Biblia

Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 John 2:19

Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 John 2:19

They went out from us, but they were not of us: for if they had been of us, they would [no doubt] have continued with us: but [they went out,] that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

19. The relation of these antichristian teachers to the Church of Christ. They were formerly nominal members, but never real members of it. They are now not members in any sense. Note the repetition, so characteristic of S. John, of the key-word ‘us’, which means the Christian Church. It occurs 5 times in this one verse.

They went out from us ] It was their own doing, a distinct secession from our communion: in the Greek, ‘from us’ comes first for emphasis. It is incredible that the words can mean ‘they proceeded from us Jews ’. What point would there be in that? Moreover, S. John never writes as a Jew, but always as a Christian to Christians. ‘Us’ includes all true Christians, whether of Gentile or Jewish origin. Comp. S. Paul’s warning to the Ephesian presbyters; ‘ From among your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them’ (Act 20:30); where the Greek is similar to what we have here: and ‘Certain men, the children of Belial’, are gone out from among you, and have withdrawn the inhabitants of their city, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which ye have not known’ (Deu 13:13); where the Greek of LXX. is still closer to this passage.

but they were not of us ] They have a foreign origin. The single act of departure (aorist) is contrasted with the lasting condition of being ‘of us’ (imperfect). ‘Of us’ here is exactly analogous to ‘of the Father’ and ‘of the world’ in 1Jn 2:16. It is difficult to bring out in English the full force of the antithesis which is so easily expressed in the Greek. ‘From out of us they went forth, but they were not from out of us’; where ‘from out of us’ ( ) is of course used in two different senses, ‘out from our midst’ and ‘originating with us.’

they would no doubt have continued with us ] Better, they would have abided with us: there is nothing in the Greek to represent ‘no doubt,’ and the verb is S. John’s favourite word ‘abide’ (see on 1Jn 2:24). Almost all the earlier English Versions go wrong as to ‘no doubt’. Tyndale and Cranmer have ‘no dout’, the Genevan has ‘douteles’, and the Rhemish ‘surely’. Probably these are attempts to translate the utique of the Vulgate, permansissent utique nobiscum: and the utique, which is as old as Tertullian ( De Praescr, Haer. III.) is a mistaken endeavour to give a separate word to represent the Greek particle . Oddly enough, Wiclif, who worked from the Vulgate, has nothing to represent utique; ‘they hadden dwelte with us. Luther inserts ‘ja’; ‘so wren sie ja bei uns geblieben’; which looks as if he also were under the influence of the utique. There is a similar instance Joh 8:42, where Wiclif has ‘ sothli ye schulden love Me’, Cranmer, ‘ truly ye wolde love Me’, and the Rhemish, ‘ verely ye would love Me’, because the Vulgate (not Tertullian) gives diligeretis utique Me for . The meaning here is that secession proves a want of fundamental union from the first. As Tertullian says: Nemo Christianus, nisi qui ad finem persevcraverit. Note that S. John does not say ‘they would have abided among us ( ),’ but ‘ with us ( ‘ )’. This brings out more clearly the idea of fellowship: ‘these antichrists had no real sympathy with us’.

but they went out that they might be made manifest ] As the italics in A.V. shew, there is no Greek to represent ‘they went out’. ‘But that’ or ‘but in order that’ ( ” ) is an elliptical expression very frequent in S. John’s Gospel (Joh 1:8, Joh 9:3, Joh 13:18, Joh 14:31, Joh 15:25). We may often fill up the ellipse in some such way as ‘but this took place ’, or ‘this came to pass, in order that’. S. John’s favourite construction ‘in order that’ (see on 1Jn 1:9) again points to the Divine government of events. It was in accordance with God’s will that these spurious members should be made known as such. The process which all through his Gospel the Apostle depicts as a necessary result of Christ’s coming, still continues after His departure; the separation of light from darkness, of the Church from the world, of real from unreal Christians (see introductory note to John v.). S. John assures his readers that the appearance of error and unbelief in the Church need not shake their faith in it: it is all in accordance with the Divine plan. Revelation of the truth necessarily causes a separation between those who accept and those who reject it, and is designed to do so. God does not will that any should reject the truth; but He wills that those who reject should be made manifest. S. Paul states this truth the other way; that the faithful need to be distinguished. ‘For there must be also heresies among you, that ( ) they which are approved may be made manifest among you’ (1Co 11:19).

that they were not all of us ] Or, that not all are of us, as in the margin of R.V. But this is doubtful; the Greek being , not . The Greek is somewhat ambiguous, but certainly we must have ‘are’ and not ‘were’. Two ideas seem to be in the Apostle’s mind, and his words may be the expression partly of the one, and partly of the other: 1. that these antichrists may be made manifest as not really of us; 2. that it may be made manifest that not all professing Christians are really of us.

In this verse S. John does not teach that the Christian cannot fall away; his exhortations to his readers not to love the world, but to abide in Christ, is proof of that. He is only putting in another form the declaration of Christ, ‘I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of My hand’ (Joh 10:28). Apostasy is possible, but only for those who have never really made Christ their own, never fully given themselves to Him.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

They went out from us – From the church. That is, they had once been professors of the religion of the Saviour, though their apostasy showed that they never had any true piety. John refers to the fact that they had once been in the church, perhaps to remind those to whom he wrote that they knew them well, and could readily appreciate their character. It was a humiliating statement that those who showed themselves to be so utterly opposed to religion had once been members of the Christian church; but this is a statement which we are often compelled to make.

But they were not of us – That is, they did not really belong to us, or were not true Christians. See the notes at Mat 7:23. This passage proves that these persons, whatever their pretensions and professions may have been, were never sincere Christians. The same remark may be made of all who apostatize from the faith, and become teachers of error. They never were truly converted; never belonged really to the spiritual church of Christ.

For if they had been of us – If they had been sincere and true Christians.

They would no doubt have continued with us – The words no doubt are supplied by our translators, but the affirmation is equally strong without them: they would have remained with us. This affirms, without any ambiguity or qualification, that if they had been true Christians they would have remained in the church; that is, they would not have apostatized. There could not be a more positive affirmation than that which is implied here, that those who are true Christians will continue to be such; or that the saints will not fall away from grace. John affirms it of these persons, that if they had been true Christians they would never have departed from the church. He makes the declaration so general that it may be regarded as a universal truth, that if any are truly of us, that is, if they are true Christians, they will continue in the church, or will never fall away. The statement is so made also as to teach that if any do fall away from the church, the fact is full proof that they never had any religion, for if they had had they would have remained steadfast in the church.

But they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us – It was suffered or permitted in the providence of God that this should occur, in order that it might be seen and known that they were not true Christians, or in order that their real character might be developed. It was desirable that this should be done:

(a)In order that the church might be purified from their influence – compare the notes at Joh 15:2;

(b)In order that it might not be responsible for their conduct, or reproached on account of it;

(c)In order that their real character might be developed, and they might themselves see that they were not true Christians;

(d)In order that, being seen and known as apostates, their opinions and conduct might have less influence than if they were connected with the church;

(e)In order that they might themselves understand their own true character, and no longer live under the delusive opinion that they were Christians and were safe, but that, seeing themselves in their true light, they might be brought to repentance.

For there is only a most slender prospect that any who are deceived in the church will ever be brought to true repentance there; and slight as is the hope that one who apostatizes will be, such an event is much more probable than it would be if he remained in the church. People are more likely to be converted when their character is known and understood, than they are when playing a game of deception, or are themselves deceived. What is here affirmed of these persons often occurs now; and those who have no true religion are often suffered to apostatize from their profession for the same purposes. It is better that they should cease to have any connection with the church than that they should remain in it; and God often suffers them to fall away even from the profession of religion, in order that they may not do injury as professing Christians. This very important passage, then, teaches the following things:

(1) That when people apostatize from the profession of religion, and embrace fatal error, or live in sin, it proves that they never had any true piety.

(2) The fact that such persons fall away cannot be adduced to prove that Christians ever fall from grace, for it demonstrates nothing on that point, but proves only that these persons never had any real piety. They may have had much that seemed to be religion; they may have been zealous, and apparently devoted to God, and may even have had much comfort and peace in what they took to be piety; they may have been eminently gifted in prayer, or may have even been successful preachers of the gospel, but all this does not prove that they ever had any piety, nor does the fact that such persons apostatize from their profession throw any light on a question quite foreign to this – whether true Christians ever fall from grace. Compare Mat 7:22-23.

(3) The passage before us proves that if any are true Christians they will remain in the church, or will certainly persevere and be saved. They may indeed backslide grievously; they may wander far away, and pain the hearts of their brethren, and give occasion to the enemies of religion to speak reproachfully; but the apostle says, if they had been of us, they would have continued with us.

(4) One of the best evidences of true piety is found in the fact of continuing with the church. I do not mean nominally and formally, but really and spiritually, having the heart with the church; loving its peace and promoting its welfare; identifying ourselves with real Christians, and showing that we are ready to cooperate with those who love the Lord Jesus and its cause.

(5) The main reason why professing Christians are suffered to apostatize is to show that they had no true religion. It is desirable that they should see it themselves; desirable that others should see it also. It is better that it should be known that they had no true religion than that they should remain in the church to be a burden on its movements, and a reproach to the cause. By being allowed thus to separate themselves from the church, they may be brought to remember their violated vows, and the church will be free from the reproach of having those in its bosom who are a dishonor to the Christian name. We are not to wonder, then, if persons apostatize who have been professors of true religion; and we are not to suppose that the greatest injury is done to the cause when they do it. A greater injury by far is done when such persons remain in the church.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Verse 19. They went out from us] These heretics had belonged to our Christian assemblies, they professed Christianity, and do so still; but we apostles did not commission them to preach to you, for they have disgraced the Divine doctrine with the most pernicious opinions; they have given up or explained away its most essential principles; they have mingled the rest with heathenish rites and Jewish glosses. While, therefore, we acknowledge that they once belonged to us, we assert that they are not of us. They are not Christians; we abhor their conduct and their creed. We never sent them to teach.

They were not of us] For a considerable time before they left our assemblies they gave proofs that they had departed from the faith; for if they had been of us-if they had been apostles, and continued in the firm belief of the Christian doctrines, they would not have departed from us to form a sect of themselves.

That they were not all of us.] They were not expelled from the Christian Church; they were not sent out by us; but they separated from it and us. None of them had been inspired as we apostles were, though they pretended to a very high teaching; but their separating from us manifested that they were not taught, as we were, by the Spirit of God. These false teachers probably drew many sincere souls away with them; and to this it is probable the apostle alludes when he says, they were not ALL of us. Some were; others were not.

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

If they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: sincere and living Christians are so strongly held in with Christ, and the truly Christian community, by a union and bond of life, and by sense of pleasures which thereupon they find in that holy communion, with the expectation which their lively faith gives them of eternal life at last, that there is no doubt of their continuance.

But they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us: others, that are Christians upon external inducements, alter, as these do, and are permitted to do so, that the difference may appear between true and counterfeit ones, 1Co 11:19.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

19. out from usfrom ourChristian communion. Not necessarily a formal secession or goingout: thus Rome has spiritually gone out, though formallystill of the Christian Church.

not of usby spiritualfellowship (1Jo 1:3). “Theyare like bad humors in the body of Christ, the Church: when they arevomited out, then the body is relieved; the body of Christ is nowstill under treatment, and has not yet attained the perfect soundnesswhich it shall have only at the resurrection” [AUGUSTINE,Ten Homilies on the First Epistle of John, Homily 3.4].

they would . . . havecontinuedimplying the indefectibility of grace in the elect.”Where God’s call is effectual, there will be sure perseverance”[CALVIN]. Still, it is nofatal necessity, but a “voluntary necessity” [DIDYMUS],which causes men to remain, or else go from the body of Christ. “Weare either among the members, or else among the bad humors. It is ofhis own will that each is either an Antichrist, or in Christ”[AUGUSTINE]. Still God’sactings in eternal election harmonize in a way inexplicable to us,with man’s free agency and responsibility. It is men’s own evil willthat chooses the way to hell; it is God’s free and sovereign gracethat draws any to Himself and to heaven. To God the latter shallascribe wholly their salvation from first to last: the former shallreproach themselves alone, and not God’s decree, with theircondemnation (1Jn 3:9; 1Jn 5:18).

that they were not all ofusThis translation would imply that some of the Antichristsare of us! Translate, therefore, “that all (who are for atime among us) are not of us.” Compare 1Co11:19, “There must be heresies among you, that they whichare approved may be made manifest among you.” For “were”some of the oldest manuscripts read “are.” Such occasionstest who are, and who are not, the Lord’s people.

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

They went out from us,…. Which intends not the persons that went down from Judea to Antioch, Ac 15:1, who preached destructive doctrines to the Gentiles, which the apostles and the church of Judea disowned and censured; by which it appeared, that all the preachers of these doctrines were not of them, and of the same mind with them: for this sense makes these antichrists to be only preachers; whereas, though many of them might be such, yet not all; for whoever, in a private capacity denied the Father and the Son, or that Christ was come in the flesh, was antichrist; and to these private believers are opposed in 1Jo 2:20; and it also makes the “us” to be the apostles, whereas they were all dead but John; and these antichrists were men that had risen up then in the last time, and therefore could not, with propriety, be said to go out from the apostles; besides, whenever the apostle uses this pronoun “us”, he includes with himself all true believers, and may more especially here intend the churches of Asia; or rather the members of the church at Ephesus, where he was; nor is it likely he should have in view the church of Judea, and a case in which that was concerned near forty years ago: moreover, such a sense makes the going out to be merely local and corporeal, and which is in itself not criminal; the persons that went from Judea to Antioch were not blamable for going thither, nor for going out from the apostles thither, but for troubling the disciples with words, to the subverting of their souls; nor was a corporeal departure from the apostles any evidence of not being of the same mind with them; for they often departed one from other, yet continued of the same mind, and in the same faith: but the sense is, that there were some persons in the Apostle John’s time, who had made a profession of religion, were members of the church, and some of them perhaps preachers, and yet they departed from the faith, and dropped their profession of it, and withdrew themselves from the church, or churches to which they belonged, and set up separate assemblies of their own:

but they were not of us: they were of the church, and of the same mind with it, at least in profession, antecedent to their going out; for had they not been in communion with the church, they could not be properly said to go out of it; and if they had not been of the same mind and faith in profession, they could not be said to depart from it; but they were not truly regenerated by the grace of God, and so apparently were not of the number, of God’s elect: notwithstanding their profession and communion with the church, they were of the world, and not of God; they were not true believers; they had not that anointing which abides, and from which persons are truly denominated Christians, or anointed ones:

for if they had been of us, they would [no doubt] have continued with us; in the doctrine of the apostles, and in the fellowship of the church, as true believers do: if their hearts had been right with God, they would have remained steadfast to him, his Gospel, truths, and ordinances, and faithful with his saints; for such who are truly regenerate are born of an incorruptible seed, and those that have received the anointing which makes them truly Christians, that abides, as does every true grace, faith, hope, and love; and such who are truly God’s elect cannot possibly fall into such errors and heresies as these did, and be finally deceived, as they were:

but [they went out]; “they went out from us”, so the Syriac version reads;

that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us; the word “all” is left out in the Syriac version. The defection and apostasy of these persons were permitted by God, that it might appear they had never received the grace of God in truth; and their going out was in such a manner, that it was a certain argument that they were not of the elect; since they became antichrists, denied the deity or sonship of Christ, or that he was come in the flesh, or that he was the Christ, and therefore are said to be of the world, and not of God, 1Jo 2:22, so that this passage furnishes out no argument against the saints’ perseverance, which is confirmed in 1Jo 2:20.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

From us ( )

–of us ( ). The same idiom, and the ablative case (), but in different senses to correspond with (they went out from our membership) and (they were not of us in spirit and life). For in the sense of origin see Joh 17:15, for in the sense of likeness, Joh 17:14.

For if they had been of us ( ). Condition of second class with and imperfect tense (no aorist for ).

They would have continued ( ). Past perfect of , to remain, without augment, with in apodosis of second-class condition.

With us (). In fellowship, for which see in 1:3. They had lost the inner fellowship and then apparently voluntarily broke the outward.

But they went (). Ellipsis of the verb above, a common habit (ellipse) in John s Gospel (1John 1:8; 1John 9:3; 1John 13:18; 1John 15:25).

That they might be made manifest ( ). Purpose clause with and the first aorist passive subjunctive of , for which verb see John 21:1; Col 3:4. See 2Co 3:3 for the personal construction with as here.

They all are not ( ). Not just some, but all, as in 1John 2:21; 1John 3:5. These antichrists are thus revealed in their true light.

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

They went out from us [ ] . The phrase went out from, may mean either removal (Rev 28:4; Joh 8:59) or origin (Rev 9:3; Rev 14:13, 15, 17; Rev 19:5, 21). Here the latter, as appears from the following clause. Compare Act 20:30.

Were not of. See on Joh 1:46.

No doubt. A needless addition of the A. V.

With us [ ] . En hJmin, among us, would be more according to John’s ordinary usage; but his thought rests here rather on fellowship than on the unity of believers as one body.

They might be made manifest (fanerwqwsin). See on Joh 21:1.

They were not all [ ] . Rev., more correctly, they all are not. 65

Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament

1) “They went out from us”. The “they” who went out from among the disciples were the “they” who had followed Jesus for the loaves and fishes and to get a glimpse of his miracle ministry. Joh 6:64-66.

2) “But they were not of us”. The public identity of followers of Jesus did not make them true believers. One who learns and hears and believes from the head only, and does not believe in Jesus Christ from the heart, is not a true disciple.

3) “For if they had been of us”. These had no vital heart faith in Jesus as Saviour and Redeemer. Rom 10:9-10.

4) “They would no doubt have continued with us”. John asserts that if the deserters of their fellowship had been “of them” in kind, of nature, experience, doctrine, and faith they would have remained in close fellowship with them.

5) “But they wen out that they might be manifest.” The purpose of the deserters, by Divine providence, was publicly to manifest that they were not true disciples, but hirelings, or wolves in sheep’s clothing. Joh 10:12-13; Mat 7:15-20.

6) “That they were not all of us”. Imperfections and false apostles among the professed often dishearten the weak, the fainthearted. Remember Gideon had his 300; only two of the twelve spies were genuinely faithful. Professed followers may fail in service for either of two major reasons:

a) Because they were never true heart believers, as Joh 6:60; Joh 6:64; Joh 6:66.

b) Because of lack of disciplined faith, as 10 spies.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

19 They went out from us He anticipates another objection, that the Church seemed to have produced these pests, and to have cherished them for a time in its bosom. For certainly it serves more to disturb the weak, when any one among us, professing the true faith, falls away, than when a thousand aliens conspire against us. He then confesses that they had gone out from the bosom of the Church; but he denies that they were ever of the Church. But the way of removing this objection is, to say, that the Church is always exposed to this evil, so that it is constrained to bear with many hypocrites who know not Christ, really, however much they may by the mouth profess his name.

By saying, They went out from us, he means that they had previously occupied a place in the Church, and were counted among the number of the godly. He, however, denies that they were of them, though they had assumed the name of believers, as chaff though mixed with wheat on the same floor cannot yet be deemed wheat.

For if they had been of us He plainly declares that those who fell away had never been members of the Church. And doubtless the seal of God, under which he keeps his own, remains sure, as Paul says, (2Ti 2:19.) But here arises a difficulty, for it happens that many who seemed to have embraced Christ, often fall away. To this I answer, that there are three sorts of those who profess the Gospel; there are those who feign piety, while a bad conscience reproves them within; the hypocrisy of others is more deceptive, who not only seek to disguise themselves before men, but also dazzle their own eyes, so that they seem to themselves to worship God aright; the third are those who have the living root of faith, and carry a testimony of their own adoption firmly fixed in their hearts. The two first have no stability; of the last John speaks, when he says, that it is impossible that they should be separated from the Church, for the seal which God’s Spirit engraves on their hearts cannot be obliterated; the incorruptible seed, which has struck roots, cannot be pulled up or destroyed.

He does not speak here of the constancy of men, but of God, whose election must be ratified. He does not then, without reason declare, that where the calling of God is effectual, perseverance would be certain. He, in short, means that they who fall away had never been thoroughly imbued with the knowledge of Christ, but had only a light and a transient taste of it.

That they might be made manifest He shews that trial is useful and necessary for the Church. It hence follows, on the other hand, that there is no just cause for perturbation. Since the Church is like a threshing-floor, the chaff must be blown away that the pure wheat may remain. This is what God does, when he casts out hypocrites from the Church, for he then cleanses it from refuse and filth.

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

(5) THE GLORIOUS RESULTS OF GODS LOVE REALISED THROUGH THE SONSHIP (1Jn. 2:19-24).

(a)

The comfort of assurance (1Jn. 2:19-21).

(b)

The grant of our requests (1Jn. 2:22).

(c)

The presence of God (1Jn. 2:23).

(d)

The gift of the Spirit (1Jn. 2:24).

The style of St. John is so much the opposite of rhetorical, that the transitions are very gradual, and the paragraphs melt one into another. Here the reality and sincerity of the brotherly love which he has been urging reminds him of one happy consequence of it: that it convinces us of the truth of our profession and of the deep security of our relation to God. If we love as God loves, then our hearts need not fear. This immediately suggests, by way of contrast, the wholesome thought that, if our heart does condemn us, we ought very seriously to repent, because God is a far more accurate and searching judge. Moving on, however, from the idea of confidence, St. John next dwells on the happy consequence of keeping Gods commandments and doing what is pleasing in His sight, as we can do when we are really His sons: and that is, the certainty that, in one way or another, according to His will, all our prayers will be answered. Then, lest there should be any mistake about the nature of Gods commandments, he puts them in their simplest form: belief in the revealer of His will for theory, brotherly love for practice. This brings forward another result of being enabled to keep His commandments: the presence of God in the Christian, and the life of the Christian in God. Lastly, if we ask how we are to be sure of this presence, we are led to what may be regarded as the fourth consequence of sonship: the demonstrable transformation of all our aims and thoughts by the silent working of the Divine Spirit. Thus, although St. John did not set out intending to lay down these four results, they stand out evident from the rest of the train of thought.
(5 a.) (19) Hereby refers to what precedes in 1Jn. 2:18. And is best omitted. For we know read shall we know.

Are of the truth.That we have our foundation in, and draw our life from, the truththat we belong to its kingdom. The truth means all of the eternal nature, purpose, and will of God which it concerns us to knowrevealed in Christ, brought home by the Spirit, exemplified in Christian lives. The heart means the affections (comp. Joh. 14:1; Joh. 14:27; Joh. 16:6; Joh. 16:22); the seat of the moral feelings, as distinct from the intellect; the emotional side of the moral nature, of which the intellectual side was called by St. Paul the conscience. (Comp. Act. 24:16; Rom. 2:15; Rom. 9:1; Rom. 13:5; 1Co. 8:7; 2Co. 5:11.) The construction here is more disputed than that of any other passage in the Epistle. There are five ways of taking it:

(1)

Shall assure our hearts before Him; because, if our heart condemn us, it is because God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things.

(2)

Shall assure our hearts before Him, whereinsoever our hearts condemn us; for God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things.

(3)

Shall persuade our hearts before Him that, if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things.

(4)

Shall assure our hearts before him; for, if our heart condemn us, God, since He is greater than our heart, knows all things.

(5)

As in the text.

The fifth makes the best sense, and is far more like St. Johns usual style, with the statement, the contrast, and the statement repeated in a stronger form; but it is obliged to consider one of the wordsthe second that or the second because, as in (1)a redundant repetition. The bias of the reader will probably be turned to one or other of these renderings, according as he holds greater to mean more searching or more merciful. The former is necessary if we consider 1Jn. 2:20 a contrast, after the manner of St. John.

(5 b.) The grant of requests the second result of this near relation to God (1Jn. 2:22-23).

(22) Whatsoever we ask.If this sounds unlimited, we should remember that it is said of us in our character as children of God; as far as that is true of us, we cannot ask anything contrary to His will. (Comp. Joh. 16:23-24.) Our prayers are heard through the merits of Christ; but if we do not keen the commands of God, if (still more positively) we make no attempt to do what is pleasing in his sight, prayer must be fruitless. The fact is that, unless there is such a moral result in ourselves, our faith has not laid hold of Christs merits, is dead, and is no true faith at all.

(23) And this . . .The sum of Gods commandments, and the compendium of the life that pleases Him, is stated shortly in two spiritual facts indissolubly connected(a) belief on the Name; (b) brotherly love. Belief is the root of the matter, because the recognition of Jesus as Messiah is the essential foundation of the Christian fellowship. (Comp. Gal. 5:6-14; and 1Ti. 1:5.)

(5 100) The mutual indwelling of the Father and His redeemed sons the third result of the Adoption. (Comp 1Jn. 1:3; 1Jn. 2:6; 1Jn. 2:24; 1Jn. 2:28; 1Jn. 4:13.) St. John is not thinking specially of any Person of the Deity.

(5 d.) The solid proof of the indwelling, and therefore the Sonship, is the demonstrable presence of the Spirit (end of 1Jn. 2:24).

Hitherto the thoughts have been chiefly about the Father and the Son where any direct reference was made to Persons in the Trinity. Here the Divine Spirit comes into prominence; formerly He had only been alluded to in the anointing (1Jn. 2:20; 1Jn. 2:26; comp. Rom. 8:15; Rom. 15:19; 1Co. 2:4; Gal. 4:6 1Th. 1:5).

The mention of faith in 1Jn. 2:23 suggests to St. John the necessity of a still further discussion of truth and error, lest it should be thought that all religious fervour is of the truth. The mention of the Spirit enables him to make the transition distinctly, and he treats of the various phases of religious life, true and false, under the corresponding name of spirits.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

19. St. John now proceeds to declare that these Nicolaitans, or Gnostics, were not so much apostates as original heretics, at heart discordant with the Church from the very first. So Simon Magus, an original juggler and false doctrinary, entered the Christian body without ever being a Christian; and though he went out formally from the Christian body, he did not apostatize from Christ, for he was never a Christian.

They The antichrists.

Went out from us They made open exodus from the Christian body.

Not of us Not of the true body of Christ in doctrine or heart. They were Maguses, who inserted themselves in the Church, yet holding Christ to be a phantasm.

If they had been If they had truly known and loved Christ.

Have continued with us The cause of their secession could not then have existed. Loving God and loving the brethren, they would have loved the communion of the Church, and rejoiced to remain in the Christian body.

But Their exodus was no loss to the Church, but a good providence.

That It was graciously designed.

Manifest Their exposure would relieve the Church of all responsibility for their false doctrines and unbecoming lives.

They were not all of us Truer rendering, that not all (among us) are (truly) of us. It becomes a clear case that there are some among us for whose principles and conduct the true gospel is irresponsible. Alford, following Dusterdieck, has an elaborate dissertation on the passage, as if it had some bearing on the question of the necessary final perseverance of all true believers. He writes as if the apostle assumed a universal law in the kingdom of God, that a man once converted always continues a saved man. But St. John’s word continued refers not to continuing a Christian, but to the remaining in the Church if you are a Christian. It does not say, or assume, that all Christians will forever stay Christians; but that it may be assumed, when we know nothing to the contrary, that these men would have remained in the Church if they had been, and as long as they were, Christians. Why not?

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

1Jn 2:20 Comments – The context of this passage in 1 John is that we have the inward witness, called the anointing in this verse, whereby we can know the will of God. Thus, when 1Jn 2:20 says that “ye know all things,” the author is not telling us that we will have a spiritual revelation, or word of knowledge, about every situation in our lives. Rather, he is saying that our spirit, which is our inward witness, serves as a guide that can be used in every decision or situation we may face. If we will check our spirit for in inner peace, then it is God’s will. If we have a “check,” or hesitancy, in our hearts, then it is probably something that is not God’s will for us. This inward witness is always there to guide us so that we can know God’s will in all things.

1Jn 2:27  But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

1Jn 2:27 “ye need not that any man teach you” Comments – Yet, we have teachers in the body of Christ as part of the five-fold ministry. Actually, when someone teaches under the anointing, it is the Holy Spirit teaching us. Thus, “the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth”.

1Jn 2:27 Comments – The context of this passage in 1 John is about how our spirit, our inner anointing, will guide us into continual fellowship with God. The anointing in this verse is referring to the inward witness of our spirit, which has been made alive and brought into fellowship with God by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in our hearts. Therefore, this verse in not telling us to turn way from the office of the teacher in the body of Christ. Rather, it is telling that our spirit, our inner witness, is capable of teaching us God’s will in every situation in life.

1Jn 2:27 Comments – Divine revelation is the disclosure of who God is and what He is doing. This impartation of wisdom and revelation comes from the Father and is given to the Holy Spirit, who are one, and is imparted unto us by the Holy Spirit who dwells within in us. This is what Paul was saying when he said that God has revealed them unto us by His Spirit.

1Co 2:10, “But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.”

What does the word “them” refer to in 1Co 2:10? It refers to “the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.” Thus, divine wisdom and revelation is not for the world. They cannot receive it nor understand it.

1Co 2:14, “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”

Paul prays in Eph 1:17 that “the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:” Jesus said that He would send the Comforter, who will teach us all things. This teaching is done by divine impartation.

Joh 14:26, “But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.”

John the apostle writes that the anointing within us will teach us the truth. This is done by divine impartation.

1Jn 2:27, “But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.”

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

1Jn 2:19. They went out from us, &c. It is one mark of antichrist, that he had once been in the bosom of the church, and a Christian at least in profession. There were some judaizing Christians, who went down from Judea to Antioch, and assured the Gentile Christians there, that unless they were circumcised according to the law of Moses, they could not be saved; and the apostles, elders, and brethren, writing to the Gentile converts concerning those deceivers, say, (Act 15:24.) They went out from us, and have troubled you with their doctrine; but we sent them not. Whether the false teachers, against whom St. John is here warning the Christians, went out pretending a commission from the apostles, does not appear; but St. John writes to obviate such difficulties as these: “What! Does the Christian church breed such pests, or does she nourish them in her bosom? Did not these men learn their Christianity from the apostles and true Christians? Did they not frequent their company, and communicate with them; and, as such, may we not hearken to them?”To such difficulties St. John answers, “Yes, they went out from us; but, before they forsook us, they were not of the number of the true Christians; if they had been so, they would have remained with us; but their forsaking us has had this good consequence, to make it manifest to you, and to all the world, that they do not any of them belong to us. This will free us from the reproach which the unbelieving Jews and Heathens might cast upon us, because of the behaviour of these false teachers, and ought to prevent your paying any regard to them.” See Joh 6:66. Act 20:30. The church of Rome would gladly represent the heretics, as they call them, (that is, the Protestants,) in going out from them, to be as criminal as the false teachers were in going out from the apostles and true Christians. But the two cases are not at all parallel; for the Protestants left the church of Rome, because that corrupt church had forsaken the apostles, departed from the scriptures, and left the pure doctrine of the gospel, to which the Protestants have returned.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

1Jn 2:19 . Relation of the to the Christian Church.

, ] On the form of the second aorist with , see Winer, p. 68 (VII. p. 71).

By we are not to understand the Jews (Grotius, Eichhorn, Rickli), nor the apostles (S. Schmid, Spener, Besser, and others), but Christians in general, as the Church of Christ. [162] is taken by several commentators = prodierunt (Vulgate, Baumgarten-Crusius, Erdmann, and others), finding the idea of origin expressed in it; this is incorrect; the following shows that it is rather to be taken in the sense of secessio (so Augustin, Bede, Erasmus; and among the moderns, Lcke, Dsterdieck, Ebrard, Braune, and others). By the emphatic position of it is brought out that the antichrists were previously , and belonged therefore to the Christian Church. How far this separation had been formally accomplished, John does not say; but it is contained in that they had taken up an antagonistic position, not merely to the apostolic doctrine (Beza: ad mutationem non loci sed doctrinae pertinet), but to those who by their faithful observance of the unadulterated gospel proved themselves to be the children of God (as also Braune).

] expresses the contrast to the preceding thought: although they went out from us (and therefore were connected with us), yet they were not of us. expresses connection in the most complete reality, thus: they were not of us, viz. in such a way that they would have really belonged to us, as common members of one body, in which one soul lives; in contrast to which the contained in the following expresses the outward fellowship as distinguished from the former idea. Even here does not depart from its original meaning (see on 1Jn 2:16 ), for he only truly belongs to the Church of the Lord who in regard to his inner life has proceeded from it, i.e. from the Spirit ruling in it. [163] The imperfect embraces the whole previous period during which the antichristians were connected with the believers, and does not merely refer to the time immediately preceding their separation (Episcopius, Socinus).

That they were not , John proves by the words: , . The belonged therefore to the Christians for a while; they were , although not , for in this case they would also have remained . Here, too, John proceeds on the idea that the is the evidence of the . On the pluperfect without the augment, see Winer, p. 67 (VII. p. 70).

. . .] refers back to , or to the thought: : “ but they have not remained with us.” Less simply Dsterdieck interprets: “they have not remained with us, but ( ) they have been separated from us, in order that.” Such a double supplement is not necessary, for is not necessarily the antithesis of a negation.

By . . . it is not the result (Paulus), but the purpose that is stated, the purpose, namely, of their separation or not remaining, which was willed by God; the purpose is that it might be manifest that they are not . The connection of with the following is not quite regular; Socinus construes and together: non omnes = nulli i.e. nemo ex illis est ex nostro numero; this is incorrect, is not = nulli, but = nonnulli; de Wette rightly supposes the conjunction of two thoughts, viz. (1) , ; and (2) , , only de Wette should have put the second thought first, for John’s immediate intention was, as the plural shows, to speak only of the , but then he extends his idea so as to introduce the new subject ; the sense is: it was to be made manifest in the that they were not and therefore that all who were were not

(so also Braune [164] ).

For the work of the Christian Church it is necessary that it shall be manifest who really belongs to it and who does not; this is the purpose for the sake of which God has so arranged it that those should go out; comp. with the idea in 1Co 11:19 .

[162] Ebrard finds himself compelled by his interpretation of not to include in those addressed, but to say: “the apostle puts himself and the Church in contrast to the little ones whom he addresses.”

[163] Dsterdieck: “That those antichrists left the fellowship of the believers, follows from . ; but the original, inner, ethical relationship of those men who went out from the bosom of Christian fellowship and fell away from it, is indicated by the different meaning in which the same phrase appears, on the one hand, with , with which . . . . is to be combined; and, on the other hand, in the expressions and .”

[164] Myrberg interprets: sed (egressi sunt) ut manifesti redderentur; nam non omnes sunt de nobis; but incorrectly, for (1) requires a more particular definition; and (2) the idea: non omnes sunt de nobis, cannot serve to establish the idea . According to Hilgenfeld, is to be referred only to the antichrists: “that they all were not of us;” but this is refuted by the position of .

REMARK.

In the words: , , this thought is contained: He who really belongs to the Church never leaves it; he who leaves it shows thereby that he did not really belong to it. This confidence of the apostle in the preserving love of the Lord, and in the faithfulness of those whom He has saved, seems to be opposed to the idea brought out in Heb 6:4 ff., that even those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, etc., may fall away. But, as constantly in his Epistle, so here also John speaks absolutely, without taking into view the state of gradual development, from which, however, it does not follow that he does not recognise it. The one circumstance that he exhorts believers as such to abide in Christ, shows that he would not deny the possibility of their falling away; only it is justly certain to him that he who does not abide had not yet with his whole heart entered into the fellowship of the Lord, but, even though touched by His love, and exhibiting the trace of love towards Him, had nevertheless not broken completely with the world. Ebrard thinks that the apostle means only, that temptation by this particular lie (namely, by Gnosticism) is only possible with those who in their inner being were previously strangers to Christianity; but even though John here speaks of particular Antichrists, yet the general thought is at the basis of the words uttered in reference to them; otherwise the apostle would have definitely pointed out the difference of these apostates from others to whom the word has no reference.

Augustin, Calvin, Beza, etc., find in the words a confirmation of their doctrine of predestination, but only by inserting in them ideas which are foreign to them, since the subject here is neither a donum perseverantiae nor a distinction of the vocati and electi.

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

DISCOURSE: 2439
THE TRUE GROUNDS OF A CHRISTIANS STABILITY

1Jn 2:19. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

THERE have been many apostasies from the Church of God, in every age. Of those who for a time were Christs disciples, many went back, and walked no more with him [Note: Joh 6:66.]. Of such apostates the Apostle Paul also complained [Note: 1Ti 5:12; 1Ti 5:15.]: and of such St. John speaks, in the words before us. There had, many years before, been teachers who went forth from the Apostles in Juda, subverting the souls of men by inculcating the necessity of circumcision [Note: Act 15:1; Act 15:24.]: so now, there were some who separated themselves from St. John, and the Church under his care; and, either by their false doctrines or unholy lives, brought disgrace upon the Gospel, and obliged the Apostle to guard the whole Christian Church against them. He calls them antichrists; because, in fact, whatever they might pretend, they were the greatest enemies to Christ. Not that they had ever been truly upright before God: for, if they had been really one in heart and spirit with Gods Church and people, they would never have gone out from them; but God suffered them thus to depart, that the Church might no longer be injured by them, or be involved in their disgrace.

But St. John had a further reason for exposing these apostates. It had been foretold by our blessed Lord, that, previous to the destruction of Jerusalem, there should arise false Christs, and false prophets, who, if it were possible, should deceive the very elect; and that the prevalence of those persons should be a sign that the destruction of the Jewish Church and polity was near at hand [Note: Mat 24:3-5; Mat 24:24-25.]. St. John refers to it in that view: Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even so now are there many antichrists; whereby we know it is the last time. Then he adds, They went out from us; but they were not of us: for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

To elucidate these remarkable words, I will shew,

I.

Why the insincere are suffered to become apostates

All who are insincere do not become apostates: for we are told, that the tares will grow together with the wheat, even to the harvest [Note: Mat 13:29-30; Mat 13:39-40.]. But God is pleased to leave some of those who join his Church to apostatize from it;

1.

That they may be exposed to merited disgrace

[Those who are insincere in their profession of religion greatly dishonour God, and do incalculable injury to his Church and people. It is but just, therefore, that they should be left to expose themselves, and to make it manifest that they never truly belonged to the Church of Christ. They were as branches of the living vine, it is true; but they were only dead branches, whose end was to be broken off, and burned [Note: Joh 15:2.]. True, they were not distinguished from others by their brethren; who could see no further than the outward act, and were led from Christian charity to put the most favourable construction on all which they did. Not even Judas, who was a thief from the beginning, was suspected by his fellow Apostles: in fact, they all questioned their own sincerity, rather than his [Note: Mat 26:22.]. Much less was Demas discoverable from others: indeed, so eminent was his profession, that he was twice joined with St. Luke, by the Apostle Paul, in his salutations to the Churches [Note: Col 4:14. Philem. ver. 24.]: but we can have no doubt but that the world was really uppermost in his heart during the whole time of his profession, though, perhaps, unperceived even by himself: and at last he betrayed to all his lurking preference, and forsook the Apostle Paul, having loved this present world [Note: 2Ti 4:10.]. But, as amongst the heathen, who did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave up many to a reprobate mind [Note: Rom 1:28.]; so he gave up these also to the evils of their own hearts, that on them might come the shame and condemnation which they so richly merited: They received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved; and God gave them up to their own delusions, that they might apostatize and perish [Note: Joh 13:26-27. with 2Th 2:10-12.].]

2.

That they may be a warning to others

[Lots wife is particularly presented to us in this view. She came out of Sodom with her husband; but her heart was there; and she looked back, and was made a pillar of salt; that is, an everlasting monument of Gods righteous indignation, and a warning to all future generations. Hence our Lord says, Remember Lots wife [Note: Luk 17:32. with Gen 19:26.]. In like manner, the abandonment of the Israelites in the wilderness to their own lusts, and to the punishment consequent upon them, was ordained of God to be a warning to us, upon whom the ends of the world are come, to the intent that we should not lust after evil things, as they did [Note: 1Co 10:6; 1Co 10:11. with 2Pe 2:1-9.]. In truth, every instance of apostasy speaks loudly to us, not to look back, after we have once put our hand to the plough [Note: Luk 9:62.]; since, if we do turn back, it will be unto perdition [Note: Heb 10:38-39.], and our last end will be worse than our beginning [Note: 2Pe 2:20-21.].

But the remarkable assertion of the Apostle, relative to the stability of the upright, leads me of necessity to shew,

II.

What security the upright have, that they shall never be left so to dishonour their holy profession

It is of great importance that this subject be understood aright. The doctrine of the perseverance of the saints, as it is called, is by many accounted extremely dangerous and delusive; but if it be duly explained, and placed on its proper grounds, it will commend itself as perfectly unexceptionable, and as indisputably true.

It is affirmed by some, that there is in true believers an indefectible principle of grace, which renders it impossible for them to fall

[I confess, I think this a very erroneous view of the subject; and I think that the passages of Scripture adduced in proof of this doctrine do not warrant the conclusions drawn from them. Our Lord, we are told, asserts, that the Holy Spirit shall be, in his people, a well of water springing up unto eternal life [Note: Joh 4:14.]. But this only marks its constant tendency, without determining its absolute and certain issue. St. Peter also says of Christians, that they are born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible: but he tells us, in the very next words, what that seed is; it is not an inward indefectible principle of grace, but the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever [Note: 1Pe 1:23.]. And this throws the true light upon another passage which is cited in confirmation of this point, even on that assertion of St. John, Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God [Note: 1Jn 3:9.]. A man really born of God doth not, and will not, commit sin, as once he did: for the tendency and operation of divine grace will be, to keep him from it. But the absolute indefectibility of the grace received by him is not here asserted: nor is it asserted in our text, when it is said, that, if those apostates had been really and vitally united to the Church, they would have remained with the Church. The doctrine itself is true; but the ground, on which some endeavour to establish it, is, in my apprehension, unsound and erroneous: for I do not conceive that there is, or ever was, upon the face of the whole earth, a man who could say, I have within me an indefectible principle of grace, so that I cannot fall, or cannot perish. Even Adam in Paradise could not say that: and sure I am that St. Paul did not entertain that sentiment, when he said, I keep my body under, and bring it into subjection, lest that, by any means, after having preached to others, I myself should be a cast-away [Note: 1Co 9:27.].

The stability, of which my text speaks, stands on other grounds: it arises from,

1.

The immutability of Gods purpose

[Gods counsel shall stand; and he will do all his pleasure [Note: Isa 46:10.]. And this counsel he has exercised in reference to the salvation of men; some of whom he has chosen before the foundation of the world [Note: Eph 1:4.], yea, and chosen unto salvation, through faith in his dear Son [Note: 2Th 2:13.]: and those, whom from eternity he has predestinated to the adoption of children, he calls and justifies in time, and glorifies in the eternal world [Note: Rom 8:29-30.]. And, as in his nature he changeth not [Note: Mal 3:6.], so, in reference to these things, there is with him no variableness, neither shadow of turning [Note: Jam 1:17.]: and on this our hope, and the hope of all his people, is founded: for, seeing that, in order to shew to us the immutability of his counsel, he has confirmed his promise with an oath, we, who have fled to Christ for refuge, have from that very circumstance the more abundant consolation [Note: Heb 6:17-18.]. On this ground, all his people maybe confident that he will perfect that which concerneth them [Note: Psa 138:8.]; and that He who hath begun the good work in them, will perform it unto the day of Jesus Christ [Note: Php 1:6.]. On this ground, the very least and weakest of his saints may hope that they shall endure unto the end [Note: 2Th 3:3.]; since they are assured that God will never, never leave them, or forsake them [Note: Heb 13:5-6.].]

2.

The sufficiency of his grace

[Were man expected to keep himself, there is no one who must not sit down in despair. But we expect that God will exert in our behalf that very power which raised up his dear Son from the dead [Note: Eph 1:19.]; and that his strength shall be made perfect in our weakness [Note: 2Co 12:9.]. We know that his grace is sufficient for us [Note: 2Co 12:9.], how great or numerous soever may be the difficulties with which we have to contend. We are assured, that none can ever pluck us out of his hands [Note: Joh 10:29-30.]; and that, as he will not depart from us, so his fear put into our hearts will be sufficient to keep us from ever departing from him [Note: Jer 32:40.]; and, consequently, we may even now exult and triumph over our enemies, almost as we shall do in heaven itself; saying, Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Yea, we may be persuaded that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord [Note: Rom 8:35; Rom 8:39.].]

It may be asked, Wherein does the difference between the two views appear?
[Things often commend themselves more by an easy and familiar illustration, than by a long train of argument. We will therefore, with permission, use the simplest illustration that can well be imagined. Only let it be first remembered what it is that we are undertaking to illustrate. It is this. Man, by conversion, is brought into a state which the natural man, by his own powers, can never attain. When he is brought into that state, some think that an indefectible principle is infused into him; and that, in consequence of that abiding and indefectible principle, he is, and must of necessity be, preserved from falling. I admit that he shall be kept from falling; but I deny that it will be through the necessary influence of grace already received. I assert, on the contrary, that he is in himself as liable to fall as ever, and that it is from an extrinsic source he derives all his stability: and that, consequently, whilst he has the strongest possible hope in God, he ought to keep in abiding and undiminished exercise a holy fear: yea more, I must say, that, if once he lose that fear, and become self-confident, he is already on the very verge of destruction.

Now, then, take the illustration which is familiar to the mind even of a child. A kite soaring on high is in a situation quite foreign to its nature; as much so as the soul of man is, when raised above this lower world to high and heavenly pursuits. A person at a distance sees not how it is kept in its exalted station: he sees not the wind that blows it, nor the hand that holds it, nor the string by whose instrumentality it is held. But all of these powers are necessary to its preservation in that preternatural state. If the wind were to sink, it would fall: if the hand should cease to hold it, or the string should break, it would fall. It has nothing whatever in itself to uphold itself: it has the same tendency to gravitate to the earth as ever it had; and, if left for a moment to itself, it would fall. Thus it is with the soul of every true believer. It has been raised, by the Spirit of God, to a new, a preternatural, a heavenly state; and in that state it is upheld by an invisible and Almighty hand, through the medium of faith. And upheld it shall be; but not by any power inherent in itself. If left for a moment, it would fall as much as ever. Its whole strength is in God alone; and its whole security is in the unchangeableness of his nature, and in the efficacy of his grace. In a word, it is kept by the power of God, through faith, unto salvation [Note: 1Pe 1:5. Peter and Judas fell equally. But they were not equally recovered. And why? Because the Lord Jesus Christ had prayed for Peter, that his faith (the connecting medium between him and his God) might not fail.].

There is, indeed, one particular, in which the illustration fails; namely, that the kite is upheld without any concurrence of its own; whereas the soul, notwithstanding its entire dependence on God, does yet, in fact, work out its own salvation. I grant this: I grant, that what God effects for the soul, he effects through the instrumentality of its own volition and action. But it must be remembered, that it is He, and He alone, who works in the soul either to will or to do [Note: Php 2:12-13.]; and, consequently, that the work is as much his, as if the believer himself were purely passive: only, indeed, inasmuch as the believers concurrence is necessary, he has the greater cause to implore of God that aid, without which he can do nothing [Note: Joh 15:5.].

If it be said, that here is a distinction without a difference; and that, since the certainty of the saints salvation is admitted, it signifies not what the means are by which he is saved; I reply, that, on the supposition of the grace which has been once received being absolutely indefectible, a man will feel no occasion for fear: but, if he depend solely and entirely on God, he must exercise fear as well as faith. In the one case, confidence alone is encouraged; but, in the other, humility: in the one case, faith alone is called for; in the other, it must be blended and tempered with holy fear. And this very distinction is marked by the Apostle Paul; Thou standest by faith: be not high-minded, but fear [Note: Rom 11:20.].]

Let me, then, in conclusion say, Behold,
1.

What need we have to cry mightily to God for grace

[Perish we must, if God uphold us not. And it is in the continued exercise of prayer alone that we can hope for those supplies of his grace which are necessary for us Pray, then, without ceasing [Note: 1Th 5:17.]; and beg of him to hold up your goings in his paths, that your footsteps slip not [Note: Psa 17:5.] ]

2.

What need we have to guard against the means and occasions of sin

[We are in the midst of a defiling and ensnaring world; and have need of continual care and watchfulness, to keep our garments clean [Note: Rev 16:15.]. If we become careless, Satan will not fail to take advantage of us, and to draw us into sin [Note: Luk 22:31.]. David and Peter shew us very abundantly how frail we are, and how prone to fall, if once we enter into temptation. Hence we are told to come out from the ungodly world, and not to touch the unclean thing, if we would have the presence and the blessing of our God [Note: 2Co 6:17.]. Our eyes, our ears, our hearts, we must keep with all diligence [Note: Job 31:1. Pro 4:23.]; for it is by resisting Satan that we must overcome him [Note: Jam 4:7.]: and then only, when we, on our part, contend manfully with him, are we authorized to hope that God will bruise him under our feet [Note: Eph 6:11; Eph 6:13. Rom 16:20.].]


Fuente: Charles Simeon’s Horae Homileticae (Old and New Testaments)

19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out , that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

Ver. 19. But they were not of us ] No more were our Anti-trinitarians, Arians, Anti-scripturists, ever of our Church, otherwise than as wens and botches, whatever our adversaries aver and cavil. So of old, because the Waldenses and Manichees lived in the same places, and were both held heretics, the Papists maliciously gave out that the Waldenses (those ancient Protestants) were defiled with the errors of the Manichees and Catharists, which yet they ever abhorred.

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

19 .] These antichrists are designated as having been formerly attached to the Christian church, but never really members of it. They had not that communion with the Father and the Son in which the communion of Christians with one another really consists, inasmuch as they deny the Father and the Son. They went out from among us, but they were not of us (it is plain that the prep. must in this sentence be taken in two different meanings: first, with , in the mere local reference, and even so our Lord Himself uses the expression, Joh 8:42 , , words which are varied, Joh 13:3 , by , and Joh 16:27 by . And in Joh 13:3 , the local meaning is stamped as the true one by the addition of . On the other hand, with is very frequently used by our Apostle to denote that inner and vital dependence which betokens origin : cf. Joh 3:31 ; Joh 7:17 ; Joh 8:23 ; Joh 8:44 , &c. It is clear then from this double meaning of , that should be rendered with Aug [28] and Bed [29] , “ex nobis exierunt,” and not “ex nobis pro dierunt,” as vulg. The idea of origin should be kept out of view, as necessarily not contained in the words, which are to be understood as c. and Thl., . Aug [30] and Bed [31] illustrate their relation to the body of Christ by a homely but instructive comparison: “quandoquidem adhuc curatur corpus ipsius (Domini nostri Jesu Christi), et sanitas perfecta non erit nisi in resurrectione mortuorum; sic sunt in corpore Christi, quomodo humores mali. Quando evomuntur, tunc relevatur corpus: sic et mali quando exeunt, tunc ecclesia relevatur. Et dicit quando eos evomit atque projicit corpus, ex me exierunt humores isti, sed non erant ex me. Quid est, non erant ex me? Non de carne mea prcisi sunt, sed pectus mihi premebant dum inessent.” Aug [32] in Ep. Joh. Tract. iii. 4, vol. iii. p. 1999. On this, see more below): for if they had been of us ( is emphatically repeated), they would have remained with us (the E. V. inserts “ no doubt ,” as representing the “ utique ” of the vulgate, which was the result of the futile endeavour to render the Greek verbatim, and was intended to give the . In some places this endeavour has produced results more serious than here. In Joh 4:10 , is rendered “ tu forsitan petiisses ,” and by the Rheims version, “Thou perhaps wouldest have asked of Him:” in Joh 5:46 , “ si enim crederetis Mosi, crederetis forsitan et mihi :” see also Vulgate, and Rheims, and Bishops’ Bible, in Joh 8:42 , Mat 11:23 . I am indebted for this useful remark to the Rev. Henry Craik of Bristol.

[28] Augustine, Bp. of Hippo , 395 430

[29] Bede, the Venerable , 731; Bedegr, a Greek MS. cited by Bede, nearly identical with Cod. “E,” mentioned in this edn only when it differs from E.

[30] Augustine, Bp. of Hippo , 395 430

[31] Bede, the Venerable , 731; Bedegr, a Greek MS. cited by Bede, nearly identical with Cod. “E,” mentioned in this edn only when it differs from E.

[32] Augustine, Bp. of Hippo , 395 430

The sense is, if they had really belonged to our number, had been true servants of Christ, they would have endured, and would not have become : their very becoming so, proves the unreality of their Christian profession. This point is now brought out in what follows): but (the ellipsis is variously supplied: by from above; so the Syr., Bengel, Lcke, al.: by , , as c., Thl.: “hoc factum est,” as Socinus: “hc facit Deus,” as Calvin. All these in fact come to the same, provided that we keep to its true telic meaning, which must imply a doer ; and that doer, God. So that it will be better, as the divine purpose must be understood in the depth of the meaning, whatever be supplied, to take the simplest supplement, viz. the , which is already the expressed verb of the sentence) in order that they may be made manifest, that all are not of us (the construction is a mixed one, compounded of two, 1) , and 2) : and the meaning is, that by their example it may be made manifest that all (who are among us) are not of us. This is shewn by the change of tense from to : and by the impossibility of giving any adequate grammatical sense to the words on the other hypothesis, viz. that means “they all,” viz. the . For, of the two ways in which the words have been taken, we have 1) that of the E. V. “that they were not all of us,” which leaves open the inevitable conclusion that some of them are of us . cumenius indeed tries to make the distinction in another way, . , . , . But this is manifestly a mistake, and is in fact a confounding of with , which the Apostle expressly distinguishes. Then 2) we have the way proposed by Socinus, to take for “nulli;” not “non omnes” but “omnes non:” in fact making belong to the predicate, , not to the subject, ; which is the case in Rom 3:20 , . But it may fairly be replied here, that whereas in that passage there is no ambiguity whatever, the words falling emphatically at the end, here there would be every chance of the reader mistaking the meaning, no such stress lying on the as would lie if the arrangement were , or . So that our only refuge seems to be, to believe that the Apostle makes their the proof not that they were not of us, but that all are not of us, scil. who are commonly found among us. This is the rendering of the principal modern Commentators: cf. Lcke, De Wette, Dsterdieck, Huther. See on the sense, 1Co 11:19 , , ( ) .

It is not my intention to go at length into the question as to the dogmatic consequences which have been deduced from this verse. It may be sufficient to refer my readers to the principal sources of the two antagonistic opinions as to the final perseverance (not of the elect, which is a truism, but) of those who have been once truly children of God. They will find the most complete statement of the predestinarian view as founded on our passage, in Augustine, De dono perseveranti, 8 (19), 9 (21), vol. x. p. 1003 f. and De correptione et gratia, 9 (20), p. 928. In the former passage he says, “Hominibus videtur omnes qui boni apparent fideles perseverantiam usque in finem accipere debuisse. Deus autem melius esse judicavit, miscere quosdam non perseveraturos certo numero sanctorum, ut quibus non expedit in hujus vit tentatione securitas, non possint esse securi, 1Co 10:12 . Ex duobus autem piis cur huic donetur perseverantia usque in finem, illi autem non detur, inscrutabiliora sunt judicia Dei. Illud tamen fidelibus debet esse certissimum, hunc esse ex prdestinatis, illum non esse. Nam si fuissent ex nobis, ait unus prdestinatorum, qui de pectore Domini bibebat hoc secretum, mansissent utique nobiscum.” See also Calvin h. l., who sums up all thus, “Quare non immerito dicit, ubi efficax est Dei vocatio, illic certam perseverantiam fore.” The other side is ably stated by Didymus (cited in Dsterd.), whose conclusion is, “Igitur, licet figurate dicta sint hc, attamen voluntariam necessitatem ostendunt, a quorum et cohabitatione qu potest esse malis viris cum bonis abscesserint, dum vitio suo tales sint facti. Non igitur oportet intelligi contrarietatem hoc verbo significari naturarum.” The various opponents of the predestinarian view as such, have had recourse, as so often, to various unworthy artifices and untenable explainings away of words, to escape from the inference pressed on them. Thus Socinus and Episcopius lay stress on the fact that is imperfect, not perfect: “non enim Apostolus dicit antichristos illos nunquam antea vere Christianos fuisse, sed tantum quod tum, vel jam antequam antichristos se esse profiterentur, non erant ii, qui esse debebant,” &c. And so even Grot. (“qui ista crepitabant, jam deseruerant Christianam professionem Si illi tunc ex animo fuissent Christiani cum ista inciperent, non deseruissent ctus nostros”). Calov.again tries to escape from the inference, by making apply not to Christians in general, but to the Apostles only.

The best account of the whole matter is found in Dsterdieck’s long note, in which he has thoroughly gone over all the opinions and given his own conclusion. It is, in the main, as follows. The Apostle is speaking here not dogmatically but ethically. As Didymus above, if there is a necessity in the , it is a “necessitas voluntaria.” As Aug [33] in his comm. here (written sixteen years before the treatise De dono perseveranti), “de voluntate sua quisque aut Antichristus, aut in Christo est. Aut in membris sumus, aut in humoribus malis. Qui se in melius commutat, in corpore membrum est: qui autem in malitia permanet, humor malus est: et quando exierit, relevabuntur qui premebantur.” We must take these words, 1Jn 2:19 , in intimate connexion with the enunciation of this whole portion of the Epistle, ch. 1Jn 1:5-7 . The object of this portion is, ch. 1Jn 1:3 , that ye may have fellowship with us, in that we have fellowship with the Father and the Son. This aim penetrates all the warning and exhortation 1Jn 2:18-28 . This fellowship depends on the walking in light, i. e. on knowledge of the truth as regards ourselves and God, and love to God and the brethren. He who departs from the truth, he who loves not God and the brethren, belongs not to this fellowship, and shews that he belongs not to it. If he had belonged to it, he would have held fast his walk in the light, as shewn by these indications. This is the human side, on which our passage regards the act and fact. There is also a divine side. They who attain eternal life are given by the Father to the Son, and no man can come to the Son except the Father draw him (Joh 6:37 ; Joh 6:44 ; Joh 6:65 ; Joh 17:6 ), and such are kept by God (ib. Joh 17:11 ); but also we read that they believe on the Son, receive the word of the Son, and keep themselves (Joh 6:40 ; Joh 17:6 f., Joh 1:12 , Jam 1:27 ). And so again on the other side, they who remain at last excluded from eternal life, are thus excluded not only by God’s decree, but by their own evil choice and will. The words cited above, Joh 6:65 , were spoken by our Lord with direct reference to the traitor Judas: but on the other hand St. John gives notices of the ethical development of Judas which leave no doubt that his depravity went hand in hand with God’s judgment on him. Judas was covetous: his heart was inclined to mammon; hence he understood not the love of Mary when she anointed Jesus with her precious ointment: he grudged his Lord this token of love: he could not abide with Christ, because he shut his heart through greed, through love of the world, against the love of Christ; for the knowledge of the Lord, faith in Him, fellowship with Him, are all summed up in Love. Thus we see that in the rejection, as in the acceptance of eternal life, the two factors, God’s will and man’s will, are to be regarded in their ethical connexion only. In order to that knowledge of God, which is eternal life, man must be taught of God ( Joh 6:45 ): but man must also learn of God. And the more St. John sets forth the essential nature of this knowledge of God and Jesus Christ as ethical , the more does he recognize, in putting forward God’s will in the matter, man’s will also. Christ is the Saviour of the whole world, ch. 1Jn 2:2 , 1Jn 4:14 . But in the personal appropriation of this universal salvation, not all really take it to themselves, and many, who have taken it, fall away again, because they do not keep the grace given, do not abide in Christ, do not walk in the light. This last is by no means denied by St. John when he says “if they had been of us they would have remained with us.” The words set forth an ideal ( , not or a similar particle) similar to that in ch. 1Jn 2:5 , 1Jn 3:9 , 1Jn 5:18 . As in no one of those places can the Apostle possibly mean, that a true believer, one really born of God, has perfect love to God and cannot sin (for what then would ch. 1Jn 2:1 mean?), so neither here can he mean that whoever once inwardly and truly belongs to the communion of believers cannot by any possibility fall from it. I have abridged Dsterd.’s remarks, and thereby, I fear, not increased their perspicuity. Those who are able (and I would hope, for the sake of English theology, that this number is daily increasing) should by all means give some days to the thorough study of them).

[33] Augustine, Bp. of Hippo , 395 430

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

1Jn 2:19 . Cf. Aug.: “Sic sunt in corpore Christi quomodo humores mali. Quando evomuntur, tunc relevatur corpus: sic et mali quando exeunt, tunc Ecclesia relevatur. Et dicit quando eos evomit atque projicit corpus: Ex me exierunt umores isti, sed non erant ex me. Quid est, non erant ex me? Non de carne mea prcisi sunt, sed pectus mihi premebant cum inessent”. , sc. or a frequent Johannine ellipse: cf. Joh 1:8 ; Joh 9:3 ; Joh 13:18 ; Joh 15:25 .

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

from. App-104.

if. App-118.

continued. Same as “abide”, 1Jn 2:6.

with. Greek. meta. App-104.

made manifest. App-106.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

19.] These antichrists are designated as having been formerly attached to the Christian church, but never really members of it. They had not that communion with the Father and the Son in which the communion of Christians with one another really consists, inasmuch as they deny the Father and the Son. They went out from among us, but they were not of us (it is plain that the prep. must in this sentence be taken in two different meanings: first, with , in the mere local reference, and even so our Lord Himself uses the expression, Joh 8:42, , words which are varied, Joh 13:3, by , and Joh 16:27 by . And in Joh 13:3, the local meaning is stamped as the true one by the addition of . On the other hand, with is very frequently used by our Apostle to denote that inner and vital dependence which betokens origin: cf. Joh 3:31; Joh 7:17; Joh 8:23; Joh 8:44, &c. It is clear then from this double meaning of , that should be rendered with Aug[28] and Bed[29], ex nobis exierunt, and not ex nobis prodierunt, as vulg. The idea of origin should be kept out of view, as necessarily not contained in the words, which are to be understood as c. and Thl., . Aug[30] and Bed[31] illustrate their relation to the body of Christ by a homely but instructive comparison: quandoquidem adhuc curatur corpus ipsius (Domini nostri Jesu Christi), et sanitas perfecta non erit nisi in resurrectione mortuorum; sic sunt in corpore Christi, quomodo humores mali. Quando evomuntur, tunc relevatur corpus: sic et mali quando exeunt, tunc ecclesia relevatur. Et dicit quando eos evomit atque projicit corpus, ex me exierunt humores isti, sed non erant ex me. Quid est, non erant ex me? Non de carne mea prcisi sunt, sed pectus mihi premebant dum inessent. Aug[32] in Ep. Joh. Tract. iii. 4, vol. iii. p. 1999. On this, see more below): for if they had been of us ( is emphatically repeated), they would have remained with us (the E. V. inserts no doubt, as representing the utique of the vulgate, which was the result of the futile endeavour to render the Greek verbatim, and was intended to give the . In some places this endeavour has produced results more serious than here. In Joh 4:10, is rendered tu forsitan petiisses, and by the Rheims version, Thou perhaps wouldest have asked of Him: in Joh 5:46, si enim crederetis Mosi, crederetis forsitan et mihi: see also Vulgate, and Rheims, and Bishops Bible, in Joh 8:42, Mat 11:23. I am indebted for this useful remark to the Rev. Henry Craik of Bristol.

[28] Augustine, Bp. of Hippo, 395-430

[29] Bede, the Venerable, 731; Bedegr, a Greek MS. cited by Bede, nearly identical with Cod. E, mentioned in this edn only when it differs from E.

[30] Augustine, Bp. of Hippo, 395-430

[31] Bede, the Venerable, 731; Bedegr, a Greek MS. cited by Bede, nearly identical with Cod. E, mentioned in this edn only when it differs from E.

[32] Augustine, Bp. of Hippo, 395-430

The sense is, if they had really belonged to our number, had been true servants of Christ, they would have endured, and would not have become : their very becoming so, proves the unreality of their Christian profession. This point is now brought out in what follows): but (the ellipsis is variously supplied: by from above; so the Syr., Bengel, Lcke, al.: by , , as c., Thl.: hoc factum est, as Socinus: hc facit Deus, as Calvin. All these in fact come to the same, provided that we keep to its true telic meaning, which must imply a doer; and that doer, God. So that it will be better, as the divine purpose must be understood in the depth of the meaning, whatever be supplied, to take the simplest supplement, viz. the , which is already the expressed verb of the sentence) in order that they may be made manifest, that all are not of us (the construction is a mixed one, compounded of two, 1) , and 2) : and the meaning is, that by their example it may be made manifest that all (who are among us) are not of us. This is shewn by the change of tense from to : and by the impossibility of giving any adequate grammatical sense to the words on the other hypothesis, viz. that means they all, viz. the . For, of the two ways in which the words have been taken, we have 1) that of the E. V. that they were not all of us, which leaves open the inevitable conclusion that some of them are of us. cumenius indeed tries to make the distinction in another way,- . , . , . But this is manifestly a mistake, and is in fact a confounding of with , which the Apostle expressly distinguishes. Then 2) we have the way proposed by Socinus, to take for nulli; not non omnes but omnes non: in fact making belong to the predicate, , not to the subject, ; which is the case in Rom 3:20, . But it may fairly be replied here, that whereas in that passage there is no ambiguity whatever, the words falling emphatically at the end, here there would be every chance of the reader mistaking the meaning, no such stress lying on the as would lie if the arrangement were , or . So that our only refuge seems to be, to believe that the Apostle makes their the proof not that they were not of us, but that all are not of us, scil. who are commonly found among us. This is the rendering of the principal modern Commentators: cf. Lcke, De Wette, Dsterdieck, Huther. See on the sense, 1Co 11:19, , () .

It is not my intention to go at length into the question as to the dogmatic consequences which have been deduced from this verse. It may be sufficient to refer my readers to the principal sources of the two antagonistic opinions as to the final perseverance (not of the elect, which is a truism, but) of those who have been once truly children of God. They will find the most complete statement of the predestinarian view as founded on our passage, in Augustine, De dono perseveranti, 8 (19), 9 (21), vol. x. p. 1003 f. and De correptione et gratia, 9 (20), p. 928. In the former passage he says, Hominibus videtur omnes qui boni apparent fideles perseverantiam usque in finem accipere debuisse. Deus autem melius esse judicavit, miscere quosdam non perseveraturos certo numero sanctorum, ut quibus non expedit in hujus vit tentatione securitas, non possint esse securi, 1Co 10:12. Ex duobus autem piis cur huic donetur perseverantia usque in finem, illi autem non detur, inscrutabiliora sunt judicia Dei. Illud tamen fidelibus debet esse certissimum, hunc esse ex prdestinatis, illum non esse. Nam si fuissent ex nobis, ait unus prdestinatorum, qui de pectore Domini bibebat hoc secretum, mansissent utique nobiscum. See also Calvin h. l., who sums up all thus, Quare non immerito dicit, ubi efficax est Dei vocatio, illic certam perseverantiam fore. The other side is ably stated by Didymus (cited in Dsterd.), whose conclusion is, Igitur, licet figurate dicta sint hc, attamen voluntariam necessitatem ostendunt, a quorum et cohabitatione qu potest esse malis viris cum bonis abscesserint, dum vitio suo tales sint facti. Non igitur oportet intelligi contrarietatem hoc verbo significari naturarum. The various opponents of the predestinarian view as such, have had recourse, as so often, to various unworthy artifices and untenable explainings away of words, to escape from the inference pressed on them. Thus Socinus and Episcopius lay stress on the fact that is imperfect, not perfect: non enim Apostolus dicit antichristos illos nunquam antea vere Christianos fuisse, sed tantum quod tum, vel jam antequam antichristos se esse profiterentur, non erant ii, qui esse debebant, &c. And so even Grot. (qui ista crepitabant, jam deseruerant Christianam professionem Si illi tunc ex animo fuissent Christiani cum ista inciperent, non deseruissent ctus nostros). Calov.again tries to escape from the inference, by making apply not to Christians in general, but to the Apostles only.

The best account of the whole matter is found in Dsterdiecks long note, in which he has thoroughly gone over all the opinions and given his own conclusion. It is, in the main, as follows. The Apostle is speaking here not dogmatically but ethically. As Didymus above, if there is a necessity in the , it is a necessitas voluntaria. As Aug[33] in his comm. here (written sixteen years before the treatise De dono perseveranti), de voluntate sua quisque aut Antichristus, aut in Christo est. Aut in membris sumus, aut in humoribus malis. Qui se in melius commutat, in corpore membrum est: qui autem in malitia permanet, humor malus est: et quando exierit, relevabuntur qui premebantur. We must take these words, 1Jn 2:19, in intimate connexion with the enunciation of this whole portion of the Epistle, ch. 1Jn 1:5-7. The object of this portion is, ch. 1Jn 1:3, that ye may have fellowship with us, in that we have fellowship with the Father and the Son. This aim penetrates all the warning and exhortation 1Jn 2:18-28. This fellowship depends on the walking in light, i. e. on knowledge of the truth as regards ourselves and God, and love to God and the brethren. He who departs from the truth, he who loves not God and the brethren, belongs not to this fellowship, and shews that he belongs not to it. If he had belonged to it, he would have held fast his walk in the light, as shewn by these indications. This is the human side, on which our passage regards the act and fact. There is also a divine side. They who attain eternal life are given by the Father to the Son, and no man can come to the Son except the Father draw him (Joh 6:37; Joh 6:44; Joh 6:65; Joh 17:6), and such are kept by God (ib. Joh 17:11); but also we read that they believe on the Son, receive the word of the Son, and keep themselves (Joh 6:40; Joh 17:6 f., Joh 1:12, Jam 1:27). And so again on the other side, they who remain at last excluded from eternal life, are thus excluded not only by Gods decree, but by their own evil choice and will. The words cited above, Joh 6:65, were spoken by our Lord with direct reference to the traitor Judas: but on the other hand St. John gives notices of the ethical development of Judas which leave no doubt that his depravity went hand in hand with Gods judgment on him. Judas was covetous: his heart was inclined to mammon; hence he understood not the love of Mary when she anointed Jesus with her precious ointment: he grudged his Lord this token of love: he could not abide with Christ, because he shut his heart through greed, through love of the world, against the love of Christ; for the knowledge of the Lord, faith in Him, fellowship with Him, are all summed up in Love. Thus we see that in the rejection, as in the acceptance of eternal life, the two factors, Gods will and mans will, are to be regarded in their ethical connexion only. In order to that knowledge of God, which is eternal life, man must be taught of God (Joh 6:45): but man must also learn of God. And the more St. John sets forth the essential nature of this knowledge of God and Jesus Christ as ethical, the more does he recognize, in putting forward Gods will in the matter, mans will also. Christ is the Saviour of the whole world, ch. 1Jn 2:2, 1Jn 4:14. But in the personal appropriation of this universal salvation, not all really take it to themselves,-and many, who have taken it, fall away again, because they do not keep the grace given, do not abide in Christ, do not walk in the light. This last is by no means denied by St. John when he says if they had been of us they would have remained with us. The words set forth an ideal (, not or a similar particle) similar to that in ch. 1Jn 2:5, 1Jn 3:9, 1Jn 5:18. As in no one of those places can the Apostle possibly mean, that a true believer, one really born of God, has perfect love to God and cannot sin (for what then would ch. 1Jn 2:1 mean?),-so neither here can he mean that whoever once inwardly and truly belongs to the communion of believers cannot by any possibility fall from it. I have abridged Dsterd.s remarks, and thereby, I fear, not increased their perspicuity. Those who are able (and I would hope, for the sake of English theology, that this number is daily increasing) should by all means give some days to the thorough study of them).

[33] Augustine, Bp. of Hippo, 395-430

Fuente: The Greek Testament

1Jn 2:19. , they went out) The antithesis is, they would have remained.- , for if) One who is truly faithful does not easily fall away: ch. 1Jn 3:9, 1Jn 5:18.- , but that) that is, but they went out, that, etc.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

went out from us

“Went out from us,” that is, doctrinally. Doubtless then, as now, the deniers of the Son 1Jn 2:22; 1Jn 2:23 still called themselves Christians. Cf 2Ti 1:15.

Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes

went out: Deu 13:13, Psa 41:9, Mat 13:20, Mat 13:21, Mar 4:5, Mar 4:6, Mar 4:16, Mar 4:17, Luk 8:13, Joh 15:2, Act 15:24, Act 20:30, 2Pe 2:20, 2Pe 2:21, Jud 1:19

for: Job 17:9, Psa 37:28, Psa 125:1, Psa 125:2, Jer 32:38-40, Mat 24:24, Mar 13:22, Joh 4:14, Joh 6:37-39, Joh 10:28-30, 2Ti 2:10, 2Ti 2:19, 1Pe 1:2-5, Jud 1:1

they might: Rom 9:6, Rom 11:5, Rom 11:6, 1Co 11:19, 2Ti 3:9, Heb 10:39

Reciprocal: Gen 21:10 – Cast out Deu 13:3 – proveth Rth 1:15 – gone back 2Ki 2:2 – I will not Job 23:12 – Neither Job 24:13 – nor abide Psa 18:21 – have not Psa 36:3 – he hath Psa 94:15 – and all Psa 101:3 – them Psa 119:33 – I shall keep Psa 119:102 – for thou Pro 2:13 – leave Pro 15:31 – abideth Pro 21:16 – wandereth Son 1:7 – for Eze 3:20 – When Eze 18:24 – when Eze 33:13 – if he Dan 11:34 – cleave Mat 7:25 – for Mat 12:30 – that is Mat 12:44 – he findeth Mat 13:47 – and gathered Mat 22:10 – both Mat 25:2 – General Luk 2:35 – that Luk 6:49 – immediately Luk 22:32 – thy faith Joh 6:66 – of his Joh 8:31 – If Joh 10:5 – General Joh 13:21 – one Joh 15:6 – he Joh 17:12 – and Act 2:42 – they Rom 11:22 – if thou Rom 16:17 – cause Gal 1:7 – pervert Eph 4:14 – tossed Phi 3:8 – doubtless 1Ti 1:19 – concerning 1Ti 5:15 – General 2Ti 2:18 – overthrow Heb 10:38 – but 1Pe 4:7 – the end 2Pe 2:1 – even Rev 2:26 – keepeth

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

1Jn 2:19. Went out from us signifies the antichrists were once associated with the true believers but apostatized from the faith. All this pertains to their outward movements only, for John says that they were not of us. Church workers are not mind readers, and if unconverted persons go through the motion of obedience to the Gospel there is no way to detect or avoid it. They obeyed the form of doctrine but not “from the heart” (Rom 6:17). Such persons will wait until some pretext appears when they will show their true sentiments by turning against the church and making false accusations. It is true that John is writing directly about antichrists which means those who oppose Christ. The principle is the same, for whoever opposes the church of Christ is an enemy of Him. At heart they are disbelievers in Christ but show their spite against Him by turning against his church.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

1Jn 2:19. This verse stands alone, as containing a preliminary encouragement. They went out from us, but they were not of us. They literally left us, for they were in our fellowship, and received in the Church the doctrines they perverted; but they had not the life of our doctrine, and were not of us in the sense of that fellowship of which the first chapter had spoken. For if they had been of us, in this latter sense, they would have continued with us, in the former sense. Butthe apostle is hurrying from them and hurries them away, in an elliptical sentence, this came to pass

that they might be made manifest that they are not all of us. The consequence is a purpose: they have gone according to the fixed purpose of Gods Spirit that heresy should be purged out of the Church. It is true that by their going out they show the possibility of some being with us who are not of us. But the words, which are not so involved in the original as many think, do not say this. They only declare that such heresy cannot and must not continue in the Christian fellowship,continue, that is, as maintained by teachers: as members of the fellowship all need the subsequent exhortation to abide in Him, and the warning against being ashamed before Him at His coming. The reason of the necessary rejection of heresy is given in the next verse.

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

1Jn 2:19. They went out from us Separated themselves from the communion of the true church of Christ. Hence it is one of the marks of antichrist, that he had been once in the Christian Church, and a teacher by profession, but had left it or apostatized; but they were not of us When they went, their hearts were before departed from God; for if they had been of us Had been inspired by the same spirit wherewith we are inspired; they would, no doubt, have continued with us For upright men, of a pure intention, would never have seen any cause to leave us, and divine grace would have preserved such from being overcome by the temptations of these artful deceivers; but they went out They were permitted to apostatize outwardly; that they might be made manifest See 1Co 11:19. (This was made manifest by their going out;) that they were not all of us Sound members of our body, really believing the same truths which we believe, and partaking of the same grace which we partake of.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

2:19 {19} They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, {o} they would [no doubt] have continued with us: {20} but [they went out], that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

(19) A digression against certain offences and stumbling blocks at which that young age especially might stumble and be shaken, Therefore that they should not be terrified with the falling back of certain, first he makes plain to men that although those who fall from God and his religion had a place in the Church, yet they were never of the Church: because the Church is the company of the elect, who cannot perish, and therefore cannot fall from Christ.

(o) So then the elect can never fall from grace.

(20) Secondly, he shows that these things happen to the benefit of the Church, that hypocrites may be plainly known.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

Those who were opposing Christ had gone out from "us." "Us" may mean the apostolic eyewitnesses, as often elsewhere in this epistle (cf. 1Jn 1:1-5; 1Jn 4:6). This would mean that these false teachers had gone out from among the apostles, not that they were apostles themselves, claiming that their message was what the apostles endorsed (cf. Act 15:1; 2Co 11:5). "Us" elsewhere in this epistle refers to the believing community (cf. 1Jn 1:6 to 1Jn 2:2), and I think it probably means that here. Some false teachers evidently had been members of local house-churches and then left them because of doctrinal differences. The physical separation of these men from the apostles and the faithful eventually illustrated their doctrinal separation from them.

"From other references to ’antichrists’ in this letter it is evident that when the writer uses this term he means the heterodox ex-members of his own community: those who, in one way or another, were denying the true identity of Jesus, and the fact of God’s saving activity mediated to the world through him." [Note: Smalley, p. 101.]

 

". . . it is possible, in this instance, that those who later allowed their heretical thought and actions to run away with them (when it could obviously be said, ouk esan ex emon, ’they were not of us’) were in the first place believers with a genuine, if uninformed, faith in Jesus." [Note: Ibid., p. 103. Cf. Hodges, The Epistles . . ., pp. 109-10.]

 

"If you will investigate the history of the false cults and antichristian religious systems in today’s world, you will find that in most cases their founders started out in a local church! They were ’with us’ but not ’of us,’ so they went out ’from us’ and started their own groups." [Note: Wiersbe, p. 499.]

". . . a person who makes a genuine confession can be expected to persevere in his faith, although elsewhere John warns his readers against the danger of failure to persevere [cf. 1Jn 2:24; 2Jn 1:8]." [Note: Marshall, p. 152.]

Perseverance in faith and good works is normal for a Christian, but it is not inevitable. Hence we have all the warnings and exhortations to continue in faith and good works in the New Testament.

Whereas divisions within Christendom create obvious problems, God causes some good to come out of them by using these divisions to clarify doctrinal differences and deviations from the truth.

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