Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 John 2:16

For all that [is] in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

16. Proof of the preceding statement by shewing the fundamental opposition in detail.

all that is in the world ] Neuter singular: in 1Jn 2:15 we had the neuter plural. The material contents of the universe cannot be meant. To say that these did not originate from God would be to contradict the Apostle himself (Joh 1:3; Joh 1:10) and to affirm those Gnostic doctrines against which he is contending. The Gnostics, believing everything material to be radically evil, maintained that the universe was created, not by God, but by the evil one, or at least by an inferior deity. By ‘all that is in the world’ is meant the spirit which animates it, its tendencies and tone. These, which are utterly opposed to God, did not originate in Him, but in the free and rebellious wills of His creatures, seduced by ‘the ruler of this world’.

the lust of the flesh ] This does not mean the lust for the flesh, any more than ‘the lust of the eyes’ means the lust for the eyes. In both cases the genitive is not objective but subjective, as is generally the case with genitives after ‘lust’ ( ) in N. T. Comp. Rom 1:24, Gal 5:16, Eph 2:3. The meaning is the lusts which have their seats in the flesh and in the eyes respectively.

“Tell me where is fancy bred.

It is engendered in the eyes.”

Merchant of Venice, III. ii.

The former, therefore, will mean the desire for unlawful pleasures of sense; for enjoyments which are sinful either in themselves or as being excessive.

Note that S. John does not say ‘the lust of the body.’ ‘The body’ in N.T. is perhaps never used to denote the innately corrupt portion of man’s nature: for that the common term is ‘the flesh.’ ‘The body’ is that neutral portion which may become either good or bad. It may be sanctified as the abode and instrument of the Spirit, or degraded under the tyranny of the flesh.

the lust of the eyes ] The desire of seeing unlawful sights for the sake of the sinful pleasure to be derived from the sight; idle and prurient curiosity. Familiar as S. John’s readers must have been with the foul and cruel exhibitions of the circus and amphitheatre, this statement would at once meet with their assent. Tertullian, though he does not quote this passage in his treatise De Spectaculis, is full of its spirit: “The source from which all circus games are taken pollutes them What is tainted taints us” (VII., VIII.). Similarly S. Augustine on this passage; “This it is that works in spectacles, in theatres, in sacraments of the devil, in magical arts, in witchcraft; none other than curiosity.” See also Confessions VI. vii., viii., X. xxxv. 55.

the pride of life ] Or, as R. V., the vainglory of life. Latin writers vary much in their renderings: superbia vitae; ambilio saeculi; jactantia hujus vitae; jactantia vitae humanae. The word ( ) occurs elsewhere only Jas 4:16, and there in the plural; where A. V. has ‘boastings’ and R. V. ‘vauntings.’ The cognate adjective ( ) occurs Rom 1:30 and 2Ti 3:2, where A. V. has ‘boasters’ and R. V. ‘boastful’. Pretentious ostentation, as of a wandering mountebank, is the radical signification of the word. In classical Greek the pretentiousness is the predominant notion; in Hellenistic Greek, the ostentation. Compare the account of this vice in Aristotle ( Nic. Eth. IV. vii.) with Wis 5:8 , 2Ma 9:8 ; 2Ma 15:6 . Ostentatious pride in the things which one possesses is the signification of the term here; ‘life’ meaning ‘means of life, goods, possessions’. The word for ‘life’ ( ) is altogether different from that used in 1Jn 1:1-2 and elsewhere in the Epistle ( ). This word ( ) occurs again 1Jn 3:17, and elsewhere in N.T. only 8 times, chiefly in S. Luke. The other word occurs 13 times in this Epistle, and elsewhere in N. T. over 100 times. This is what we might expect. The word used here means (1) period of human life, as 1Ti 2:2; 2Ti 2:4; (2) means of life, as here, 1Jn 3:17, Mar 12:44; Luk 8:14; Luk 8:43; Luk 15:12; Luk 15:30; Luk 21:4 (in 1Pe 4:3 the word is not genuine). With the duration of mortal life and the means of prolonging it the Gospel has comparatively little to do. It is concerned rather with that spiritual life which is not measured by time (1Jn 1:2), and which is independent of material wealth and food. For this the other word ( ) is invariably used. By ‘the vainglory of life’ then is meant ostentatious pride in the possession of worldly resources.

These three evil elements or tendencies ‘in the world’ are co-ordinate: no one of them includes the other two. The first two are wrongful desires of what is not possessed; the third is a wrongful behaviour with regard to what is possessed. The first two may be the vices of a solitary; the third requires society. We can have sinful desires when we are alone, but we cannot be ostentatious without company. See Appendix A.

is not of the Father ] Does not derive its origin from ( ) Him, and therefore has no natural likeness to Him or connexion with Him. S. John says ‘the Father’ rather than ‘God’ to emphasize the idea of parentage. Its origin is from the world and its ruler, the devil. Comp. ‘Ye are of ( ) your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will to do’ (Joh 8:44). The phrase ‘to be of’ is highly characteristic of S. John.

A. The Three Evil Tendencies in the World

The three forms of evil ‘in the world’ mentioned in 1Jn 2:16 have been taken as a summary of sin, if not in all its aspects, at least in its chief aspects. ‘The lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the vainglory of life’ have seemed from very early times to form a synopsis of the various modes of temptation and sin. And certainly they cover so wide a field that we cannot well suppose that they are mere examples of evil more or less fortuitously mentioned. They appear to have been carefully chosen on account of their typical nature and wide comprehensiveness.

There is, however, a wide difference between the views stated at the beginning and end of the preceding paragraph. It is one thing to say that we have here a very comprehensive statement of three typical forms of evil; quite another to say that the statement is a summary of all the various kinds of temptation and sin.

To begin with, we must bear in mind what seems to be S. John’s purpose in this statement. He is not giving us an account of the different ways in which Christians are tempted, or (what is much the same) the different sins into which they may fall. Rather, he is stating the principal forms of evil which are exhibited ‘in the world,’ i.e. in those who are not Christians. He is insisting upon the evil origin of these desires and tendencies, and of the world in which they exist, in order that his readers may know that the world and its ways have no claim on their affections. All that is of God, and especially each child of God, has a claim on the love of every believer. All that is not of God has no such claim.

It is difficult to maintain, without making some of the three heads unnaturally elastic, that all kinds of sin, or even all of the principal kinds of sin, are included in the list. Under which of the three heads are we to place unbelief, heresy, blasphemy, or persistent impenitence? Injustice in many of its forms, and especially in the most extreme form of all murder, cannot without some violence be brought within the sweep of these three classes of evil.

Two positions, therefore, may be insisted upon with regard to this classification.

1. It applies to forms of evil which prevail in the non-Christian world rather than to forms of temptation which beset Christians.

2. It is very comprehensive, but it is not exhaustive.

It seems well, however, to quote a powerful statement of what may be said on the other side. The italics are ours, to mark where there seems to be over-statement. “I think these distinctions, the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eye, and the pride of life, prove themselves to be very accurate and very complete distinctions in practice, though an ordinary philosopher may perhaps adopt some other classification of those tendencies which connect us with the world and give it a dominion over us. To the lust of the flesh may be referred the crimes and miseries which have been produced by gluttony, drunkenness, and the irregular intercourse of the sexes; an appalling catalogue, certainly, which no mortal eye could dare to gaze upon. To the lust of the eye may be referred all worship of visible things, with the divisions, persecutions, hatreds, superstitions, which this worship has produced in different countries and ages. To the pride or boasting of life, where you are not to understand by life, for the Greek words are entirely different, either natural or spiritual life, such as the Apostle spoke of in the first chapter of the Epistle, but all that belongs to the outside of existence, houses, lands, whatever exalts a man above his fellow, to this head we must refer the oppressor’s wrongs, and that contumely which Hamlet reckons among the things which are harder to bear even than the ‘slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.’ In these three divisions I suspect all the mischiefs which have befallen our race may be reckoned, and each of us is taught by the Apostle, and may know by experience that the seeds of the evils so enumerated are in himself” (Maurice).

Do we not feel in reading this that S. John’s words have been somewhat strained in order to make them cover the whole ground? One sin produces so many others in its train, and these again so many more, that there will not be much difficulty in making the classification exhaustive, if under each head we are to include all the crimes and miseries, divisions and hatreds, which that particular form of evil has produced.

Some of the parallels and contrasts which have from early times been made to the Apostle’s classification are striking, even when somewhat fanciful. Others are both fanciful and unreal.

The three forms of evil noticed by S. John in this passage are only partially parallel to those which are commonly represented under the three heads of the world, the flesh, and the devil. Strictly speaking those particular forms of spiritual evil which would come under the head of the devil, as distinct from the world and the flesh, are not included in the Apostle’s enumeration at all. ‘The vainglory of life’ would come under the head of the world; ‘the lust of the flesh’ of course under that of ‘the flesh;’ while ‘the lust of the eyes’ would belong partly to the one and partly to the other.

There is more reality in the parallel drawn between S. John’s classification and the three elements in the temptation by which Eve was overcome by the evil one, and again the three temptations in which Christ overcame the evil one. ‘When the woman saw that the tree was good for food (the lust of the flesh), and that it was pleasant to the eyes (the lust of the eyes), and a tree to be desired to make one wise (the vainglory of life), she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat’ (Gen 3:6). Similarly, the temptations (1) to work a miracle in order to satisfy the cravings of the flesh, (2) to submit to Satan in order to win possession of all that the eye could see, (3) to tempt God in order to win the glory of a miraculous preservation (Luk 4:1-12).

Again, there is point in the contrast drawn between these three forms of evil ‘in the world’ and the three great virtues which have been the peculiar creation of the Gospel (Liddon Bampton Lectures VIII. iii. B), purity, charity, and humility, with the three corresponding ‘counsels of perfection,’ chastity, poverty, and obedience.

But in all these cases, whether of parallel or contrast, it will probably be felt that the correspondence is not perfect throughout, and that the comparison, though striking, is not quite satisfying, because not quite exact.

It is surely both fanciful and misleading to see in this trinity of evil any contrast to the three Divine Persons in the Godhead. Is there any sense in which we can say with truth that a lust, whether of the flesh or of the eyes, is more opposed to the attributes of the Father than to the attributes of the Son? Forced analogies in any sphere are productive of fallacies; in the sphere of religious truth they may easily become profane.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

For all that is in the world – That is, all that really constitutes the world, or that enters into the aims and purposes of those who live for this life. All that that community lives for may be comprised under the following things.

The lust of the flesh – The word lust is used here in the general sense of desire, or that which is the object of desire – not in the narrow sense in which it is now commonly used to denote libidinous passion. See the notes at Jam 1:14. The phrase, the lust of the flesh, here denotes that which pampers the appetites, or all that is connected with the indulgence of the mere animal propensities. A large part of the world lives for little more than this. This is the lowest form of worldly indulgence; those which are immediately specified being of a higher order, though still merely worldly.

And the lust of the eyes – That which is designed merely to gratify the sight. This would include, of course, costly clothes, jewels, gorgeous furniture, splendid palaces, pleasure-grounds, etc. The object is to refer to the frivolous vanities of this world, the thing on which the eye delights to rest where there is no higher object of life. It does not, of course, mean that the eye is never to be gratified, or that we can find as much pleasure in an ugly as in a handsome object, or that it is sinful to find pleasure in beholding objects of real beauty – for the world, as formed by its Creator, is full of such things, and he could not but have intended that pleasure should enter the soul through the eye, or that the beauties which he has shed so lavishly over his works should contribute to the happiness of his creatures; but the apostle refers to this when it is the great and leading object of life – when it is sought without any connection with religion or reference to the world to come.

And the pride of life – The word here used means, properly, ostentation or boasting, and then arrogance or pride. – Robinson. It refers to whatever there is that tends to promote pride, or that is an index of pride, such as the ostentatious display of dress, equipage, furniture, etc.

Is not of the Father – Does not proceed from God, or meet with his approbation. It is not of the nature of true religion to seek these things, nor can their pursuit be reconciled with the existence of real piety in the heart. The sincere Christian has nobler ends; and he who has not any higher ends, and whose conduct and feelings can all be accounted for by a desire for these things, cannot be a true Christian.

But is of the world – Is originated solely by the objects and purposes of this life, where religion and the life to come are excluded.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

1Jn 2:16

For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

The three elements of a worldly life: love of pleasure, the love of knowledge, and the love of power

What then is the meaning of the phrase desire of the flesh? It is the desire which we naturally have to gratify our lower impulses, that animal nature which we share with the brutes, but which in man ought to be under the control of the superior faculty of reason. If we name this desire from its object, rather than from its origin or source, we might call it loosely the desire of pleasure uncontrolled by a sense of duty. It is more difficult to ascertain the exact force of the desire of the eyes. If taken literally, it would simply stand for a particular form of the desire of the flesh, a more refined and human form of sensual pleasure, the desire of seeing beautiful objects; but I am inclined to think that, so far as this is sensual, it is included under the former head, and that it is more in accordance with Hebrew ideas and with the facts of life to suppose that we have here a quite distinct class of desires, the desires of the intellect. But how, it may be asked, can the desire of knowledge be condemned as characteristic of the world. Knowledge is not dependent on society, like pleasure, and moreover the desire of knowledge is especially commended in the Bible. How then can it be to the discredit of the world, or make its influence more injurious, if it is accompanied by the desire of knowledge? The answer is that neither pleasure nor knowledge is in itself condemned in the Bible. The pleasure which is condemned in the phrase lust of the flesh, is, as we have seen, selfish and predominantly sensual, unchecked by higher thoughts and feelings. And so by the desire of the eyes is meant primarily not the desire for truth as such, but the desire for a knowledge of the world, knowledge as contrasted not with ignorance and stupidity, but with simplicity, ingenuousness and innocence. How many owe their fall to an impatience of restraint and a curiosity which is attracted to evil rather than to good! How few remember that knowledge no more than pleasure can claim our absolute allegiance! We now come to the third of these worldly lusts, as they are styled in the Epistle to Titus, the pride, or as the Revised Version has it, the vainglory of life, the desire to make a show, the desire of honour and distinction, which is as naturally characteristic of the active principle within us, as the desire of pleasure is of the passive or sensitive principle. Supposing this to be a generally correct account of St. Johns analysis of the spirit of the world, it is evident that it corresponds with the common division of mans nature into the feeling, the thinking, and the willing part; the desire of pleasure corresponding to the appetites, the desire of knowledge to the intellect, while ambition, the desire of honour and of power, corresponds to the will. But human life consists in the exercise of these different elements of mans nature. How is it possible, then, that these gifts of God should be the source of the evil that is in the world? If man were perfect, as God intended him to be, this would not be the case. His various impulses would all work harmoniously together under the control of reason and conscience, enlightened and guided by the Spirit of God himself. But we know that, whatever we may hope for the future, this is far from being the case at present. At present every impulse is a source of danger, because it is not satisfied with doing the work and attaining the end for which it was implanted in our nature, but continues to urge us on where its action is injurious, antagonistic to higher ends and higher activities, and contrary to the will of Him Who made us. It is these blind unruly impulses which constitute the spirit of the world, and are employed by him, who is described as the prince of this world, to band men together in evil, and so build up a kingdom of the world, in opposition to the kingdom of God. St. John implies the unrestrained action of these impulses when he tells us they make up all that is in the world. If we can trust contemporary evidence, the historians and satirists of Rome, no less than Christian writers, the moral condition of society in the imperial city is not too darkly coloured in St. Pauls Epistle to the Romans. In the catalogue of sin and vice there given, two main lines of evil may be distinguished, which at first sight seem to be very remote from each other, but which are in fact closely allied, being continually associated together in history, as they are in Miltons famous line, Lust hard by hate. Cruelty and profligacy were the most marked characteristics of the Caligulas and the Neros of Rome; they were the notes of that degraded aristocracy, in which even the women, dead to all sense of shame, were also dead to all feeling of pity, and could look on with a horrible delight at the sports in the arena, where gladiators were butchered to make a Roman holiday, and Christians were burnt alive at night in order to light up the chariot races of the emperor. And the profligacy of the capitol was faithfully copied in the provinces. St. Pauls epistles, with their constant warnings against impurity, show how deeply even the humbler ranks of society, from which the Church was mainly recruited, were infected with this vice of paganism. We see, then, that as regards the desire or lust of the flesh, the state of contemporary society fully bore out St. Johns description of the world. How did the case stand with regard to the second point in his description, the lust of the eyes? Understanding this of the desire of knowledge, we find St. Paul in his Epistle to the Corinthians describing it as the distinctive feature of the Greek as opposed to the Hebrew, that the Greeks seek after wisdom; but God (he says) hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth. So St. Luke mentions curiosity, which is merely the undisciplined desire of knowledge, as the chief characteristic of the Athenians, all the Athenians spent their time in nothing else but either to tell or to hear some new thing. Ephesus, where St. John is believed to have spent the latter part of his life, was especially noted for the study of curious arts, prying into forbidden things. Lastly, if we ask how far that third constituent of the worldly spirit, ambition, vainglory, the pride of life, was to be found in Paganism at the time of St. Johns writing, we need not look further than the temple of Ephesus, which was held to be one of the wonders of the world; we need only think of the magnificence of the architecture, the splendour of the ceremonial, the frenzied enthusiasm of the multitudes which gathered at the festival of the great goddess Diana, whom all Asia and the world worshippeth. How hard it must have been for the little band of Christians to realise that all this pageantry and power was but an empty show, destined in a few short years to vanish away; to feel that the weakness of God was stronger than men, that God had chosen the base things of the world to confound the things which are mighty, that no flesh might glory in His presence. And if this was true of a provincial town like Ephesus, how much more of what was even then known as the eternal city, to which all the wealth and power and greatness, all the art and science and skill of the whole earth was attracted, where one man commanded the lives and fortunes of all, and was worshipped as God on earth, the only God whose worship was obligatory on all. It was such a world dominion as this, that St. John had in his mind, when he warned his disciples against being dazzled by the vainglory of life, when he spoke of the whole world lying in wicked ness, when he encouraged them with the thought that He that is born of God overcometh the world. I think that what we have seen to be true of the pagan world of St. Johns day, is also true of all the more marked historical appearances of the worldly spirit. Two such appearances may be especially noticed. One was that period of revolt against the Middle Ages, which preceded and accompanied the Reformation, the other was that period of scepticism which prepared the way for the French Revolution. In both we find the most influential classes of society, those which may be regarded as the truest embodiment of the worldly spirit of their time, characterised by the combination of these three elements, the love of pleasure, the love of knowledge, and the love of power. Enlightenment was the special boast of both eras, and the effect of this enlightenment was to shake off the old fashioned restraints of religion and morality and give free scope to the selfish instincts, whether in the direction of pleasure or ambition. Caesar Borgia was the natural outcome of the first era; Napoleon Bonaparte of the second. (J. B. Mayor, M. A.)

Transitoriness of the lust of the flesh

By the lust of the flesh I understand the animal needs and appetites, the physical strength and vigour. There is a period in life when the desires of the flesh exercise immense influence and subtle power over the imagination. They seem to promise illimitable delight and inexhaustible pleasures. The imagination runs through the world and sees everywhere alluring forms which point to intoxicating joys. That is not an unusual experience. It is common to all of us in the heyday of youth and strength, and I only allude to it to ask–Have you considered that this is passing away? Do you know that the gamut of appetite and passion is very limited after all? You can soon reach up and strike the topmost note, and downward and strike the lowest. Do you know that these violent delights have violent ends? They are soon exhausted, and the hungry passion is satiated, and the promise which it made is found a cheat. It is so. It is so if for no other reason than this–because physical life itself fails. Youth is soon gone; manhood is soon passed; old age is soon reached. You are not what you were. Already the keen edge and zest of earthly appetite is blunted. You dislike, perhaps, to admit it, and yet you know in your hearts that the best cup of wine which life has to give you is already drunk, and that life will never prepare again for you the like. (W. J. Dawson.)

The lust of the eyes

The eye is the portal of innumerable delights. It is the meeting place of many worlds. Through it there stream in upon the mind the vision of beauty, the revelation of sciences, the pomp and pageantry of earthly power, all the bright, shifting splendour of human glory. Have you ever considered that riches appeal mainly to the eye? It is the eye which interprets to a man the stateliness of the house which he has built, the beauty of the gardens which he has laid out, the pictures charm, the statues grace, the horses symmetry–in a word, all those costly embellishments with which wealth can adorn life. To the blind man they are nothing. To be blind is to lose almost everything that riches can bestow. Yet, says John, the lust of the eyes, too, is a fading passion which is soon satiated. The first house a man buys looks better and bigger to him than any house he owns afterwards. The first picture a man owns brings him more genuine pleasure than all the others put together. That lust of the eye which desires to add house to house and land to land has a lessening pleasure in its acquisitions. Like the lust of the flesh, after all it is a life of sensation, and all sensation is limited and soon exhausted. You, perhaps, have set your hope in some such direction as this. You desire to be rich; your eye lusts for the luxurious abodes of wealth and the circumstance and state of social greatness. When the lust of the flesh fails, the lust of the eye often develops; and the man who has lost the one frantically tries to recoup himself by flying to the other. But it is vain. The miseries of the idle rich, their ennui, their listlessness, their discontent, their imbecile thirst for new sensations, their perpetual invention of new and artificial joys, remind us how true are the words of John, that the lust of the eyes, too, passes away. (W. J. Dawson.)

The pride of life is transitory

It may signify either the pride of power or the pride of knowledge.

1. Take it, for instance, as the pride of power. Take it in regard to that great and splendid empire with which the apostles were familiar. It seemed built to last forever. To be a Roman was to be armed with an invincible defence. It was a proud boast which clothed the meanest man with dignity. The tramp of the legions of Rome echoed in every city; the silver eagles were borne in triumph through all the world; its laws had imposed civilisation upon the most barbarous peoples; and its power had crushed nation after nation. There was no sign in Johns day of any overthrow. Yet this solitary man told the truth when he said, not merely that it would pass away, but that it was passing away. He recognised that mysterious law of God, which seems to give to nations their chance and strengthen them with universal victory, and then depose them, lest one good custom should corrupt the world. Egypt, Chaldea, Babylon, Greece, all had had their day, and ceased to be. And so it would be with Rome. We today know that it has passed away.

2. And it is true of the pride of knowledge. The noblest pride of life, because the highest, is the pride of knowledge. Yet that, too, is transient. Nothing shifts its boundaries so often. Nothing is so illusive. Nothing passes through such strange and rapid transformations. The knowledge of Galileo would be the ignorance of today; and if Isaac Newton were alive now he would have to go to school again. A century, a half-century, a single decade, is often sufficient to thrust the most brilliant discoveries into oblivion. The steam engine has sup planted the coach; but the steam engine is already passing away, and in fifty years time will be supplanted by some greater and more serviceable power. The telegraph has bound nations together and has made all nations neighbours; but the telephone is becoming its rival, and in another century, and less perhaps, men will hear each others whispers round the globe. A thousand illustrations might be given of how knowledge perpetually effaces its past. Nor is this a mournful truth. It is no tolling bell which announces that the world is passing away. It is rather a trumpet. It means that Gods law is progress: and that is a glorious truth for those who can understand it. (W. J. Dawson.)

The worldlings trinity

Pleasure, profit, preferment (called here the lust of the flesh, etc.) are the worldlings trinity, to the which he performeth inward and outward worship. (J. Trapp.)

What is the world

The world is not altogether matter, nor yet altogether spirit. It is not man only, nor Satan only, nor is it exactly sin. It is an infection, an inspiration, an atmosphere, a life, a colouring matter, a pageantry, a fashion, a taste, a witchery. None of all these names suit it, and all of them suit it. (S. Faber.)

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell

Verse 16. For all that is in the world] All that it can boast of, all that it can promise, is only sensual, transient gratification, and even this promise it cannot fulfil; so that its warmest votaries can complain loudest of their disappointment.

The lust of the flesh] Sensual and impure desires which seek their gratification in women, strong drink, delicious viands, and the like.

Lust of the eyes] Inordinate desires after finery of every kind, gaudy dress, splendid houses, superb furniture, expensive equipage, trappings, and decorations of all sorts.

Pride of life] Hunting after honours, titles, and pedigrees; boasting of ancestry, family connections, great offices, honourable acquaintance, and the like.

Is not of the Father] Nothing of these inordinate attachments either comes from or leads to God. They are of this world; here they begin, flourish, and end. They deprave the mind, divert it from Divine pursuits, and render it utterly incapable of spiritual enjoyments.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

Here he explains his meaning, what, under the name of

the world, and the things of it, we are not to love, or under what notion we ought not to love it, viz. the world as it contains the objects and nutriment of these mentioned lusts; either more grossly sensual, called the lust of the flesh, viz. of gluttony, drunkenness, whoredom, &c. Rom 13:13,14; or that which is excited more immediately by the fancy, unto which the eye especially ministereth, the excessive appetite of much wealth, and great possessions; which the eye is therefore said to desire, and not to be satisfied with, Ecc 2:8-10, and Ecc 4:8; called therefore the lust of the eyes. And again, the ambitious affectation of the pomp and glory of the world, vain applause, the unmerited and overvalued praise and observance of other men, with power over them, affected for undue ends, or only with a self-exalting design, meant by

the pride of life, forbidden by our Saviour to his disciples, Mat 20:25,26. This triple distribution some observe to have been before used by some of the ancient learned Jews, and imitated by certain of the more refilled heathens; whence, as being formerly known and understood, the apostle might be induced to make use of it. And these lusts are therefore argued to be inconsistent with the love of the Father, as not being of him, but

of the world; not from the Divine Spirit, but the spirit of the world.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

16. all that is in the worldcanbe classed under one or other of the three; the world contains theseand no more.

lust of the fleshthatis, the lust which has its seat and source in our lower animalnature. Satan tried this temptation the first on Christ: Lu4:3, “Command this stone that it be made bread.“Youth is especially liable to fleshly lusts.

lust of the eyestheavenue through which outward things of the world, riches, pomp, andbeauty, inflame us. Satan tried this temptation on Christ when heshowed Him the kingdoms of the world in a moment. By the lust of theeyes David (2Sa 11:2) and Achanfell (Jos 7:21). Compare David’sprayer, Ps 119:37; Job’sresolve, Psa 31:1; Mat 5:28.The only good of worldly riches to the possessor is the beholdingthem with the eyes. Compare Lu14:18, “I must go and SEEit.”

pride of lifeliterally,”arrogant assumption”: vainglorious display. Pridewas Satan’s sin whereby he fell and forms the link between the twofoes of man, the world (answering to “the lust of theeyes”) and the devil (as “the lust of the flesh”is the third foe). Satan tried this temptation on Christ in settingHim on the temple pinnacle that, in spiritual pride andpresumption, on the ground of His Father’s care, He shouldcast Himself down. The same three foes appear in the three classes ofsoil on which the divine seed falls: the wayside hearers, the devil;the thorns, the world; the rocky undersoil, the flesh(Mat 13:18-23; Mar 4:3-8).The world’s awful antitrinity, the “lust of the flesh,the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life,” similarly ispresented in Satan’s temptation of Eve: “When she saw that thetree was good for food, pleasant to the eyes, and atree to be desired to make one wise,” Ge3:6 (one manifestation of “the pride of life,” thedesire to know above what God has revealed, Col2:8, the pride of unsanctified knowledge).

ofdoes not spring from“the Father” (used in relation to the preceding “littlechildren,” 1Jo 2:12, or”little sons”). He who is born of God alone turns toGod; he who is of the world turns to the world; the sources of loveto God and love to the world, are irreconcilably distinct.

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

For all that [is] in the world,…. This is the sum of the evil things in the world; or these following are the objects of sin in the world, or about which wicked men are conversant; even such as are carnal or grateful to the flesh, visible to the eye, and belong to this vain life, or serve to fill with pride and vanity; or these are the main things, which men that love the world most highly value and esteem:

the lust of the flesh; by which is meant, not lust in general, or concupiscence, the corruption of nature, which is the fountain of all sin, or indwelling sin, the flesh, or that corrupt principle which lusts against the Spirit; nor the various lusts of the flesh, fleshly lusts, which war against the soul, and which are many, and are also called worldly lusts; but some particular one, “a lust of the body”, as the Syriac version reads; either the lust of uncleanness, which includes all unchaste desires, thoughts, words, and actions, fornication, adultery, rape, incest, sodomy, and all unnatural lusts; and which make up a considerable part of the all that is in the world: or else intemperance in eating and drinking, gluttony and drunkenness, excess of wine, surfeitings, rioting, and revellings, and all the sensual pleasures of life, by which the carnal mind, and the lusts of it, are gratified; whereby the soul is destroyed, the body is dishonoured, and a wound, dishonour, and reproach brought on the character, not to be removed; for which reasons the world, and the things of it, are not to be loved: the next follows,

the lust of the eyes: after unlawful objects, and may design unchaste and lascivious looks, eyes full of adultery, and whereby adultery is committed; see Mt 5:28; but then this falls in with the other, unless that be confined to intemperance; rather then this may intend a sinful curiosity of seeing vain sights, and shows, with which the eye of man is never satisfied, Ec 1:8; and against which the psalmist prays, Ps 119:37, or rather the sin of covetousness is here designed, the objects of which are visible things, as gold, silver, houses, lands, and possessions, with which riches the eyes of men are never satisfied, and which sin is drawn forth and cherished by the eyes; and indeed a covetous man has little more satisfaction than the beholding his substance with his eyes, and in which he takes much sinful pleasure; see Ec 4:8; and what a poor vain empty thing is this! therefore, love not the world, since this is a principal thing in it: as is also

the pride of life; by which seems to be meant, ambition of honour, of chief places and high titles, as in the Scribes and Pharisees, Mt 23:6, or of grand living, for the word signifies not so much life as living; living in a sumptuous, gay, luxurious, and pompous manner, in rich diet, costly apparel, having fine seats, palaces, and stately buildings, and numerous attendance; all which is but vanity and vexation of spirit; see Ec 2:1. The Syriac and Arabic versions read, “the pride of the age”; and every age has some peculiar things in which the pride of it appears. Now neither of these

is of the Father; of God the Father, as the Ethiopic version reads; the things which are desired and lusted after are of God, but not the lust itself; God is not the author of sin, nor is it agreeable to his will:

but is of the world; of the men of it, and agreeable to their carnal minds; and is a reason why things of the world are not to be loved by the saints, who are not of it, but chosen and called out of it; and besides, all these things are mean, base, vile, and contemptible, and unworthy of their love and affection.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

All that ( ). Collective use of the neuter singular as in 5:4, like in John 6:37; John 6:39. Three examples, not necessarily covering all sins, are given in the nominative in apposition with . “The lust of the flesh” ( , subjective genitive, lust felt by the flesh) may be illustrated by Mark 4:19; Gal 5:17. So the genitive with (the lust of the eyes) is subjective, lust with the eyes as organs as shown by Jesus in Mt 5:28. The use of the “movies” today for gain by lustful exhibitions is a case in point. For see on Jas 4:16, the only other N.T. example. (a boaster) occurs in Rom 1:30; 2Tim 3:2. (life) as in 3:17 is the external aspect (Lu 8:14), not the inward principle (). David Smith thinks that, as in the case of Eve (Ge 3:1-6) and the temptations of Jesus (Mt 4:1-11), these three sins include all possible sins. But they are all “of the world” ( ) in origin, in no sense “of the Father” ( ). The problem for the believer is always how to be in the world and yet not of it (John 17:11; John 17:14).

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

All [] . Not all things severally, but all that is in the world collectively, regarded as a unit.

The lust [ ] . See on Mr 4:19.

Of the flesh. Sensual appetite. The desire which resides in the flesh, not the desire for the flesh. For this subjective usage of the genitive with lust, see Joh 8:44; Rom 1:24; Rev 18:14. Compare 1Pe 2:11; Tit 2:12. The lust of the flesh involves the appropriation of the desired object. On the flesh, see on Joh 1:14.

The lust of the eyes. This is included in the lust of the flesh, as a specific manifestation. All merely sensual desires belong to the economy which “is not of the Father.” The desire of the eyes does not involve appropriation. It is satisfied with contemplating. It represents a higher type of desire than the desire of the flesh, in that it seeks mental pleasure where the other seeks physical gratification. There is thus a significant hint in this passage that even high artistic gratification may have no fellowship with God. The pride of life [ ] . Rev., vainglory. The word occurs only here and Jas 4:16, on which see note. It means, originally, empty, braggart talk or display; swagger; and thence an insolent and vain assurance in one’s own resources, or in the stability of earthly things, which issues in a contempt of divine laws. The vainglory of life is the vainglory which belongs to the present life. On biov life, as distinguished from zwh. life, see on Joh 1:4.

Of the Father [ ] . Do not spring forth from the Father. On the expression einai ejk to be of, see on Joh 1:46. “He, therefore, who is always occupied with the cravings of desire and ambition, and is eagerly striving after them, must have all his opinions mortal, and, as far as man can be, must be all of him mortal, because he has cherished his mortal part. But he who has been earnest in the love of knowledge and true wisdom, and has been trained to think that these are the immortal and divine things of a man, if he attain truth, must of necessity, as far as human nature is capable of attaining immortality, be all immortal, for he is ever attending on the divine power, and having the divinity within him in perfect order, he has a life perfect and divine” (Plato, “Timsaeus,” 90).

Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament

1) “For all that is in the world”. In one fell swoop John asserts that (Greek pan) meaning “all that which (is) in the world order” 1Jn 5:19, is under the domain of the wicked one, the devil. Eph 6:11-12.

a) “The lust of the flesh” (Greek epithumia) selfish, covetous craving of the (Greek sarkos) meaning inherited depraved desires, Jas 1:15.

b) “And the lust of the eyes. the eyes of one’s natural birth are eves of covetousness, as Eve’s for the fruit. They are said by Solomon never to be satisfied, Pro 27:20; with roving fornication and world order craving, Isa 3:16, “and full of adultery”, 2Pe 2:14 adds.

c) “And the pride of life”. God hates pride Pro 8:13; it brings contention, Pro 13:10; it goes before destruction and brings men low Proverbs 16, 18; Pro 29:23. And, as the very sin that caused the fall of Lucifer, is to be abhorred by the intelligent, the wise; it is vain glory! Eze 28:15-17; Isa 14:11-17.

2) “Is not of the Father.” Such vain glory, pomp, and pride is not of the Father’s nature or did not come forth from him.

3) “But is of the world”. In contrast with the holy nature of the Father it is of the world – or “world order”, how, base, wicked, and undesirable, from which children of God should flee, turn away. Col 3:12.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

16 The lust of the flesh, or, namely, the lust of the flesh. The old interpreter renders the verse otherwise, for from one sentence he makes two. Those Greek authors do better, who read these words together, “Whatever is in the world is not of God;” and then the three kinds of lusts they introduce parenthetically. For John, by way of explanation, inserted these three particulars as examples, that he might briefly shew what are the pursuits and thoughts of men who live for the world; but whether it be a full and complete division, it does not signify much; though you will not find a worldly man in whom these lusts do not prevail, at least one of them. It remains for us to see what he understands by each of these.

The first clause is commonly explained of all sinful lusts in general; for the flesh means the whole corrupt nature of man. Though I am unwilling to contend, yet I am unwilling to dissemble that I approve of another meaning. Paul, when forbidding, in Rom 13:14, to make provision for the flesh as to its lusts, seems to me to be the best interpreter of this place. What, then, is the flesh there? even the body and all that belongs to it. What, then, is the lust or desire of the flesh, but when worldly men, seeking to live softly and delicately, are intent only on their own advantages? Well known from Cicero and others, is the threefold division made by Epicurus; for he made this difference between lusts; he made some natural and necessary, some natural and not necessary, and some neither natural nor necessary. But John, well knowing the insubordination ( ἀταξία)of the human heart unhesitantly condemns the lust of the flesh, because it always flows out immoderately, and never observes any due medium. He afterwards comes gradually to grosser vices.

The lust of the eyes He includes, as I think, libidinous looks as well as the vanity which delights in pomps and empty splendor.

In the last place follows pride or haughtiness; with which is connected ambition, boasting, contempt of others, blind love of self, headstrong self-confidence.

The sum of the whole is, that as soon as the world presents itself, our lusts or desires, when our heart is corrupt, are captivated by it, like unbridled wild beasts; so that various lusts, all which are adverse to God, bear rule in us. The Greek word, βὶος rendered life, ( vita ,) means the way or manner of living.

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

16. All that is in the world In this world, as beheld by faith in the light of the better world, the following three classes of things comprehend all.

Lust In the Greek the term is capable of designating a good desire; but it derives from the context a bad sense. Our desires are all good when fixed in the right degree on the right thing. When fixed upon wrong objects, or in excessive degree on right objects, our desires become lust.

Lust of the flesh That is, lust proceeding from our animal appetites, alimentary and sexual. Rightly regulated, these appetites are right; unregulated, they are lusts.

Of the eyes Inordinate desires for getting all our eyes can see; the lawless indulgence of the possessory desires; greed for wealth, prompting to overreaching, to breach of trust, to gambling, plunder, and robbery.

Pride of life Tawdry love of display, selfish ambition for rank, power, and governmental conquest. To draw the line where the proper use of worldly things is divided from its abuse is a most important office of Christian ethics.

Not of the Father Who has made a better world for us, and makes it ours through his Son.

Of the world In contrast with his high and holy world, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

1Jn 2:16. For all that is in the world, St. John did by no means intend to say, that the natural world, and every thing in it, is confusion and deformity. If so, how could we from the make and constitution of the world infer a God and Providence? The three particulars immediately specified, shew what he means by all that is in the world. The first head of human vices is, the lust of the flesh: the flesh of itself has no lusts, no passions, appetites, desires, or inclinations whatever; but when the human body is united to a rational spirit, and they mutually influence each other, then it appears that certain passions, appetites; and inclinations are planted in man, and that the flesh is the chief seat of several of them; or that a human soul would have no such appetites as spring from the flesh, unless it were united to such an animal body. Perfectly fallen as we are by nature, yet the Spirit of God is offered to us, whereby we may controul and direct these appetites and propensions: but when they are indulged in a wrong manner, or beyond proper bounds, then they become vices, and are condemned as fleshly lusts which war against the soul. By the lusts of the fleshexpositorsingeneral understand gluttony, drunkenness, and lewdness. Covetous desires are excited by the eye, and steal that way into the heart, Ecc 2:8-10 and if by the lust of the eyes we here understand covetousness, then this second head will not interfere either with the lust of the flesh, or the pride of life; and moreover, it is perfectly agreeable to the Jewish phraseology, by the lust of the eyes to understand covetousness. See Mat 6:23. Pro 27:20. Ecc 4:8; Ecc 5:10-11. Though the word sometimessignifieslifeitself, sometimes worldly substance, or a provision for life; yet we need not restrict the meaning of the third phrase, the pride of life, to men’s being proud of their riches: for ambition, an aspiring to places of power or preferment, high titles and grandeur, the pomp and glory of this world, or placing too great an esteem on ourselves, and despising others upon these or any other accounts, may be justly called the pride of life. Raphelius on this passage observes, that Polybius uses the same phrase with St. John, for all kind of luxury in one’s manner of living, whether in dress, houses, furniture, eating, &c. No doubt St. John’s expression implies all this; but it seems moreover to include all those other pursuits, whether of ambition or vain-glory, by which men aim at making a figure in the eyes of their fellow-mortals. The lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, are the three great idols of the world; St. John mentions them as all that is in the world: it may therefore be inquired, whether he intendedunder these three heads to rank all the vices of the world? To which it may be replied, that certainly there are several vices, which are not particularly named here; but it would be no very difficult matter to shew, how other particular vices may either be reduced under these three heads, or are closelyconnected with them, how lust, covetousness, and pride, lead men to private injustice and injuries, or to public murder, rebellion, and cruelty, and to trample upon all laws, human and divine; and upon that account this division of the vices of mankind may well be defended. But St. John seems to have had his eye upon the grand temptation which reduced our general mother Eve;The woman saw that the tree was good for food,that was the lust of the flesh;that it was pleasant to the eye,that was the lust of the eyes; and a tree to be desired to make one wise, (i.e. to exalt men to the rank of gods;)this was the pride of life: and Dr. Lightfoot thought that the three great temptations with which Satan assaulted our Lord, might be reduced under the same heads.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

1Jn 2:16 . Confirmation of the preceding thought that love to the world is inconsistent with love to God.

] Bede incorrectly explains the neuter here (as it certainly does appear elsewhere in John) as masculine: omnes mundi dilectores non habent nisi concupiscentiam; most commentators regard the expression as identical with the foregoing ; even Dsterdieck, who, in reference to the following . . ., thinks that a “change occurs from the representation of the objects of the love of the world to the subjective desire itself and its actual manifestations.” But even apart from the fact that the assumption of such a change in the form is only a makeshift, the expression of the apostle himself is opposed to this; for had he not meant by . . something else than by ., he would have put the neuter plural here also. Besides, it must not be overlooked why the following: . . . could not be the apposition stating the sense of . . . (Frommann, p. 269). [138] Accordingly, the apostle means by this expression: all that forms the contents, i.e. the substance of the ; its inner life, which animates it (Braune); in what this consists, the following words state. . . .] Although the ideas and in themselves denote a subjective disposition of man, yet several commentators think that here not this, but the objective things are meant, to which that subjective disposition is directed (Bengel, Russmeyer, Lange, Ewald), or that the otherwise subjective idea disappears into the objective (de Wette), or at least that both the subjective and the objective are to be thought of together (Lorinus, Brckner). But with the correct conception of the ideas and there is no apparent reason for such an arbitrary explanation, by which violence is done to the words of the apostle.

] The genitive is here not the genitive of the object, but, as is the case with [139] always in the N. T. (except 2Pe 2:10 ; on Eph 4:22 comp. Meyer on this passage), the genitive of the subject, hence not: “the desire directed towards the flesh,” but: “the desire which the flesh, i.e. the corrupted sensual nature of man, cherishes, or which is peculiar to the flesh;” comp. Gal 5:17 : .

Ebrard interprets, describing the genitive as that “of quality and reference,” for which he wrongly appeals to Eph 4:22 , 2Pe 2:10 : “the desire which occurs in the sphere of the flesh;” the apostle scarcely conceived the idea so indefinitely. The idea may be taken in a broader or in a narrower sense; the first view in Lcke (“fleshly, sensuous desire in general, in contrast to and ; comp. Eph 2:3 ; 1Pe 2:11 ”), de Wette, Neander, Dsterdieck; in the second, the desire of sensuality and drunkenness is specially understood; Augustine: desiderium earum rerum, quae pertinent ad carnem, sicut cibus et concubitus et caetera hujusmodi; similarly Grotius, Baumgarten-Crusius, Sander, Besser, etc.; Brckner limits the idea to “the lust of the flesh in the narrower sense;” Gerlach specially to every sort of pursuit of enjoyment; [140] and Ebrard to “ sexual enjoyments.” [141] The right explanation can be found only on the consideration of the following expression.

] i.e. “ the desire that is inherent in the eyes, that is peculiar to them; ” the expression is explained in this way, that the desire of seeing something is attributed to the sense of sight itself. [142] This idea also is understood in a broader and in a narrower sense. As Lcke calls the eyes “as it were the principal gates of sensual desire for the external world,” he identifies this idea with the preceding one; de Wette does the same, interpreting it (in objective aspect): “what the eyes see, and by what sensual desire is excited.” The connection by , however, which is further followed by a second , shows that the two ideas are to be definitely distinguished. Accordingly, most commentators justly regard . as the description of a special sort of ; thus (against de Wette) Brckner in subjective and objective view: “ the lust of the eyes , and, at the same time, that in which, as sensuous and earthly, the eyes delight.” Two different interpretations are found with a more exact definition. Very many commentators, as Luther, Socinus, Grotius, Hornejus, Estius, Lorinus, Wolf, Clarius, Paulus, Semler, Baumgarten-Crusius, Gerlach, etc., [143] hold, though with some modifications, the expression to be substantially synonymous with , avaritia. On behalf of this interpretation, appeal is made principally to several passages of the O. T., and especially to Ecc 4:8 ; Ecc 5:10 , Pro 23:5 ; Pro 27:20 ; but erroneously, for even though the eye of the covetous or avaricious man looks with pleasure on his treasures, and eagerly looks out for new ones, still the possession or acquirement of wealth is to him the chief thing; the striving for it, however, is not expressed by the phrase: . Still less justifiable is the explanation of Ebrard, who partly agrees with those commentators, but regards the idea of “avarice” as too narrow; and, with an appeal to passages such as Psa 17:11 ; Psa 54:6 ; Psa 91:8 ; Psa 92:12 Pro 6:17 , etc., maintains that by . . . is meant “the whole sphere of the desires of selfishness, envy, and avarice, of hatred and revenge (!).” Other commentators, on the contrary, retain the reference to the pleasure of mere sight, but limit this too much to dramatic performances, etc.; thus Augustine: omnis curiositas in spectaculis, in theatris; similarly Neander and others. Such a limitation, however, is arbitrary; accordingly, others refer the expression to other objects of sight, thus Calvin: tam libidinosos conspectus comprehendit, quam vanitatem, quae in pompis et inani splendore vagatur; but it is more correct to take the reference to these things in a quite general way, and, with Spener, to interpret: “all sinful desire by which we seek delight in the seeing itself” (so also Braune); besides, it is to be observed that . . is not the desire for wealth, etc., which is excited by the sight (Rickli and others [144] ), but the desire of seeing unseemly things, and the sinful pleasure which the sight of them affords. [145] Thus, this idea is quite exclusive of the ; if the latter is taken quite generally, then the lust of the eyes is a particular species of it, which the apostle specially mentions in order to meet the idea that the desire of seeing anything can have nothing sinful in it. But, having regard to the simple juxtaposition of the ideas by , it is more correct to suppose that John conceived the . not in that general sense, but in the particular sense of the “lust for wealth and immoderate enjoyment,” so that the two ideas stand to one another in the relation not of subordination, but of co-ordination, both being subordinate to the general idea of .

] is usually translated by superbia, ambitio (Socinus: ambitio in honoribus quaerendis ac sectandis), and by similar words, and thereby is understood ambition , together with the pride and haughty contempt for others which are frequently associated with it; [146] thus Cyril interprets ( Homil. Pasch. xxvii.): . . . Thereby, however, its peculiar meaning is not assigned to the word. In the N. T. only appears in Jas 4:16 (in the plural); the adjective in Rom 1:30 and 2Ti 3:2 , in close connection with , from which, however, it does not follow that the idea of ambition, thirst for glory, etc., is contained in it, but only that the . is related to ; in James is meant thereby according to the context the haughtiness which overlooks the uncertainty of earthly happiness, and ostentatiously relies on its permanence. In the same sense = ostentatious pride in the possession , whether real or pretended, of earthly good things , such as happiness, power, knowledge, etc., the word appears also in the Apocrypha of the O. T.; comp. Wis 5:8 ; Wis 17:7 ; 2Ma 9:8 ; 2Ma 15:6 . In classical Greek has almost always the collateral meaning of the unreality of proud ostentation (Theophr. Charact. 23: ; Plato, Phaedr.: ; antithesis of ), which has obtained in Hellenistic usage only in so far that the idea here also always refers to something by its very nature worthless and trifling, and in this way certainly includes a delusion or unreality. This meaning is to be retained here also, as is rightly done by Lcke, Sander, Besser, Braune; [147] for examples in the Scriptures, comp. 1Ch 22:1 ff.; Ecc 2:1 ff.; Eze 28:16-17 ; Dan 4:27 ; Rev 17:4 ; Rev 18:7 , etc. The genitive serves for the more particular definition of the idea; signifies in the N. T. either “ temporal life ” (1Ti 2:2 ; 1Pe 4:3 , Rec. ), or more commonly “ the support of life, the means ” (chap. 1Jn 3:17 ; Mar 12:44 ; Luk 8:43 ; Luk 15:12 ; Luk 15:30 ; Luk 21:4 ); it never has the meaning “conduct of life” (Ebrard). Following polyb. Hist. vi. 576: , it is appropriate to take here in the second meaning, and the genitive as objective genitive (so Lcke); as, however, and are subjective genitives, it is much more correct to take also as subjective genitive, and accordingly to interpret: “the peculiar to the ;” in the expression , Luk 8:14 , may also be the objective genitive, thus: “the pleasures which refer to the , the temporal good;” but more probably it is the subjective genitive here also, especially if it be connected with the preceding ideas (see Meyer on this passage), thus: “the pleasures peculiar to the present life.” [148]

[138] According to Ebrard, . . is a resumption of . .; as, however, he understands by it various kinds of conduct, etc., that idea is rightly interpreted by him. Myrberg agrees with the interpretation given above.

[139] It is arbitrary for Ebrard to say: is here as in Joh 8:44 ; Rom 7:8 ; Gal 5:16 , etc. “ that which one lusts after ,” which indeed he again cancels by translating the word by “ lust. ”

[140] Even Bengel takes the expression (while, however, he understands it of the objective things) in a narrower sense: ea quibus pascuntur sensus, qui appellantur truitivi: gustus et tactus.

[141] This explanation results for Ebrard from the fact that he takes here = , and then describes the idea “ sensual ” as identical with “ sexual ” (!).

[142] Ebrard strangely thinks that in this view the genitive is regarded as objective genitive = “the desire for eyes, i.e. for enjoyment of the eyes.”

[143] Sander also explains it of avarice, but would not exclude the curiositas in spectaculis, etc., regarding this, however, as merely collateral.

[144] Rickli interprets: “the low, sensual style of thought, in so far as this is excited and fostered by the sight.” Dsterdieck understands by it specially covetousness and avarice; but at the same time observes that every sort of desire may be excited by the eye.

[145] Bengel extends the idea beyond the limit which lies in the expression itself, when he explains: ea, quibus tenentur sensus investigativi: oculus, sive visus, auditus et olfactus.

[146] Calvin: fastus aut superbia, cui conjuncta est ambitio, jactautia, aliorum contemptus, coecus amor sui, praeceps confidentia.

[147] With this view Neander, Gerlach, and Dsterdieck substantially agree also; yet their paraphrases do not keep precisely enough within the definite limits of the extent of the idea, as they include ostentation, ambition, etc.; a definite distinction between this idea and is requisite. Augustine not inaccurately describes the thus: jactare se vult in honoribus, magnus sibi videtur, sive de divitiis, sive de aliqua potentia. Ebrard wrongly denies that according to Hellenistic usage the element of pride is contained in the idea ; neither in classical nor in Hellenistic usage has the word the meaning “ luxury ,” which he maintains for it.

[148] The commentators for the most part express themselves somewhat vaguely; de Wette explains: “the enjoyment, combined with pride of (earthly) life (not: of the good things of life);” Braune says that the genitive is to be taken as subjective genitive, and then interprets: “the genitive . signifies the side on which ostentatious pride usually appears;” Ewald translates: “swindling in money,” which is not only indefinite, but even unjustifiable.

REMARK.

It has almost become traditional to find the modes of appearance of the evil fully stated in this threefold form, corresponding to the triplicity which appears in the Greek writers, as in Pythag. Clinias: , , ; for other expressions, see Wetstein. [149] This threefold form, it has been thought, is found both in the fall and again in the temptation of Christ; thus Bede, following Augustine, says: Per haec tria tantum cupiditas humana tentatur; per haec tria Adam tentatus est et victus; per haec tentatus est Christus et vicit; while a Lapide finds expressed in it even the contrast with the three Persons in the divine Trinity. [150]

Bengel opposes this view, and makes such a distinction between the . and the . . ., that he refers the former to the sensus fruitivi, the latter to the sensus investigativi, but says of the . .: arrogantia vitae est, quae cupiditatem foras educit et longius in mundum diffundit, ut homo velit quam plurimus esse in victu, cultu, etc.; and then observes: non concidunt cum his tribus tria vitia cardinalia: voluptas, avaritia, superbia; sed tarnen in his continentur. By the last clause Bengel shows, however, “that there is a trace of that scheme to be found even in him” (Dsterdieck).

Lcke has more decidedly expressed himself against it, inasmuch as he finds in that threefold form only “the three chief points of worldly lust” (according to the first edition, only “as examples”); and, moreover, the points “in which it proceeds from the sensual desire to the climax of the .” But Lcke’s own interpretation of the particular ideas is opposed to such a progress, as he makes the first two ideas to coincide in regard to their substance , and thus no progress takes place from the one to the other, nor is it, besides, in any way hinted at by the apostle.

Lcke rightly contends that particular leading vices are the subject here; not individual vices, but the leading forms (Lcke [151] ); or, as Brckner says, the leading tendencies of worldly sense are stated by the apostle in that threefold form. But in what relation do these stand to one another? According to Dsterdieck, the forms the superior idea, to which the two other ideas, as mutually co-ordinate, are in subordination: “The first-mentioned lust of the flesh, the most comprehensive and thorough description of the love of the world (1Jn 2:15 ), embraces both the lust of the eyes and the pride of life.” This is incorrect. For, on the one hand, the to the is not to be identified with the , as the latter rather describes the inner nature of the ; the apostle warns against that love, because in the the which is not of God dominates; the thought that is to be supplied is this, that love to the necessarily implies an entrance into its nature; and, on the other hand, the apostle’s form of expression is utterly opposed to such a subordination; the two first-mentioned forms of worldly sense are by the same appellation: , closely connected with each other, and distinguished from the third, which is not called , but ; [152] it is unsuitable, however, to regard the latter as ; is the desire directed to the attainment of any good the lust for something (not exactly: the lust or delight in anything), but the is a definite behaviour in regard to the good which one possesses. The worldly man stands in a double relationship to the perishable good things; on the one hand, he aspires after them, whether he wants to possess and enjoy them or to delight himself with looking at them; on the other hand, he fancies himself great in them when he has them as his own.

That the whole sphere of sinful life is not here surveyed, Luther has noticed when he says: “The following three things are not of the Father, viz.: (1) hatred of the brethren; (2) the three idols of the world; (3) false and seductive teaching.”

Sander also brings out the same trichotomy of sinful corruption, appealing for it to chap. 1Jn 2:2-12 , where the subject is the first, to 1Jn 2:15-17 , where it is the second, and to 1Jn 2:19 ff., where it is the third. The apostle certainly mentions these different modes of the appearance of sin; but that the organism of the Epistle rests on this, is an assertion that goes too far.

[149] Ebrard justly denies that a division of sin as such is to be sought for here; but his own view, that in that threefold form there is given a distribution of worldly conduct in its entire extent, and in this way, that first the relation of man to his own bodily and sensual nature is expressed, then the egotistical opposition to his fellow-men, and finally, his relation to them and complication with them, is, as resting on a false interpretation of the particular ideas, just as little to be justified.

[150] The counterpart of these three forms of the sinful life is, according to a Lapide, the three primariae virtutes: continentia, charitas, humilitas, which coincide very exactly with the three monastic vows of chastity, poverty, and obedience.

[151] When Lcke calls those three not merely the leading forms, but also the principles and sources of the worldly sense, this is not correct, for the worldly sense does not spring from the . . ., but the latter is the living motion of the former.

[152] Frommann (p. 270 ff.) justly remarks that the two leading forms are the and the ; that the signifies the desire , and the the action, which in the attainment of the object desired has already found its satisfaction.

The following words: . . .] express the anti-divine character of the worldly nature of the . . .

, as in 1Jn 2:15 ; here quite in the same sense as before.

is, according to Paulus, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, not the description of the origin, but only of the connection and similarity; by this view, however, the depth of John’s conception is ignored; the expression rather embraces both, but the second only as the result of the first (so also Ebrard); comp. Joh 8:44 .

By the addition of the antagonism between God and the world, as the source of the ungodly disposition, is brought out with peculiar distinctness.

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

Ver. 16. The lust of the flesh, the lust of, &c. ] That is, pleasure, profit, preferment; the worldling’s trinity, as one saith. Compare herewith Christ’s threefold temptation, Luk 4:3-9 , and St James’s character of worldly wisdom, Jas 3:15 . See Trapp on “ Jam 3:15 “ It is his pleasure, his profit, and his honour (saith a divine) that is the natural man’s trinity, and his carnal self that is these in unity. And to the same purpose the Christian poet,

” Ambitiosus honos, et opes, et foeda voluptas,

Haec tria pro trino numine mundus habet. “

But is of the world ] Base and bootless. Nec verum, nec vestrum. To know the vanity of the world (as of a mist) you must go a little from it.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

16 .] Gives a reason for the assertion in 1Jn 2:15 ; viz. the entire separation from one another of the world and God. In order to understand clearly the following, it is necessary to define strictly the things mentioned, and to lay down explicitly the apposition between ., and the three particulars which follow as included in that category. By some Commentators this has been altogether passed over: by others very variously done. I apprehend it can only be rightly done by bearing in mind what was said before, that, as the world is summed up in man, both those objective material things which are properly ., and those inward subjectivities which are in man and grounded on his cosmic state, are regarded as being ., and these pass into, and are almost interchanged with, one another. Now here, the three things spoken of as examples of ., are all purely subjective, , , . But they are subjectivities having their ground in the objectivities of the ungodly world: the first springs out of (see below) the , the human nature unrenewed by God: the second resides in that sense which takes note of outward things and so is inflamed by them; and the is that belonging to , the manner of life of worldly men among one another, whereby pride as to display and pomp is cherished. Now each one of these three is included in, and includes in itself, love to the world: and he that loves the world falls into, walks after, becomes part of, these lusts, and this , which is not of the Father but of the world. Loving the things of the world, he becomes conformed to the world, and following the lusts and pride which are in the world, he himself becomes one of the things in the world. Because every thing that is in the world , (namely, or for instance) the lust of the flesh ( is not, as made by so many Commentators, an objective gen., so that the words should mean, “lust after the flesh,” i. e. impure desire: this they include, but far more. The gen. is subjective, the flesh being that wherein the lust dwells, as in reff.: and in . , Rom 1:24 ; cf. Pro 21:26 , Sir 5:2 ; Sir 18:30 , , Rom 6:12 , , 1Pe 4:2 ; cf. 2Pe 3:3 , Jud 1:16 ; Jud 1:18 , and cf. also such expressions as , Tit 2:12 , and , 1Pe 2:11 . The gen. after is never, either in LXX or N. T., objective. Cf. some passages in which it occurs in other than the subjective sense, but never of the object desired: Eph 4:22 , 2Pe 2:10 . In Phi 1:23 , only Origen reads after , instead of .), and the lust of the eyes (subjective gen. as before: the lust which the eye begets by seeing. In the apocryphal Testament of the twelve patriarchs (Fabricius, cod. Pseudepigr. Vet. Test. i. p. 522), among the seven is enumerated the , . Sander, whose commentary, otherwise useful, is disfigured throughout by an ill-natured spirit of carping at Lcke and De Wette, denies the applicability of this passage, understanding . . as (if I rightly take his meaning, which is not very clear) the desire of seeing, as of the man who would not come to the supper because he must go and see his five yoke of oxen. But his whole view of this difficult passage is very superficial), and the vainglory of life (the is one who lays claim to credit or glory which is not his own: see notes on Rom 1:30 and Jas 4:16 . here as in ref. is men’s way or course of life. So in Polyb. vi. 57. 6, . : he having before observed, . This comprehends in it the means of living and fashion of living, table, furniture, equipage, income, rank; and the arising out of these is that vainglorious pride, which is so common in the rich and fashionable), is not of (springs not from, has not as its source: see below) the Father (this name is again used for God, in reference to and above), but is of the world (has its origin from the world. It is necessary, in opposition to all such interpretations as that of Socinus, “valde dissident ab eis qu Deus per Christum nos sectari jussit,” and Rosenmller, “non est in his perfectio moralis,” to lay down very distinctly St. John’s limits of thought and speech in this matter. “Through our whole Epistle,” says Dsterdieck (cf. especially 1Jn 2:29 , ch. 1Jn 3:7 ff., 1Jn 4:2 ff., 1Jn 4:7 ff., 1Jn 5:1 ff.), “runs the view, which also is manifest in the Gospel of St. John, that only the mind which springs from God is directed to God. He who is born of God, loves God, knows God (1Jn 2:3 ff.), does God’s will. God Himself, who first loved us, viz. in Christ His incarnate Son, begot in us that love which of moral necessity returns again to the Father, and of like necessity embraces our brethren also. This love is hated by the world, because it springs not from the world. It depends not on the world, any more than that perverted love which springs from the world and is directed towards the world, the lust of the flesh, &c., can be directed to the Father, or to God’s children. So that John grasps in reality down to the very foundations of the moral life, when he reminds his readers of the essentially distinct origin of the love of the world, and the love of God. The inmost kernel of the matter is hereby laid bare, and with it a glimpse is given of the whole process of the love of the world, and the love of God, even to the end; and this end is now set forth expressly with extraordinary power:” viz., in the next verse).

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

1Jn 2:16 . , not object. gen. (Aug.: “desiderium earum rerum qu pertinent ad carnem, sicut cibus et concubitus, et ctera hujusmodi,”) but subject.: “the lust which the flesh feels, which resides in the flesh”. Cf. . , vain pretension, claiming what one really has not. Def. Plat. : . Suid.: , . Theophr. Char. vi.: . , the vital principle ( vita qua vivimus ), ( , the outward life ( vita quam vivimus ) or livelihood ( victus ). There is here a summary of all possible sins, exemplified in the temptations of Eve (Gen 3:1-6 ) and our Lord (Mat 4:1-11 ). Cf. Aug.; Lightfoot, Hor. Heb. , on Mat 4:1 . (1) “The lust of the flesh”: cf. “The tree was good for food”; “Command that these stones become loaves”. (2) “The lust of the eyes”: cf. “It was a delight to the eyes”; “Cast thyself down” a spectacular display. (3) “The braggart boast of life”: cf. “The tree was to be desired to make one wise”: “All the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them”.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

pride. Greek. alazoneia. Only here and Jam 4:16 (boastings).

life. App-170.

of. App-104.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

16.] Gives a reason for the assertion in 1Jn 2:15; viz. the entire separation from one another of the world and God. In order to understand clearly the following, it is necessary to define strictly the things mentioned, and to lay down explicitly the apposition between ., and the three particulars which follow as included in that category. By some Commentators this has been altogether passed over: by others very variously done. I apprehend it can only be rightly done by bearing in mind what was said before,-that, as the world is summed up in man, both those objective material things which are properly ., and those inward subjectivities which are in man and grounded on his cosmic state, are regarded as being ., and these pass into, and are almost interchanged with, one another. Now here, the three things spoken of as examples of ., are all purely subjective,-, , . But they are subjectivities having their ground in the objectivities of the ungodly world: the first springs out of (see below) the , the human nature unrenewed by God: the second resides in that sense which takes note of outward things and so is inflamed by them; and the is that belonging to , the manner of life of worldly men among one another, whereby pride as to display and pomp is cherished. Now each one of these three is included in, and includes in itself, love to the world: and he that loves the world falls into, walks after, becomes part of, these lusts, and this , which is not of the Father but of the world. Loving the things of the world, he becomes conformed to the world, and following the lusts and pride which are in the world, he himself becomes one of the things in the world. Because every thing that is in the world, (namely, or for instance) the lust of the flesh ( is not, as made by so many Commentators, an objective gen., so that the words should mean, lust after the flesh, i. e. impure desire: this they include, but far more. The gen. is subjective, the flesh being that wherein the lust dwells, as in reff.: and in . , Rom 1:24; cf. Pro 21:26, Sir 5:2; Sir 18:30,- , Rom 6:12,- , 1Pe 4:2; cf. 2Pe 3:3, Jud 1:16; Jud 1:18,-and cf. also such expressions as , Tit 2:12, and , 1Pe 2:11. The gen. after is never, either in LXX or N. T., objective. Cf. some passages in which it occurs in other than the subjective sense, but never of the object desired: Eph 4:22, 2Pe 2:10. In Php 1:23, only Origen reads after , instead of .), and the lust of the eyes (subjective gen. as before: the lust which the eye begets by seeing. In the apocryphal Testament of the twelve patriarchs (Fabricius, cod. Pseudepigr. Vet. Test. i. p. 522), among the seven is enumerated the , . Sander, whose commentary, otherwise useful, is disfigured throughout by an ill-natured spirit of carping at Lcke and De Wette, denies the applicability of this passage, understanding . . as (if I rightly take his meaning, which is not very clear) the desire of seeing, as of the man who would not come to the supper because he must go and see his five yoke of oxen. But his whole view of this difficult passage is very superficial), and the vainglory of life (the is one who lays claim to credit or glory which is not his own: see notes on Rom 1:30 and Jam 4:16. here as in ref. is mens way or course of life. So in Polyb. vi. 57. 6, . : he having before observed, . This comprehends in it the means of living and fashion of living,-table, furniture, equipage, income, rank; and the arising out of these is that vainglorious pride, which is so common in the rich and fashionable), is not of (springs not from, has not as its source: see below) the Father (this name is again used for God, in reference to and above), but is of the world (has its origin from the world. It is necessary, in opposition to all such interpretations as that of Socinus, valde dissident ab eis qu Deus per Christum nos sectari jussit, and Rosenmller, non est in his perfectio moralis, to lay down very distinctly St. Johns limits of thought and speech in this matter. Through our whole Epistle, says Dsterdieck (cf. especially 1Jn 2:29, ch. 1Jn 3:7 ff., 1Jn 4:2 ff., 1Jn 4:7 ff., 1Jn 5:1 ff.), runs the view, which also is manifest in the Gospel of St. John, that only the mind which springs from God is directed to God. He who is born of God, loves God, knows God (1Jn 2:3 ff.), does Gods will. God Himself, who first loved us, viz. in Christ His incarnate Son, begot in us that love which of moral necessity returns again to the Father, and of like necessity embraces our brethren also. This love is hated by the world, because it springs not from the world. It depends not on the world, any more than that perverted love which springs from the world and is directed towards the world, the lust of the flesh, &c., can be directed to the Father, or to Gods children. So that John grasps in reality down to the very foundations of the moral life, when he reminds his readers of the essentially distinct origin of the love of the world, and the love of God. The inmost kernel of the matter is hereby laid bare, and with it a glimpse is given of the whole process of the love of the world, and the love of God, even to the end; and this end is now set forth expressly with extraordinary power: viz., in the next verse).

Fuente: The Greek Testament

1Jn 2:16. – , , , all-the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life) The world contains all these, and nothing besides them. The lust of the flesh means those things, on which the senses of enjoyment, as they are termed, viz. the taste and touch, feed. The lust of the eyes means those things, by which the senses of investigation, the eye or sight, hearing and smelling, are occupied. is arrogant pomp, when any one assumes too much to himself either in words or in actions. See Raphel. It is also comprised under the word, lust, in the next verse: and therefore arrogance of life, is that which leads forth lust abroad, and diffuses it more largely into the world, so that a man wishes to be as great as possible in food, in dress, in plate, in furniture, in buildings, in estates, in servants, in his retinue, in his equipage, in his offices, etc. Comp. Rev 18:12-13. Chrysostom, in the passage referred to above, speaks of , the vanity of life, and , the display of life: where he relates a youthful example of such insolence overcome by sacred love. Either kind of lust is the little fire (spark); arrogance is the conflagration. Even those who do not love arrogance of life, may possibly pursue the lust of the eyes; and they who have overpowered this, yet frequently retain the lust of the flesh: for this prevails in the greatest degree, and to the widest extent, among the poor, the middle classes, and the powerful; even among those who appear to exercise self-denial: and again, unless it is overcome, a man easily advances from it to the lust of the eyes, where he has the means [materials for it]; and from this to pride of life, where he has the opportunity [resources]. The second is included in the third, and the first in the second. The three cardinal vices, pleasure, avarice, and pride, do not coincide with these three; but yet they are comprised in them. Comp. Luk 8:14; Deu 17:16-17; Mat 4:3; Mat 4:6; Mat 4:9. And youth is especially commanded to avoid these three, comp. 2Ti 2:22, since it might abuse its great vigour. Ecclesiastes 12.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

the lust of the flesh: Num 11:4, Num 11:34, Psa 78:18, Psa 78:30, Pro 6:25, Mat 5:28, Rom 13:14, 1Co 10:6, Gal 5:17, Gal 5:24, Eph 2:3, Tit 2:12, Tit 3:3, 1Pe 1:14, 1Pe 2:11, 1Pe 4:2, 1Pe 4:3, 1Pe 4:2, 1Pe 4:3, 2Pe 2:10, 2Pe 2:18, Jud 1:16 -18

and the lust: Gen 3:6, Gen 6:2, Jos 7:21, Job 31:1, Psa 119:36, Psa 119:37, Ecc 5:10, Ecc 5:11, Mat 4:8, Luk 4:5

and the pride: Est 1:3-7, Psa 73:6, Dan 4:30, Rev 18:11-17

is not: Jam 3:15

Reciprocal: Gen 13:10 – and beheld Gen 39:7 – cast Num 32:1 – the place Jdg 14:1 – Timnath Jdg 16:15 – when thine 2Sa 11:2 – he saw Psa 37:27 – do good Pro 17:24 – the eyes Pro 21:10 – soul Pro 23:5 – thou Pro 23:31 – General Pro 27:20 – so Ecc 2:10 – whatsoever Ecc 2:11 – I looked Ecc 4:8 – is his Ecc 11:9 – in the sight Jer 22:17 – thine eyes Mat 6:19 – General Mat 6:24 – serve Mat 13:22 – the care Mat 22:5 – one Mar 4:7 – General Mar 10:22 – for Luk 14:18 – I have Luk 14:33 – General Luk 16:13 – servant Joh 8:23 – Ye are from Act 25:23 – with Rom 1:25 – the creature Rom 7:7 – Thou shalt Rom 8:7 – the carnal mind 1Co 6:2 – the smallest 2Co 4:18 – for Gal 5:16 – and 2Ti 4:10 – having Heb 12:1 – let us lay Jam 4:4 – the friendship 2Pe 1:4 – having 2Pe 2:14 – eyes Rev 18:14 – thy soul

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

1Jn 2:16. The things named in this verse the apostle says are all that is in the world. That is not merely an arbitrary declaration made just because the apostle chose to sum it all up that way, but upon examination it will be seen that it is historically and logically true. In Gen 3:6 we read; “When the woman saw that the tree was good for food [lust of the flesh], and that it was pleasant to the eyes [lust of the eyes], and a tree to be desired to make one wise [pride of life],” etc. Next we shall consider Luk 4:1-13. Satan suggested to Jesus a way to get food, which was an appeal to the lust of the flesh. (The obtaining of food was no sin if done by lawful means.) Satan showed Christ the kingdoms of the world which was an appeal to the lust of the eyes. Next he challenged Him to cast himself from the roof of the temple to show the greatness of His power, which was an attempt to get Jesus to yield on a point that would have shown the spirit of pride. Luke says after these three items that “the devil had ended all the temptations,” which agrees with John that the three classes of evil are all that is in the world.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

John summarized the appeal of the world system as three-fold. Here is a picture of the infernal trinity, the three faces of the world, three sources of worldly temptation (cf. Genesis 3; Matthew 4). Lusts are cravings or desires, and in the context they are evil because they are not in harmony with God’s will.

The lust of the flesh is the desire to do something apart from the will of God. It includes every sinful activity that appeals to the sinful hearts of people. The lust of the eyes is the desire to have something apart from the will of God. Whatever is appealing to our senses but is not properly ours to desire or obtain falls under this category. The pride of life is the desire to be something apart from the will of God. It refers to boastful pretension in earthly matters. The first desire appeals mainly to the body, the second appeals to the soul (or intellect), and the third to the spirit. Perhaps the most common manifestation of the lust of the flesh in modern western civilization is illicit sex (hedonism, idolizing pleasure). Perhaps the most common manifestation of the lust of the eyes is excessive buying (materialism, idolizing possessions). Perhaps the most common manifestation of the pride of life is trying to control (egoism, idolizing power).

"The ’wants’ which man feels can be divided into two great classes. Some things he desires to appropriate personally: some things he desires to enjoy without appropriation. The desire of the flesh embraces the one class (e.g. gratification of appetites); the desire of the eyes the other (e.g. pursuit of art as an end)." [Note: Westcott, p. 62.]

"’Pride of life’ will be reflected in whatever status symbol is important to me or seems to define my identity. When I define myself to others in terms of my honorary [or earned] degrees, the reputation of the church I serve, my annual income, the size of my library, my expensive car or house, and if in doing this I misrepresent the truth and in my boasting show myself to be only a pompous fool who has deceived no one, then I have succumbed to what John calls the pride of life." [Note: Barker, p. 322.]

"Thus the ’pride of life’ is ostentatious pride in the possession of worldly goods." [Note: Ryrie, "The First . . .," p. 1470.]

These three basic desires come from the world system, not from the Father, and the believer should separate from them. The Father desires our welfare, but the world will destroy us (1Jn 2:17).

"Morality is not the grounds for assurance, but the fruit of it." [Note: Hodges, The Gospel . . ., p. 49. Cf. Ephesians 4:1; Colossians 3:12-13.]

The Christian’s Three-Fold Enemy

Problem	Solution
The World 1Jn 2:15-17 Lust of the Flesh Lust of the Eyes Pride of Life	Flee 1Ti 6:11 2Ti 2:22
The Flesh Rom 7:18-24	Deny Rom 6:12-13; Rom 8:13
The Devil 1Pe 5:8	Resist 1Pe 5:9

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)