Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 John 2:22
Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
22. Who is a liar ] More accurately, as R.V., Who is the liar: the A.V. here again follows the earlier English Versions. But we must beware of exaggerating the article in interpretation, although it is right to translate it. It merely marks the passage from the abstract to the concrete: ‘Every lie is absolutely alien from the truth. Who then is the one who speaks lies? There are no liars if he who denies that Jesus is the Christ is not one’. The exactly parallel construction in 1Jn 5:4-5 shews that ‘the liar’ here does not mean ‘the greatest liar possible’. Moreover, this would not be true. Is denying that Jesus is the Christ a greater lie than denying the existence of the Son, or of God?
The abruptness of the question is startling. Throughout these verses (22 24) “clause stands by clause in stern solemnity without any connecting particles.”
but he that denieth ] These Gnostic teachers, who profess to be in possession of the higher truth, are really possessed by one of the worst of lies. For the way in which the Gnostics denied the fundamental Christian truth of the Incarnation see the Introduction, p. 19.
He is Antichrist ] Better, as R.V., This is the antichrist, or The antichrist is this man: ‘this’, as in 1Jn 2:25 and 1Jn 1:5, may be the predicate. The article before ‘antichrist’, almost certainly spurious in 1Jn 2:18, is certainly genuine here, 1Jn 4:3, and 2Jn 1:7. But ‘the antichrist’ here probably does not mean the great personal rival of Christ, but the antichristian teacher who is like him and in this matter acts as his mouth-piece.
that denieth the Father and the Son ] This clause is substituted for ‘that denieth that Jesus is the Christ’. By this substitution, which is quite in S. John’s manner, he leads us on to see that to deny the one is to deny the other. Jesus is the Christ, and the Christ is the Son of God; therefore to deny that Jesus is the Christ is to deny the Son. And to deny the Son is to deny the Father; not merely because Son and Father are correlatives and mutually imply one another, but because the Son is the revelation of the Father, without whom the Father cannot be known. ‘Neither doth any know the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son willeth to reveal Him ’ (Mat 11:27). ‘No one cometh unto the Father but by Me ’ (Joh 14:6). Comp. Joh 5:23; Joh 15:23. Some would put a full stop at ‘antichrist,’ and connect what follows with 1Jn 2:23, thus; This is the antichrist. He that denieth the Father (denieth) the Son also: every one that denieth the Son hath not the Father either.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Who is a liar – That is, who is false; who maintains an erroneous doctrine; who is an impostor, if he is not? The object of the apostle is to specify one of the prevailing forms of error, and to show that, however plausible the arguments might be by which it was defended, it was impossible that it should be true. Their own knowledge of the nature of religion must convince them at once that this opinion was false.
That denieth that Jesus is the Christ – It would seem that the apostle referred to a class who admitted that Jesus lived, but who denied that he was the true Messiah. On what grounds they did this is unknown; but to maintain this was, of course, the same as to maintain that he was an impostor. The ground taken may have been that he had not the characteristics ascribed to the Messiah in the prophets; or that he did not furnish evidence that he was sent from God; or that he was an enthusiast. Or perhaps some special form of error may be referred to, like that which is said to have been held by Corinthus, who in his doctrine separated Jesus from Christ, maintaining them to be two distinct persons. – Doddridge.
He is antichrist – (See the notes at 1Jo 2:18). He has all the characteristics and attributes of antichrist; or, a doctrine which practically involves the denial of both the Father and the Son, must be that of antichrist.
That denieth the Father and the Son – That denies the special truths pertaining to God the Father, and to the Son of God. The charge here is not that they entertained incorrect views of God as such – as almighty, eternal, most wise, and good; but that they denied the doctrines which religion taught respecting God as Father and Son. Their opinions tended to a denial of what was revealed respecting God as a Father – not in the general sense of being the Father of the universe, but in the particular sense of his relation to the Son. It cannot be supposed that they denied the existence and perfections of God as such, nor that they denied that God is a Father in the relation which he sustains to the universe; but the meaning must be that what they held went to a practical denial of that which is special to the true God, considered as sustaining the relation of a Father to his Son Jesus Christ. Correct views of the Father could not be held without correct views of the Son; correct views of the Son could not be held without correct views of the Father. The doctrines respecting the Father and the Son were so connected that one could not be held without holding the other, and one could not be denied without denying the other. Compare the Mat 11:27 note; Joh 5:23 note. No man can have just views of God the Father who has not right apprehensions of the Son. As a matter of fact in the world, people have right apprehensions of God only when they have correct views of the character of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 22. Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ?] Here we see some of the false doctrines which were then propagated in the world. There were certain persons who, while they acknowledged Jesus to be a Divine teacher, denied him to be the Christ, i.e. the MESSIAH.
He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son,] He is antichrist who denies the supernatural and miraculous birth of Jesus Christ, who denies Jesus to be the Son of God, and who denies God to be the Father of the Lord Jesus; thus he denies the Father and the Son. The Jews in general, and the Gnostics in particular, denied the miraculous conception of Jesus; with both he was accounted no more than a common man, the son of Joseph and Mary. But the Gnostics held that a Divine person, AEon, or angelical being, dwelt in him; but all things else relative to his miraculous generation and Divinity they rejected. These were antichrists, who denied Jesus to be the Christ.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Especially may the ill accord be discerned between Divine truth and a lie, when the lie is so directly levelled against the foundations upon which the whole fabric is built, as the denying Jesus to be the Christ strikes at all. And though he that doth so, seems not only an
antichrist as directing his opposition but against Christ, he really as much
denieth the Father, who testified of him.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
22. a liarGreek, “Whois the liar?” namely, guilty of the lie just mentioned(1Jo 2:21).
that Jesus is the Christthegrand central truth.
He is AntichristGreek,“the Antichrist”; not however here personal,but in the abstract; the ideal of Antichrist is “he that denieththe Father and the Son.” To deny the latter is virtually to denythe former. Again, the truth as to the Son must be held in itsintegrity; to deny that Jesus is the Christ, or that He is the Son ofGod, or that He came in the flesh, invalidates the whole (Mt11:27).
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Who is a liar, but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ?…. Or that very Christ, and true Messiah, who was spoken of by all the prophets, since the beginning of the world, and so much, and so long desired by the Old Testament saints: he that denies that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah of the prophets, is not indeed the only liar in the world, but he is the greatest of liars; this is a consummate lie, being opposed to a glaring truth, to a fact clear an indisputable; and which rests not merely on the testimony of Jesus, who is truth itself, and who, in express words, more than once, declared and asserted himself to be the Christ; but all the characters of the Messiah, everything that is said of him in the Prophets, meet in Jesus, and the miracles which were done by him are flagrant proofs and undeniable evidences of his being the Christ of God; and all the apostles believed, and were sure that he was Christ, the Son of the living God: to which may be added the testimony of John, who was sent, and came to bear witness of him, and did; and who was a prophet, and a man of great probity and integrity. But there was a greater witness than he; even God himself, by a voice from heaven, bore a testimony to him; and angels, at his incarnation, declared him to be the Saviour, which is Christ the Lord; yea, the devil himself, who is a liar, and the father of ties in other things, knew and owned Jesus to be the Christ; so that those that deny him are the worst of liars, even worse than the devil himself. This may have regard not only to the Jews, that deny Jesus to be the Messiah, but chiefly to such who went by the name of Christians; who denied either his proper deity, or real humanity, as Ebion and Cerinthus, which was denying him to be the God-man, the Mediator, and Messiah; and is true of all such that deny him in any of his offices, or in things relating to them, as his Gospel, and any of the peculiar doctrines of it, delivered by him, and so deny his prophetic office; or any of his ordinances, institutions, and appointments, as lawgiver in his house, and King of saints, and so deny him in his kingly office; or reject him as the alone Saviour, joining their own works with him, in the business of salvation, and oppose his sacrifice and satisfaction, and despise his imputed righteousness, and so deny him in his priestly office. Now these are some of the liars, and these some of the doctrinal lies, which are not of the truth, as in 1Jo 2:21.
He is antichrist that denieth the Father and the Son: that denies the Father of Christ to be the Creator of the world, but asserts that it was made by angels, as some ancient heretics did; or that the Father of Christ is not the God of the Old Testament, as Marcion; or that denies that God is the Father of Christ, and that Christ is the Son of God; who will not allow that there is any such relation in nature between them; who affirm that Christ is only the Son of God by adoption, or because of his love to him, or because of his incarnation and resurrection from the dead; or that he is not his true and proper Son, only in a figurative and metaphorical sense; that he is not the natural and eternally begotten Son of God, only by office, and as Mediator, and that God is only his Father, as having installed him into an office; or he that denies that these two are distinct from each other, but affirms that Father is the Son, and the Son is the Father, and so confounds them both, and, by confounding both, denies that there are either Father or Son; and all such persons are antichrists, or opposers of Christ.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
The liar ( ). The liar (with the article) par excellence. Rhetorical question to sharpen the point made already about lying in 1John 1:6; 1John 1:10; 1John 2:4; 1John 2:21. See 5:5 for a like rhetorical question.
But ( ). Except, if not.
That denieth that Jesus is the Christ ( ). Common Greek idiom for to appear after like redundant in Luke 20:27; Heb 12:19. The old Latin retains non here as old English did (Shakespeare, Comedy of Errors IV. ii. 7, “He denied you had in him no right”). The Cerinthian Gnostics denied the identity of the man Jesus and Christ (an , they held) like the modern Jesus or Christ controversy.
This is the antichrist ( ). The one just mentioned, Cerinthus himself in particular.
Even he that denieth the Father and the Son ( ). This is the inevitable logic of such a rejection of the Son of God. Jesus had himself said this very same thing (Joh 5:23f.).
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
A liar [ ] . Rev., correctly, “the liar.” For a similar interrogative phrase see ch. 1Jo 5:5. It marks the lively feeling with which the apostle writes. By the definite article, the liar, the lie is set forth in its concrete personality : the one who impersonates all that is false, as antichrist represents every form of hostility and opposition to Christ. The denial that Jesus is the Christ is the representative falsehood. He that denies is the representative liar.
He that denieth [ ] . The article with the participle denotes the habitual denial. Lit., the one denying, the one who habitually represents this attitude towards Christ. The words are aimed at the heresy of Cerinthus, a man of Jewish decent and educated at Alexandria. He denied the miraculous conception of Jesus, and taught that, after His baptism, the Christ descended upon Him in the form of a dove, and that He then announced the unknown Father and wrought miracles; but that, towards the end of His ministry, the Christ departed again from Jesus, and Jesus suffered and rose from the dead, while the Christ remained impassible (incapable of suffering) as a spiritual being.
The Father. The title the Father occurs always in its simple form in the Epistle. Never his or our Father, or the Father in heaven.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “Who is a liar” John rhetorically asks, who is (Greek hos pseutes) “the”, (definite article) liar, as if to fix personal responsibility and accountability, upon every antichrist – every person posing as the christ or opposing Him and His truth.
2) “But he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ”. The term “but” is translated from (Greek ei me) meaning “if not” the one (Greek arnoumenos) actively or progressively denying Jesus to be the Christ.
3) “He is antichrist” (Greek houtos) this one is the antichrist . . . meaning of the antichrist kind, nature, a liar, from the nature of his father, the devil. Joh 8:44-45.
4) “That denieth the Father and the Son”. Jesus came in His Father’s name and was rejected. Men rejected Him as the Divine, Virgin born One, posed their knowledge as superior to His, treated His words of truth as lies and falsehoods. He then disclosed that another should one day come in his own name, him they would receive. Those who reject Jesus as the Son of God are antichrists many, even today. 1Jn 4:3.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
22 Who is a liar He does not assert that they alone were liars who denied that the Son of God appeared in the flesh, lest no one in unloosing the knot should above measure torment himself; but that they surpassed all others, as though he had said, that except this be deemed a lie, no other could be so reckoned; as we are wont commonly to say, “If perfidy towards God and men is not a crime, what else can we call a crime?” (71)
What he had generally said of false prophets, he now applies to the state of his own time; for he points out, as by the finger, those who disturbed the Church. I readily agree with the ancients, who thought that Cerinthus and Carpocrates are here referred to. But the denial of Christ extends much wider; for it is not enough in words to confess that Jesus is the Christ, except he is acknowledged to be such as the Father offers him to us in the gospel. The two I have named gave the title of Christ to the Son of God, but imagined him to be man only. Others followed them, such as Arius, who, adorning him with the name of God, robbed him of his eternal divinity. Marcion dreamt that he was a mere phantom. Sabellius imagined that he differed nothing from the Father. All these denied the Son of God; for not one of them really acknowledged the true Christ; but, adulterating, as far as they could, the truth respecting him, they devised for themselves an idol instead of Christ. Then broke out Pelagius, who, indeed, raised no dispute respecting Christ’s essence, but allowed him to be true man and God; yet he transferred to us almost all the honor that belongs to him. It is, indeed, to reduce Christ to nothing, when his grace and power are set aside.
So the Papists, at this day, setting up freewill in opposition to the grace of the Holy Spirit, ascribing a part of their righteousness and salvation to the merits of works, feigning for themselves innumerable advocates, by whom they render God propitious to them, have a sort of fictitious Christ, I know not what; but the lively and genuine image of God, which shines forth in Christ, they deform by their wicked inventions; they lessen his power, subvert and pervert his office.
We now see that Christ, is denied, whenever those things which peculiarly belong to him, are taken away from him. And as Christ is the end of the law and of the gospel, and has in himself all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, so he is the mark at which all heretics level and direct their arrows. Therefore the Apostle does not, without reason, make those the chief impostors, who fight against Christ, in whom the full truth is exhibited to us.
He is Antichrist He speaks not of that prince of defection who was to occupy the seat of God; but all those who seek to overthrow Christ, he puts them among that impious band. And that he might amplify their crime, he asserts that the Father, no less than the Son, is denied by them; as though he had said, “They have no longer any religion, because they wholly cast away God.” And this he afterwards confirms, by adding this reason, that the Father cannot be separated from the Son.
(71) Taking this view of the passage, we may give this rendering, — “Who is a liar, except it be he who denies that Jesus is the Christ?” — Ed.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
22. A liar Rather, the liar; or, as Wesley, more pointedly, that liar.
Jesus is the Christ The errorists, who believed matter the source of all evil, denied that the material bodily Jesus was the real Christ, and affirmed that the Christ descended upon him at baptism. Hence the trinity was doctrinally disorganized. The antichrist of that last time, therefore, really denied the Father and the Son.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
1Jn 2:22. Who is a liar, but he that denieth, &c.? See ch. 1Jn 4:3. Some are of opinion, that this was written against Cerinthus, who in his doctrine separated Jesus from Christ, maintaining that they were two distinct persons, and denying Jesus to be the Son of God. The church of Rome denies both the Father and Son, by throwing off the government of God and of his Christ over the Christian church, setting up a pretended infallible head, reversing the laws of Christ laid down in the New Testament, and making laws at pleasure to bindthe consciences of all Christians. The pope therefore, as head of the church, may properly enough be called antichrist. It has indeed very often been inquired, whether the pope be antichrist? This seemed so clear to the famous Lord Bacon, that, being asked by king James 1 whether he thought the pope so to be, he answered, “That if an hue and cry should come after antichrist, which should describe him by those characters whereby he is decyphered in the Bible, he should certainly take the pope for him.”
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
1Jn 2:22-23 . The existence of the antichrists and their relationship to the Christian Church having been previously stated, there follows now the more particular definition of the antichristian lie.
;] The interrogative form, with which John addresses his readers who know the truth, is explained by the vividness of the feeling with which the apostle is writing; similarly in chap. 1Jn 5:5 . He passes from the abstract ( ) directly to the concrete ( ). The definite article: (Luther incorrectly: a liar), brings out the idea in clearer distinctness: the liar , i.e. he in whom the lie appears in concrete personality (so also Braune), identical with , which is denied by Jachmann through mistake of John’s idea. The thought is weakened by the supposition that the apostle is speaking here comparatively (Grotius: quis potest major esse impostor?). Nor is Bengel’s interpretation satisfactory: quis est illius mendacii imposturaeque reus? with which Dsterdieck agrees, when he paraphrases: “What sort of a lie I mean, ye know very well. Who are the liars? Are they not those who deny, etc.?” The apostle certainly has the particular lie of the antichrists of his time in view, but this he regards as the one chief and fundamental lie “in which all is comprised” (Lcke). The explanation of Baumgarten-Crusius is plainly quite erroneous: “what else is a false doctrine than, etc.?” nor is that of Ebrard less so, as he finds in this catechetical (!) question intended for children this meaning: “on whose side is the lie?” with which he then supplies the corresponding question: “and on whose side is the truth?”
] , often after a negation, may also stand after a question, as in this a negation is contained; comp. Luk 17:18 ; Rom 11:15 ; 1Co 2:11 ; 2Co 2:2 ; 1Jn 5:5 ; it corresponds to the German: “ als nur ” (English: “but only,” “except”), and limits the general thought to a particular one; the sense accordingly is: No other is the liar but he who, etc. According to Ebrard, must here only have the meaning of “than,” because the question here is, which of the two dogmatical tendencies (!) belongs to the lie; that the apostle here has in view two parties, namely, the antichrists and the believing Christians, and asks which of them is in possession of the truth, is a pure fiction, for which there is not the slightest evidence in the text. ] On the construction of the negative idea with the following , by which the negation is more strongly emphasized, see Khner, II. p. 410.
The lie of the Antichrist consists in the denial that Jesus is , i.e. in the denial of the identity of Jesus and Christ, whereby is meant, according to 1Jn 2:19 and chap. 1Jn 4:3 , not the Jewish unbelief, that Jesus is not the promised Messiah, but the Gnostic heresy of the distinction between Jesus and Christ , which forms the sharpest contradiction to the apostle’s doctrine that Jesus is the . It is erroneous to find here a reference to two different kinds of heresy; on the one hand the denial of the divine , on the other the denial of the human , nature of Jesus; [171] for John speaks only of one lie.
] refers back to : the liar who denies the identity of Jesus and Christ, he is the Antichrist. It is natural to take and . here in general signification, and to find therein a justification for Bengel’s conception of John’s idea of Antichrist; but as the lie of the antichrists proceeds from the , it may be ascribed to the Antichrist himself; the individual antichrists are the mouth by which he speaks.
] is not to be connected with , so that the sense would be: this one, who denies the Father and the Son, is the Antichrist; but as a clause of more particular definition subordinate to . “John hereby adds a new element which states the full unhappy consequence of that Antichristian lie” (Dsterdieck; similarly Braune). The apostle wants to bring out here that the denial that Jesus is is in its very essence a denial of the Father and of the Son. He who denies the identity of Jesus and Christ, directly denies the Son, for the Son is no other than (neither an Aeon named Christ that did not become man, nor Jesus who is not Christ, or, according to Joh 1:14 , the Logos); [172] but he who denies the Son denies also the Father, and not merely inasmuch as Son and Father are logically interchangeable ideas, but because the nature of the Father is only manifested in the Son, and all true knowledge of the Father is conditioned by the knowledge of the Son, so that the God of those who deny the Son is not the true God, but a false image of their own thoughts an . [173]
[171] So Tertullian ( de Praescript. c. 33): Joh. in ep. cos maxime antichristos vocat, qui Christum negarent in carne venisse et qui non putarent Jesum esse Filium Dei; illud Marcion, hoe Ebion vindicavit. Similarly Besser: “That Jesus was not the Christ, the Christ not Jesus. Either the Word that was from the beginning was separated from this Jesus, or the flesh was denied to the eternal Word.” Comp. Introd. sec. 3.
[172] Weiss correctly brings out the distinction between the ideas and , when he observes that is a historical conception to the apostle, and that it is enough for him that that proposition of the false teachers denies the Messiahship of Christ, from which all belief in Him must take its starting-point, in order to arrive at the recognition that Jesus is the Son of God, and thus in the Son to recognise the Father.
[173] That such commentators as proceed on rationalistic assumptions have not been able to interpret the thought of the apostle is quite natural. But even others have got a more or less indistinct view of it by putting, as Dsterdieck rightly says, “the ideas of John too directly into dogmatic forms (and, indeed, into those defined by the Church);” or by ignoring the realism of the apostle, and regarding what he considered in an objectively real way as a mere element of the subjective consideration; or, finally, by bringing out one-sided references instead of giving the ideas the due force of their entire comprehension.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
Ver. 22. That denieth that Jesus ] Papists deny him as a King, in setting up the pope; as a Priest, in setting up the mass; as a Prophet, in piecing their human traditions to the Holy Scriptures.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
22 .] Who is the liar (the question passes from the abstract to the concrete . “Quis est illius mendacii reus” as Bengel. The Apostle proceeds to identify the utterer of the of which he has just spoken. We have a similar question in ch. 1Jn 5:4-5 ; where after describing the victory that overcometh the world, he rejoins . . . , as here. Some have neglected the article altogether; so Luther, and the E. V.; others have given it merely the force of pointing out as “insigne:” so Calv. (“nisi hoc censeatur mendacium, aliud nullum haberi posse”), Seb.-Schmidt; Socin. (“mendacium, quo nihil possit esse majus”), De Wette (‘ diese Irrlehre gilt dem Ap. statt aller, scheint ihm alle andern einzuschliessen ’). So also Lcke, and Huther. But there can be little doubt that the refers as above to the preceding ), but (“if not:” so in ref. and Luk 17:18 , Rom 11:15 , 1Co 2:11 , 2Co 2:2 ) he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ (lit. “ denieth (to the effect) that Jesus is not the Christ .” “This excepting ,” says Khner, Gram. ii. p. 561, “is frequently found after (= ), and also after . Hom. hymn. Cer. 78, , : Aristoph. Eq. 1106, , : Xen. c. ix. 1, , ; Cf. Cyr. i. 4. 13.” So the Greeks often, bringing outmore distinctly the negative proposition involved in the verb of negation, so Demosth. p. 871: , , or prohibition, so Herod. iii. 128, . See Khner, Gram. ii. p. 410. On the meaning, see below)? This (the just described; , &c. below being appositional, and an additional consequence from his former denial) is the antichrist (on the personal interpretation, see above, 1Jn 2:18 . . is obviously here used not as predicating the one person in whom the character shall be finally and centrally realized, but as setting forth identity of character with him, and participation in the same development of the antichristian principle. Nor is this, as Huther characterizes it, a “ willkurliche Umdeutung und Erganzung ,” but something of the kind must be understood, whichever way antichrist be taken, collective or personal), who denieth the Father and the Son (it is implied then, that the denying Jesus to be the Christ, is equivalent to denying the Father and the Son. And this the Apostle carefully asserts in the next verse).
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
1Jn 2:22 . , cf. n. on 1Jn 1:6 . The Cerinthian distinction between Jesus and the Christ was a denial of the possibility of the Incarnation, i.e. , of the filial relation of man to God. in dependent clause after is a common Gk. idiom, not unknown in English; cf. Shakespeare, Comedy of Errors , iv. ii. 7: “He denied you had in him no right”.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
a = the. Compare Joh 8:44. 2Th 2:11 (the lie).
but = except. Greek. ei me.
denieth. Greek. arneomai. Always “deny” save Act 7:35; Heb 11:24 (both “refused”).
Jesus. App-98.
is = is not (App-105). A negative sometimes follows such verbs as arneomai. Compare the French usage.
Christ. App-98.
Son. App-108.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
22.] Who is the liar (the question passes from the abstract to the concrete . Quis est illius mendacii reus as Bengel. The Apostle proceeds to identify the utterer of the of which he has just spoken. We have a similar question in ch. 1Jn 5:4-5; where after describing the victory that overcometh the world, he rejoins … , as here. Some have neglected the article altogether; so Luther, and the E. V.; others have given it merely the force of pointing out as insigne: so Calv. (nisi hoc censeatur mendacium, aliud nullum haberi posse), Seb.-Schmidt; Socin. (mendacium, quo nihil possit esse majus), De Wette (diese Irrlehre gilt dem Ap. statt aller, scheint ihm alle andern einzuschliessen). So also Lcke, and Huther. But there can be little doubt that the refers as above to the preceding ), but (if not: so in ref. and Luk 17:18, Rom 11:15, 1Co 2:11, 2Co 2:2) he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ (lit. denieth (to the effect) that Jesus is not the Christ. This excepting , says Khner, Gram. ii. p. 561, is frequently found after (= ), and also after . Hom. hymn. Cer. 78, , : Aristoph. Eq. 1106, , : Xen. c. ix. 1, , ; Cf. Cyr. i. 4. 13. So the Greeks often, bringing outmore distinctly the negative proposition involved in the verb of negation,-so Demosth. p. 871: , ,-or prohibition,-so Herod. iii. 128, . See Khner, Gram. ii. p. 410. On the meaning, see below)? This (the just described; , &c. below being appositional, and an additional consequence from his former denial) is the antichrist (on the personal interpretation, see above, 1Jn 2:18. . is obviously here used not as predicating the one person in whom the character shall be finally and centrally realized, but as setting forth identity of character with him, and participation in the same development of the antichristian principle. Nor is this, as Huther characterizes it, a willkurliche Umdeutung und Erganzung, but something of the kind must be understood, whichever way antichrist be taken, collective or personal), who denieth the Father and the Son (it is implied then, that the denying Jesus to be the Christ, is equivalent to denying the Father and the Son. And this the Apostle carefully asserts in the next verse).
Fuente: The Greek Testament
1Jn 2:22. ; who?) Thus, who? ch. 1Jn 5:5.- ) has a force relative to the abstract, a lie, 1Jn 2:21; that is, who is guilty of that lie and imposture?-, that) The chief truth is, that Jesus is the Christ: Joh 20:31. In the Acts, Paul continually demonstrated this main point; and in his Epistles he presupposed it. John often makes mention of this main point in his Gospel, and in this and the following Epistle. From which it may be inferred that these books were not written by him altogether at the close of his life.- , antichrist) 1Jn 2:18. The truth respecting Jesus, that He is the Christ, that He is the Son of God and is come in the flesh, must be held in its integrity. He who denies one part respecting Jesus, does not hold both Him, in His completeness, and the Father at the same time. The spirit of antichrist, and antichrist has done and does this.- , the Father and the Son) that is, the Son, and therefore the Father.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Who: 1Jo 2:4, 1Jo 1:6, 1Jo 4:20, Joh 8:44, Rev 3:9
he that: 1Jo 2:23, 1Jo 4:3, 1Co 12:2, 1Co 12:3, 2Jo 1:7, Jud 1:4
He is: 1Jo 2:18
Reciprocal: Mat 10:40 – and he that Mat 16:20 – Jesus Joh 8:55 – shall 2Ti 2:12 – if we deny 1Jo 5:1 – believeth 2Jo 1:9 – abideth not Rev 2:2 – thou hast Rev 3:8 – and hast not Rev 21:8 – and all
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
1Jn 2:22. This verse is virtually the same as verse 18 (See 1Jn 2:18).
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
1Jn 2:22-23. Who is the liar, but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? If every lie comes from another source than the truth, what is that source? Our Saviour said of one: He is a liar, and the father of it (Joh 8:44). And this was preceded by, Ye are of your father the devil, who abode not in truth. Hence here we have first the great error viewed in respect to its author, the representative of the central lie: that lie being the denial that the Jesus of the Gospels was or is identical with the Christ. To this formula might be reduced most of the heresies of the age; but especially that of the Jews, and that of Gnosticism which made Christ an AEon who joined the man Jesus for a season. This last was in the apostles mind, and he thought of the exceeding plausibleness of many arguments adduced in its favour; hence the earnestness with which he changes the abstract lie into the concrete liar, and reminds the anointed Christians that they must remember the fatherhood of every form of error on this subject. Denying the Christ,This is the antichrist: he deserves that name, though his error in this respect is only a branch of the great lie. He deserves it well, for he is really a member of the family that denieth the Father and the Son. This last is the essence of antichrist: the sum of all possible error, denying and renouncing conjointly the Godhead and the Revealer of the Godhead. It is the heaviest charge brought against the false teachers in the Epistle, and therefore the apostle solemnly explains and substantiates it.
Whosoever denieth the Son, neither hath he the Father: he that confesseth the Son hath the Father also. The liar and the antichrist is now reduced and yet extended to whosoever. The denial that Jesus is the Christ is identified with denying the Son in His eternal relation to the Father, in His incarnation which made Him the Christ, and in His sole supremacy as the revealer of the Godhead. He hath not the Father; for no man knoweth the Father save the Son, and he to whom the Son shall reveal Him (Mat 11:30). He that confesseth the Son, in the creed of his heart and lips and life, hath in loving fellowship the Father also as well as the Son. Such being the great issue at stake, the anointing from the Holy One cannot fail to keep you from error, at least on this vital question.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Verse 22
Antichrist, that denieth, &c.; that is, by denying that Jesus is the Christ, he denies both the Father and the Son, as is shown in the 1 John 2:23.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
2:22 {23} Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the {r} Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
(23) He shows now plainly the false doctrine of the antichrist’s, that is, that either they fight against the person of Christ, or his office, or both together and at once. They who do so, boast and brag of God in vain, for in denying the Son, the Father also is denied.
(r) Is the true Messiah.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
The antichrists lie because they deny that Jesus is the Christ, God’s Son and our Savior (cf. Joh 11:25-27). This would have been the position of Jews who rejected Jesus as the Messiah and other false teachers to whom John alluded elsewhere. Among these were the Gnostics who believed that anything material was sinful and therefore Jesus could not have been God’s Son. [Note: See International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, 1957 ed., s.v. "Gnosticism," by John Rutherford; or for a summary of Gnostic teaching, see Dillow, pp. 158-61; and Barclay, pp. 8-15.] They considered Jesus and Christ as two distinct entities. [Note: Ryrie, "The First . . .," p. 1471.] Docetists taught that Jesus was not truly a man and therefore not our Savior. Followers of Cerinthus believed that Jesus was not fully God but that God only came upon Him at His baptism and departed from Him before His crucifixion. [Note: See Barker, p. 295; and Brown, p. 112.] These false teachers all claimed to have the truth from God. However, John pointed out that since the Son and the Father are one, a person cannot deny the Son without denying the Father as well (cf. Mat 10:32-33; Mar 8:38; Joh 12:44-45; Joh 14:10-11).
". . . anyone who claims to know God, but disobeys his orders, is ’a’ liar (. . . 1Jn 2:4); but the person who denies that Jesus is the Christ must be regarded as the-archetypal-liar . . ." [Note: Smalley, pp. 110-11. Cf. Stott, p. 111.]
". . . we deny God by denying him his proper relationship with us." [Note: Barker, p. 326.]
Some readers have understood the first part of 1Jn 2:23 to mean that it is impossible for a true Christian, one who "has the Father," ever to deny the Son. This interpretation seems inconsistent with other Scripture (2Ti 2:12) as well as human experience. Some genuine Christians have denied Christ, to avoid martyrdom, for example. In the context John wrote about an abiding relationship with God, not just a saving relationship. So another explanation is that John meant that whoever denies the Son does not have the Father abiding in him. In this view, one who denies the Son does not have an abiding relationship with the Father. This describes all unbelievers and those believers who are not abiding in God. A third explanation is that John was describing what is typical: typically those having the Father do not deny the Son, though there may be a few exceptions. However the broad "whoever" in this verse seems to imply that what John wrote is true of all. I prefer view two.
The second part of the verse is the positive corollary to the first part. Confessing the Son is the opposite of denying Him. Confessing the Son results in the Father abiding in the confessor. Confessing the Son involves a public profession of faith in Him, not just exercising saving faith in Him (cf. Rom 10:9-10; 2Co 4:13). Belief in the heart results in imputed righteousness, and confessing with the mouth results in salvation (lit. deliverance, namely, from the consequences of being a secret, non-confessing, believer). A non-abiding Christian might not confess Christ even though he or she believes in Him. Both denying Christ and confessing Christ deal with giving personal testimony to one’s faith in Him; they do not determine salvation. Thus denying Christ cannot result in the loss of eternal salvation nor can confessing Him obtain it. If John meant that no genuine Christian can deny the Son, the corollary is that every genuine Christian must confess the Son. That would make public confession of Christ a condition for salvation in addition to trusting in Him, but this lacks biblical support.
To summarize, John warned his readers of the danger to their intimate fellowship with God that the teaching of those who denied that Jesus is the Christ posed. If they rejected the Son, they could not expect an intimate relationship with the Father.
"The principle source of confusion in much contemporary study of 1 John is to be found in the failure to recognize the real danger against which the writer is warning. The eternal salvation of the readership is not imperilled [sic]. It is not even in doubt as far as the author is concerned. But seduction by the world and its antichristian representatives is a genuine threat which must be faced." [Note: Hodges, The Gospel . . ., p. 55.]