocate and counselor.

It is not to be supposed, however, that he manages our cause in the same way or on the same principles as an advocate in a human tribunal does.

An advocate in court is employed to defend his client. He does not begin by admitting his guilt or basing his plea on the conceded fact that he is guilty.

His proper business is to show that he is not guilty, or, if he is proved to be so, to see that no injustice is done to him.

The proper business of an advocate in a human court, therefore, embraces two things:

1. To show that his client is not guilty in the form and manner charged on him. This he may do in one of two ways, either:

   1. By showing that he did not do the act charged on him, as when he is charged with murder, and can prove an alibi, or show that he was not present at the time the murder was committed; or

   2. By proving that he had a right to do the deed—as, if he is charged with murder, he may admit the fact of the killing, but may show that it was in self-defense.

2. In case his client is convicted, his office is to see that no injustice is done to him in the sentence; to stand by him still; to avail himself of all that the law allows in his favor, or to state any circumstance of age, sex, former service, or bodily health, which would in any way mitigate the sentence.

   The advocacy of the Lord Jesus in our behalf, however, is wholly different from this, though the same general object is pursued and sought: the good of those for whom he becomes an advocate.

   The nature of his advocacy may be stated in the following particulars:

1. He admits the guilt of those for whom he becomes the advocate, to the full extent charged on them by the law of God and by their own consciences.

   He does not attempt to hide or conceal it. He makes no apology for it.

   He neither attempts to deny the fact, nor to show that they had a right to do as they have done.

   He could not do this, for it would not be true; and any plea before the throne of God based on a denial of our guilt would be fatal to our cause.

2. As our advocate, he undertakes to be security that no wrong shall be done to the universe if we are not punished as we deserve; that is, if we are pardoned and treated as if we had not sinned.

   This he does by pleading what he has done in behalf of men; that is, by the plea that his sufferings and death in behalf of sinners have done as much to honor the law, and to maintain the truth and justice of God, and to prevent the extension of apostasy, as if the offenders themselves had suffered the full penalty of the law.

   If sinners are punished in hell, there will be some object to be accomplished by it.

   The simple account of the atonement by Christ is that his death will secure all the good results to the universe which would be secured by the punishment of the offender himself.

   It has done as much to maintain the honor of the law and to impress the universe with the truth that sin cannot be committed with impunity.

   If all the good results can be secured by substituted sufferings that would be achieved by the punishment of the offender himself, then it is clear that the guilty may be acquitted and saved.

   Why should they not be?

   The Savior, as our advocate, undertakes to be security that this shall be.

3. As our advocate, he becomes a surety for our good behavior; gives a pledge to justice that we will obey the laws of God, and that he will keep us in the paths of obedience and truth; that, if pardoned, we will not continue to rebel.

   This pledge or surety can be given in no human court of justice.

   No man, advocate or friend, can give security—when one is pardoned who has been convicted of stealing a horse, that he will not steal a horse again; when one who has been guilty of murder is pardoned, that he will never be guilty of it again; when one who has been guilty of forgery is pardoned, that he will not be guilty of it again.

   If he could do this, the subject of pardon would be attended with much fewer difficulties than it is now.

   But the Lord Jesus becomes such a pledge or surety for us (Hebrews 7:22), and hence he becomes such an advocate with the Father as we need.

Jesus Christ the righteous. One who is eminently righteous himself, and who possesses the means of rendering others righteous. It is an appropriate feeling when we come before God in his name, that we come pleading the merits of one who is eminently righteous, and on account of whose righteousness we may be justified and saved.

"Little children," "My children." "Advocate": Romans 8:34; Hebrews 7:25.

And he is the propitiation for our sins. The word translated propitiation (ilasmos) occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, except in 1 John 4:10 of this epistle, although words of the same derivation and with the same essential meaning frequently occur. The corresponding word ilasthrion (hilasterion) occurs in Romans 3:25, translated propitiation—whom God has set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood; and in Hebrews 9:5, translated mercy-seat—shadowing the mercy-seat. The verb ilaskomai (hilaskomai) also occurs in Luke 18:13—God be merciful to me a sinner; and Hebrews 2:17—to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For the idea expressed by these words, see the comments on Romans 3:25.

The proper meaning of the word is that of reconciling, appeasing, turning away anger, or rendering propitious or favorable. The idea is that there is anger or wrath, or that something has been done to offend, and that it is necessary to turn away that wrath, or to appease. This may be done by a sacrifice, by songs, by services rendered, or by bloody offerings. So the word is often used in Homer (Passow). We have similar words in common use, as when we say of someone that he has been offended, and that something must be done to appease him or to turn away his wrath. This is commonly done with us by making restitution, by an acknowledgment, by yielding the point in controversy, by an expression of regret, or by different conduct in the future. But this idea must not be applied too literally to God, nor should it be explained away. The essential thoughts in regard to him, as implied in this word, are:

1. That his will has been disregarded, and his law violated, and that he has reason to be offended with us;
2. That in that condition he cannot, consistently with his perfections and the good of the universe, treat us as if we had not done it;
3. That it is proper that, in some way, he should show his displeasure at our conduct, either by punishing us or by something that shall answer the same purpose; and
4. That the means of propitiation come in here and accomplish this end, making it proper that he should treat us as if we had not sinned; that is, he is reconciled, or appeased, and his anger is turned away. This is done, it is supposed, by the death of the Lord Jesus, accomplishing in most important respects what would be accomplished by the punishment of the offender himself.

In regard to this, to properly understand what is accomplished, it is necessary to observe two things—what is not done, and what is.

I. There are certain things that do not enter into the idea of propitiation. They are such as these:

• That it does not change the fact that the wrong was done. That is a fact that cannot be denied, and the one who undertakes to make a propitiation for sin does not deny it.

• It does not change God; it does not make him a different being from what he was before; it does not buy him over to a willingness to show mercy; it does not change an inexorable being to one who is compassionate and kind.

• The offering that is made to secure reconciliation does not necessarily produce reconciliation in fact. It prepares the way for it on the part of God, but whether those for whom it is made will be disposed to accept it is another question. When two men are alienated from each other, you may go to B and say to him that all obstacles to reconciliation on the part of A are removed, and that he is disposed to be at peace, but whether B will be willing to be at peace is quite another matter.

  The mere fact that his adversary is disposed to be at peace determines nothing in regard to his disposition in the matter. So in regard to the controversy between man and God. It may be true that all obstacles to reconciliation on the part of God are taken away, and still it may be quite a separate question whether man will be willing to lay aside his opposition and embrace the terms of mercy. Considered in itself, one does not necessarily determine the other or throw any light on it.

II. The key point, then, regarding the propitiation made for sin is that it removes all obstacles to reconciliation on the part of God. It does whatever is necessary to maintain the honor of his law, his justice, and his truth. It makes it consistent for him to offer pardon—that is, it removes whatever made it necessary to inflict punishment, and thus, so far as the word can be applied to God, it appeases him, or turns away his anger, or renders him propitious.

This it does, not in respect to producing any change in God, but in respect to the fact that it removes whatever there was in the nature of the case that prevented the free and full offer of pardon.

The idea of the apostle in the present passage is that when we sin we may be assured that this has been done, and that pardon may now be freely extended to us.

And not for ours only. Not only for the sins of us who are Christians, as the apostle was writing to them. The idea he intends to convey seems to be that when we come before God we should take the most liberal and broad views of the atonement; we should feel that the most ample provision has been made for our pardon, and that in no respect is there any limit to the sufficiency of that work to remove all sin. It is sufficient for us; sufficient for all the world.

But also for the sins of the whole world. The phrase "the sins of" is not in the original but is not improperly supplied, as the connection demands it. This is one of the expressions occurring in the New Testament that demonstrate that the atonement was made for all people, and that cannot be reconciled with any other opinion; if he had died only for a part of the human race, this language could not have been used.

The phrase "the whole world" is one that naturally embraces all people, is such as would be used if it is supposed that the apostle meant to teach that Christ died for all people, and is such as cannot be explained on any other supposition. If he died only for the elect, it is not true that he is the "propitiation for the sins of the whole world" in any proper sense, nor would it then be possible to assign a sense in which it could be true. This passage, interpreted in its plain and obvious meaning, teaches the following things:

1. That the atonement in its own nature is adapted to all people, or that it is as much fitted to one individual or one class as another.
2. That it is sufficient in merit for all; that is, if more people should be saved than actually will be, there would be no need of any additional suffering to save them.
3. That it has no special adaptedness to one person or class more than another; that is, that in its own nature it did not render the salvation of one more easy than that of another. It so magnified the law, so honored God, so fully expressed the Divine sense of the evil of sin in respect to all people, that the offer of salvation might be made as freely to one as to another, and that any and all might take shelter under it and be safe. Whether, however, God might not, for wise reasons, resolve that its benefits should be applied to a part only, is another question, and one that does not affect the inquiry about the intrinsic nature of the atonement. On the evidence that the atonement was made for all, see the comments on 2 Corinthians 5:14 and Hebrews 2:9.

And hereby we do know that we know him. That is, by what follows, we have evidence that we are truly acquainted with him and with the requirements of his religion; that is, that we are truly his friends. The word him in this verse seems to refer to the Saviour. On the meaning of the word know, see Barnes on John 17:3.

The apostle had stated in the previous part of this epistle some of the leading points revealed by the Christian religion, and he now considers the nature of the evidence required to show that we have a personal share in it, or that we are true Christians. A large part of the epistle is occupied with this subject. The first, the grand evidence—that without which all others would be vain—he says, is that we keep his commandments.

If we keep his commandments. See Barnes on John 14:15.

Compare John 14:23-24; John 15:10, 14.

He that saith, I know him, He who professes to be acquainted with the Saviour, or who professes to be a Christian.

And keepeth not his commandments. What he has appointed to be observed by his people; that is, he who does not obey him.

Is a liar. Makes a false profession; professes to have that which he really has not. Such a profession is a falsehood, because there can be no true religion where one does not obey the law of God.

But whoso keepeth his word. That is, what He has spoken or commanded. The term word here includes all that He has made known to us as His will regarding our conduct.

In him verily is the love of God perfected. One who professes to have the love of God in his heart finds that love receives its completion or filling up through obedience to the will of God. That obedience is the proper expression, or the exponent, of the love that exists in the heart. Love for the Savior would be defective without it, for love is never complete without obedience.

If this is the true interpretation, then the passage does not make any affirmation about sinless perfection. Instead, it only affirms that if true love exists in the heart, it will be carried out in life. Alternatively, it affirms that love and obedience are parts of the same thing: one will be manifested by the other, and where obedience exists, it is the completion or perfecting of love.

Furthermore, the apostle does not say that either the love or the obedience would be, in themselves, absolutely perfect; but he says that one cannot fully develop without the other.

Hereby know we that we are in him. That is, by having, in fact, such love as ensures obedience. To be in Him is to be united to Him, to be His friends (John 6:56; Romans 13:14).