Untitled Sermon (4)

Sermon • Submitted 10 months ago • Presented 10 months ago

0 ratings

· 7 views

Notes

Transcript

The Message: The Bible in Contemporary Language Chapter 2

Don’t love the world’s ways. Don’t love the world’s goods. Love of the world squeezes out love for the Father. Practically everything that goes on in the world—wanting your own way, wanting everything for yourself, wanting to appear important—has nothing to do with the Father. It just isolates you from him. The world and all its wanting, wanting, wanting is on the way out—but whoever does what God wants is set for eternity.

1 John 2:15 KJV

Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.

A Warning Not to Love the World

15 Don’t set the affections of your heart on this world or in loving the things of the world. The love of the Father and the love of the world are incompatible. 16 For all that the world can offer us—the gratification of our flesh, the allurement of the things of the world, and the obsession with status and importance —none of these things come from the Father but from the world. 17 This world and its desires are in the process of passing away, but those who love to do the will of God live forever.1

1 Brian Simmons, trans., The Passion Translation (BroadStreet Publishing, 2017), 1 Jn 2:15–17.

(2:15–17) The word “world” here is kosmos (κοσμος) which in its use here is defined by Vincent as follows: “The sum-total of human life in the ordered world, considered apart from, alienated from, and hostile to God, and of the earthly things which seduce from God (John 7:7; 15:18; 17:9, 14; I Cor. 1:20, 21; II Cor. 7:10; James 4:4).” Kosmos (Κοσμος) refers to an ordered system. Here it is the ordered system of which Satan is the head, his fallen angels and demons are his emissaries, and the unsaved of the human race are his subjects, together with those purposes, pursuits, pleasures, practices, and places where God is not wanted. Much in this world-system is religious, cultured, refined, and intellectual. But it is anti-God and anti-Christ.

Trench quotes Bengel as saying that this world of unsaved humanity is inspired by “the spirit of the age,” the Zeitgeist, which Trench defines as follows: “All that floating mass of thoughts, opinions, maxims, speculations, hopes, impulses, aims, aspirations, at any time current in the world, which it may be impossible to seize and accurately define, but which constitutes a most real and effective power, being the moral, or immoral atmosphere which at every moment of our lives we inhale, again inevitably to exhale.” This is the world-system to which John refers.

The word “love” here is agapaō (ἀγαπαω), the word used of God’s love for a lost race of sinners, and which is self-sacrificial in its essence (John 3:16), the love which He is by nature (I John 4:8), and the love which is produced in the heart of the yielded saint by the Holy Spirit (Gal. 5:22). The question confronts us now as to how believers can love the sinful world with a love produced in their hearts by the Holy Spirit. The answer is that the Bible writers when taking certain Greek words over into the Bible, poured an additional content of meaning into them, as in this case, but at times use the word, not in its newly-acquired New Testament meaning, but in its purely classical connotation. An example of this is found in the use of dikaios (δικαιος) (righteous) in Romans 5:7, where the word refers to a righteous man, not in the Bible sense of a justified believing sinner, but in the classical sense, that of a law-abiding, just, and fair individual. Here, agapaō (ἀγαπαω) is used merely in its classical meaning, that of a love called out of one’s heart by the preciousness of the object loved. The word as used here refers to a fondness, an affection, non-ethical in its content, for an object because of its value. It is a love of approbation, of esteem. Demas is said to have loved this present age. He found it precious and thus came to love it.

The verb is a present imperative in a prohibition, which construction in Greek speaks of the act of forbidding the continuance of an action already going on. Some of John’s readers were still loving the world-system out from which they had been saved. John says: “Stop loving the world with a love called out of your hearts because of its preciousness.”

The expression “if any man love the world” is a hypothetical condition in the subjunctive mode. The verb is in the present tense. John could have used the aorist tense, expressing merely the fact of loving the world. But he goes out of his way to use the present tense, which tense in the subjunctive mode always stresses continuous, habitual action. This marks this hypothetical person as one who loves the world as a habit of life to the exclusion of any love for God. This is an unsaved person.

In this person, the love of the Father does not exist. This is love for the Father as generated in the heart of the yielded believer by the Holy Spirit. And here the word “love” (agapē (ἀγαπη)) is used in its New Testament sense.

Vincent, commenting on the words “is not in him,” says: “This means more than that he does not love God: rather, that the love of God does not dwell in him as the ruling principle of his life. Westcott cites a parallel from Philo: ‘It is impossible for love to the world to coexist with love to God, as it is impossible for light and darkness to coexist.’ ”

In the phrase, “all that is in the world,” the word “all” does not refer to all things severally, but to all that is in the world collectively (Vincent). “Lust” is epithumia (ἐπιθυμια), “a craving, a passionate desire,” good or evil, according to the context. Here it refers to evil cravings. The word “lust” is obsolete today, as it is used here, since the present day usage confines its meaning to an immoral desire. “Flesh” is sarx (σαρξ) which here refers to the totally depraved nature as governing the individual’s reason, will, and emotions. Thus, the lust of the flesh is the passionate desire or the craving that comes from the evil nature. The word “flesh” here has no reference to the physical body except as that body is controlled or energized by the evil nature. The physical body and its members in themselves have no evil desires except as controlled by the totally depraved nature. To say that the physical body of itself has evil desires is Gnosticism, the heresy that matter is inherently evil.

Now, John speaks of one of the manifestations of the evil nature, the lust of the eyes, namely the passionate cravings of the eyes for satisfaction, these cravings finding their source in the evil nature. Another manifestation of the evil nature is the pride of life. The word is alazonia (ἀλαζονια), “vainglory.” Vincent says: “It means, originally, empty, braggart talk or display; swagger; and hence an insolent and vain assurance in one’s own resources, or in the stability of earthly things, which issues in a contempt of divine laws. The vainglory of life is the vainglory which belongs to the present life.” Thayer defines: “an insolent and empty assurance which trusts in its own power and resources and shamefully despises and violates divine laws and human rights.” The word “life” here is bios (βιος), referring to that which sustains life, namely, food, clothing, and shelter. “Of the Father” is “out from the Father as a source.” “Of the world” is “out from the world as a source.”

“Passeth away” is paragetai (παραγεται), “to pass alongside, to pass by.” The verb is in the passive voice. The world is being caused to pass by. That is, God is causing the world to come to its end. It is being caused to pass by in a vain (futile) show, this parade of the world. But, John says, “The one who keeps on habitually doing the will of God abides forever.”

Translation. Stop considering the world precious with the result that you love it, and the things in the world. If anyone as a habit of life is considering the world precious and is therefore loving it, there does not exist the love possessed by the Father in him. Because everything which is in the world, the passionate desire of the flesh, and the passionate desire of the eyes, and the insolent and empty assurance which trusts in the things that serve the creature life, is not from the Father as a source but is from the world as a source. And the world is being caused to pass away, and its passionate desire. But the one who keeps on habitually doing the will of God abides forever.1

1 Kenneth S. Wuest, Wuest’s Word Studies from the Greek New Testament: For the English Reader, vol. 13 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 125–128.

Do Not Love This World

15 Do not love this world nor the things it offers you, for when you love the world, you do not have the love of the Father in you. 16 For the world offers only a craving for physical pleasure, a craving for everything we see, and pride in our achievements and possessions. These are not from the Father, but are from this world. 17 And this world is fading away, along with everything that people crave. But anyone who does what pleases God will live forever. 1

1 Tyndale House Publishers, Holy Bible: New Living Translation (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2015), 1 Jn 2:15–17.

15–17 Don’t love the world’s ways. Don’t love the world’s goods. Love of the world squeezes out love for the Father. Practically everything that goes on in the world—wanting your own way, wanting everything for yourself, wanting to appear important—has nothing to do with the Father. It just isolates you from him. The world and all its wanting, wanting, wanting is on the way out—but whoever does what God wants is set for eternity.11 Eugene H. Peterson, The Message: The Bible in Contemporary Language (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2005), 1 Jn 2:15–17.

A Warning Not to Love the World

1 Brian Simmons, trans., The Passion Translation (BroadStreet Publishing, 2017), 1 Jn 2:15–17.

15–17 Stop considering the world precious with the result that you love it, and the things in the world. If anyone as a habit of life is considering the world precious and is therefore loving it, there does not exist the Father’s love [i.e., the love possessed by the Father] in him. Because everything which is in the world, the passionate desire of the flesh [the totally depraved nature], and the passionate desire of the eyes, and the insolent and empty assurance which trusts in the things that serve the creature life, is not from the Father as a source but is from the world as a source. And the world is being caused to pass away, and its passionate desire. But the one who keeps on habitually doing the will of God abides forever.11 Kenneth S. Wuest, The New Testament: An Expanded Translation (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1961), 1 Jn 2:15–17.

15 Do not love or cherish the world or the things that are in the world. If anyone loves the world, love for the Father is not in him.

16 For all that is in the world—the lust of the flesh [craving for sensual gratification] and the lust of the eyes [greedy longings of the mind] and the pride of life [assurance in one’s own resources or in the stability of earthly things]—these do not come from the Father but are from the world [itself].

17 And the world passes away and disappears, and with it the forbidden cravings (the passionate desires, the lust) of it; but he who does the will of God and carries out His purposes in his life abides (remains) forever.1

1 The Amplified Bible (La Habra, CA: The Lockman Foundation, 1987), 1 Jn 2:15–17.

2:15–17 In these verses, John exhorts believers to oppose the values of the evil one. He also reminds his audience that those who love and obey God have the gift of eternal life.

John characterizes the world, a reference to the value of culture, as filled with lust, pride, and greed (v. 16). John may be dialoguing with Stoic philosophy, which often advocated for the denial of these appetites (although perhaps only feigned to do so).

Stoics, Stoicism AYBD

2:15 Do not love the world The values of human societies should not define believers. Instead, they should be shaped by Jesus’ values. John is in favoring of love, but acquiescing to evil is not love. The believer’s passion should not be for what culture offers but for what God desires.

2:16 flesh A dichotomy to the Holy Spirit’s work (see note on John 3:6). John is not suggesting that being human is a negative thing; rather, he is referring to worldly values that are unacceptable to God.

For John, a war wages between people’s evil desires (and the desires of evil spiritual powers) and God’s desires (see note on John 1:5). Paul identifies the same conflict and uses the same Greek word to do so (compare note on Gal 5:19–21).

of the eyes A reference to lustful behavior.

arrogance of material possessions Wealth used for the purposes of personal gain demonstrates a selfish view of self-worth. Instead, wealth should be used for the care for others (1 John 3:16–18; compare Rev 3:17).

2:17 the world is passing away An allusion to the end of the present age, which is characterized by evil (compare Gal 1:4; 2 Cor 4:4); John declares that the oppressive systems of human societies are coming to an end. John’s view of the last days becomes more apparent in the remainder of the letter.

John may be suggesting that the world will actually cease to exist (or be destroyed)—being replaced by a new heaven and new earth. He could also be stating that the world as people know it is coming to an end—it will be renewed. John may simply be indicating that God’s reign is again beginning via Christ, and evil is being vanquished.1

1 John D. Barry et al., Faithlife Study Bible (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2012, 2016), 1 Jn 2:15–17.

Notes For Verse 15

a [Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world] Two things not to love:

1. Greek: kosmos (GSN-<G2889>), the order, behavior, fashion, and government of this world system (Mt. 4:8; 13:22; Eph. 2:1–3; Jas. 4:4; 2Pet. 1:4; 2:20)

2. The things that make up the world system of evil and rebellion against God (see Three Classes of Things in the World System)

b [If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him] This is the reason men must not love the world system or the things in it. Love of God and love of these things are not compatible.

Notes For Verse 16

a [For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes …]

Chart: Three Classes of Things in the World System

1. The lust of the flesh (1Jn. 2:15; see Seventeen Works of the Flesh)

2. The lust of the eyes:

(1) Lust for women (Mt. 5:28; Job 31:1)

(2) Eyes full of adultery—even men with men and women with women (2Pet. 2:14; Rom. 1:18–28)

(3) Covetousness (Ps. 10:8; Lk. 12:15)

(4) All things desired (Eccl. 2:10)

(5) Idolatry (Ezek. 6:9; 18:6–15)

(6) All kinds of evil (Mt. 6:23; 7:22)

3. The pride of life:

(1) Self-righteousness (Job 32:1)

(2) Positions (Gen. 3:5; Ezek. 28:11–17; 1Tim. 3:6; 3Jn. 1:9)

(3) Power (Lev. 26:19)

(4) Riches (Ps. 39:6; Ezek. 28:5)

(5) Beauty (Ezek. 28:11, 17)

(6) Strength to war (2Chr. 26:16)

(7) Constant boasting of one’s self; glorying in sexual activity; pleasures; and all the vanity of life (1Jn. 2:15; Ps. 24:4; 36:2; Isa. 3:16)

b [pride of life] Greek: alazoneia (GSN-<G212>), vain-boastings. Used only here and Jas. 4:16.

Notes For Verse 17

a [the world passeth away, and the lust thereof; but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever] The 1st New Testament prophecy in 1John (1Jn. 2:17, unfulfilled). Next, 1Jn. 2:18. Greek: kosmos (GSN-<G2889>), social system. It will be changed, not annihilated (note, Eph. 2:2; note, 2Pet. 3:10).

b [world] The world system passes away, but the man who does not conform to it abides forever.

c [passeth away] Greek: parago (GSN-<G3855>). Translated “pass away” (1Jn. 2:17; 1Cor. 7:31); “pass by” (Mt. 20:30; Mk. 2:14; 15:21; Jn. 8:59; 9:1); “pass” (1Jn. 2:8); “pass forth” (Mt. 9:9); and “depart” (Mt. 9:27). Not the same as parerchomai (GSN-<G3928>) (note, 2Pet. 3:10). Neither word means annihilation, but a change, passing out of operation, or away from man’s realm.

d [doeth the will of God abideth for ever]

Chart: Ten Blessings of Doing the Will of God

1. Entrance into the kingdom (Mt. 7:21)

2. Kept from falling (Mt. 7:24–29)

3. Confirmation that one’s deeds are of God (Jn. 3:21)

4. Answers to prayer (Jn. 9:31)

5. Being blessed (Jas. 1:22–25)

6. Never moved (Ps. 15:1–5)

7. To abide forever (1Jn. 2:17)

8. The new birth (1Jn. 2:29)

9. Righteousness like Christ (1Jn. 3:7)

10. Confirmation of sonship (3Jn. 1:11)1

1 Finis Jennings Dake, The Dake Annotated Reference Bible (Dake Publishing, 1997), 1 Jn 2:15–17.

2:15–17 The world is a morally evil system that is under the influence of Satan and is opposed to God and to Christ’s Kingdom on this earth (2:16; 3:1; 4:4; 5:19; John 12:31; 15:18; Eph 6:11–12; Jas 4:4). The world appeals to people’s fleshly desires and thereby diverts them from God. Those who are from this world need God to redeem them from it.11 New Living Translation Study Bible (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 2008), 1 Jn 2:15–17.

2:15, 16 Some people think that worldliness is limited to external behavior—the people we associate with, the places we go, the activities we enjoy. Worldliness is also internal because it begins in the heart and is characterized by three attitudes: (1) craving for physical pleasure—preoccupation with gratifying physical desires; (2) craving for everything we see—coveting and accumulating things, bowing to the god of materialism; and (3) pride in our achievements and possessions—obsession with one’s status or importance. When the serpent tempted Eve (Genesis 3:6), he tempted her in these areas. Also, when the devil tempted Jesus in the wilderness, these were his three areas of attack (see Matthew 4:1–11).

By contrast, God values self-control, a spirit of generosity, and a commitment to humble service. It is possible to give the impression of avoiding worldly pleasures while still harboring worldly attitudes in one’s heart. It is also possible, like Jesus, to love sinners and spend time with them while maintaining a commitment to the values of God’s Kingdom. What values are most important to you? Do your actions reflect the world’s values or God’s values?

2:17 When the desire for possessions and sinful pleasures feels so intense, we probably doubt that these objects of desire will all one day pass away. It may be even more difficult to believe that the person who does the will of God will live forever. But this was John’s conviction based on the facts of Jesus’ life, death, resurrection, and promises. Knowing that this evil world will end can give you the courage to deny yourself temporary pleasures in this world in order to enjoy what God has promised for eternity.1

1 Life Application Bible Notes (Tyndale, 2007), 2147–2148.

2:15 Believers must love God (2:5) and love their brothers and sisters in Christ (2:10), but they must stop loving this evil world and all that it offers. John was writing to those in the church who had remained true to their faith. They had withstood false teaching and had remained unified together with other believers. But John warned against a secret spiritual danger that could still threaten them. The “world,” as used here, refers to the realm of Satan’s influence, the system made up of those who hate God and his will. Believers should love the people of the world enough to share God’s message with them, but they should not love the morally corrupt system in place in the world. Satan controls this evil world. His world opposes God and his followers and tempts those followers away from God and into sin (see James 4:4).

John wanted to show his readers that to attempt to love both God and the world would be as impossible as trying to combine light and darkness (1:5). Therefore, when you love the world, you show that you do not have the love of the Father in you. These words do not mean that believers are to remove themselves from all contact with the sinful world (that would be virtually impossible), nor are they to stoically refrain from anything pleasurable. They do mean that when contact with the sinful world and its worldly pleasures specifically disagrees with God’s word, then Christians are to turn away from “the world” in order to obey God.

2:16 John warned his readers against loving the world and all that it offers (2:15) because what the world offers is not from the Father. Jesus made clear this tension when he said, The “world” here, as in 2:15, is the present evil system that is ruled by Satan and opposed to God. This “world” has rebelled and fallen into sin. Nothing in this world system loves the Father or finds its source in him.

John placed what the world offers into three basic categories. These three categories are subjective, for they speak of attitudes of the heart. Believers may look perfectly clean and serene on the outside but harbor any or all of these attitudes inside. John feared that this might happen, so he was warning the believers to restrain such desires.

• The lust for physical pleasure. Jesus spoke of how adultery begins not with the act, but with the desire (Matthew 5:28). These words picture any kind of desire but especially the craze for sex. No doubt the people of ancient Ephesus understood this—the pagan religions of their city glorified sex. The world today has many similarities. Sex in all of its immoral and grotesque forms is splashed throughout movies, television, magazines, and computer screens. This appeals to the sinful nature. While this category seems to refer mostly to sexual lust, it could include any sort of selfish or greedy cravings simply to satisfy one’s physical desires in rebellion against God.

• The lust for everything we see. Sins of craving and accumulating possessions (bowing to the god of materialism) could be placed in this category. While sex may also be included here, people’s “eyes” can lust after many things. Believers must not become obsessed with what they see.

• Pride in our possessions. This refers to both the inward attitude and the outward boasting because of an obsession with one’s status or possessions.

All three categories show selfishness and greed. Yet these sins, so subtle as to begin almost unnoticed within the heart, become the temptations that lead to the sin’s outworkings in people’s lives.

2:17 The people who live in rebellion to God with their transient, unfulfilling desires (2:16) are focusing on a world that is already fading away. The workaholic will die unfulfilled. The greedy politician will die in despair. The pleasure-mad party-goers will find their lives ruined by drugs or alcohol. Indulgence never satisfies; it only whets the appetite for more. Christians, however, understand that the world will not last forever and that no one lives on this planet forever. Because they are believers who do the will of God, however, they will live forever. To turn away from the sinful world and hold on to God means to hold on to the eternal. Those who trust in God have already begun a life everlasting.1

1 Bruce Barton et al., Life Application New Testament Commentary (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale, 2001), 1155–1156.

Chap. 2, ver. 15.—“Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.”

I. The world is nature’s heaven. It is a carnal copy of a spiritual joy. It is a figment which he who is the prince of it sets up, whereby, indulging our senses, or pleasing our imaginations, or gratifying our vanity, he makes us rest in happiness which imitates heaven, but is not heaven, because it wants the essence of heaven—it has not God.

II. Observe that that which is forbidden us is not going into the world, but the love of it. It is a very easy thing for a person used to the restraint of a religious education, or from a regard to the opinion of those whom he respects, never to enter into the world’s dissipation, but yet all the while to come to the full under the condemnation of the text because he loves it and cherishes it in his heart. He has a world within. On the other hand, a man, from his necessary employment or a sense of duty, may go into many a worldly scene; he may appear to others a man of the world; but all the while his tastes and desires are away from it; his affections are above; the world is not his joy. And “the love of the Father” may be resting on that man only the more for his relation to that world to which he is unwillingly bound by circumstances over which he has no control.

III. Love is the resting of the affections. Where the heart settles and abides, there we say it lives. It is the satisfying point of desire. There are two great antagonistic principles in every man’s heart, and the only way to expel the one is to bring the other to bear, for they will never long remain together. If we love God, we shall not want the world. As the child’s toy grows valueless to the man, as the track we leave glistening behind us across the ocean, as the dark pit from which we mount up into daylight—such, and less than such, when you have once felt a Father’s mercy and tasted a Father’s love, will all this world seem to you.

J. Vaughan, Sermons, 1865.

Worldly Affections Destructive of Love to God.

There are things in the world which, although not actually sinful in themselves, do nevertheless so check the love of God in us as to stifle and destroy it. They will, by a most subtle but inevitable effect, stifle the pure and single love of our hearts towards God, and that in many ways. For, in the first place, they actually turn away the affections of the heart from God. Love of worldly things plainly defrauds Him of our loyalty, and checks, if it does not absolutely thrust our love to Him out of our hearts. And, in the next place, it impoverishes, so to speak, the whole character of the mind. Even the religious affections which remain undiverted are weakened and lowered in their quality. They are like the thin fruits of an exhausted soil. Consider somewhat more closely the particular consequences of this love of the world.

I. It brings a dulness over the whole of a man’s soul. To stand apart from the throng of earthly things and to let them hurry by as they will and whither they will is the only sure way to calmness and clearness in the spiritual life. It is by living much alone with God, by casting off the burden of things not needful to our inner life, by narrowing our toils and our wishes to the necessities of our actual lot, that we become familiar with the world unseen.

H. E. Manning, Sermons, vol. i., p. 62.

Reference: 2:15.—E. J. Hardy, Faint yet Pursuing, p. 221.1

1 W. Robertson Nicoll, ed., The Sermon Outline Bible: 1 Peter–Revelation, vol. 12 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1958), 138–140.

2:15–17 The Lure of This Fleeting Age. The love of the Father implants a desire to break with idolization of the world.

2:15 Do not love the world should not be read as an utter rejection of the world, for “God … loved the world” (John 3:16). Rather, John warns against devotion to a world system that is opposed to God (cf. John 12:31; James 4:4; 1 John 5:19). Love of the Father probably carries a double meaning, referring both to the love God has for his people and the love they have for him. The former generates the latter (4:7, 9–10).

2:16 In warning against all that is in the world, John does not demonize the whole created order (cf. Gen. 1:31). Rather, he gives examples (desires of the flesh, etc.) of what the believer should guard against. Human desires are part of God’s creation and therefore not inherently evil, but they become twisted when not directed by and toward God.

2:17 the world is passing away. Its appearance of permanence is deceptive. History is not an endless cycle but is speeding toward a conclusion willed by God (cf. v. 8). abides forever. Augustine in a sermon on this text wrote, “Hold fast to Christ. For you he became temporal, so that you might partake of eternity” (Homilies on the First Epistle of John 2.10).

Equivalent Expressions for the “Last Days”

The “last days” (the day of salvation, 2 Cor. 6:2) have already come but the “last day” (the day of salvation and wrath, 1 Thess. 5:1–11) has not yet arrived. The following are equivalent expressions for the “last days” (the period of time between Jesus’ death and resurrection and the final judgment).

“the last days”

Acts 2:17; 2 Tim. 3:1; Heb. 1:2; James 5:3

“the last hour”

1 John 2:18

“the last time”

Jude 18

“the last times”

1 Pet. 1:201

1 Crossway Bibles, The ESV Study Bible (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2008), 2432.

C. The new danger (vv. 15–17).

There is conflict between love for the Father and love for the world. By “the world” John means all that belongs to this life that is opposed to Christ. It is Satan’s system, society opposed to God and taking the place of God. If we love the world, we lose the love of the Father and cease to do His will. Anything in our lives that dulls our love for spiritual things or that makes it easy for us to sin is worldly and must be put away. John mentions three specific problems: the desires of the flesh, the desires of the eyes, and the pride of life. Is this not what the people of the world live for? But living for the world means losing everything in time, because the world is passing away. Lot suffered such loss. But if we live for God, we will abide forever.

There can be no true fellowship without love. Unless we love God and God’s children, we cannot walk in the light and fellowship with God.1

1 Warren W. Wiersbe, Wiersbe’s Expository Outlines on the New Testament (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1992), 769.

15. Love not the world] The ‘world’ here is not the world of nature, nor the world of humanity which ‘God so loved’ (Jn 3:16). It means all in the present order of things which appeals to the soul as an object of desire apart from and in rivalry to God. 16. All that is thus antagonistic to God is summed up under three heads, the separate avenues through which the world-spirit reaches the soul. While the classification is hardly exhaustive, as a category covering all kinds of evil it is very comprehensive, and corresponds to the three elements which appear in the temptation of Eve (Gn 3:6) and in the temptation of our Lord (Lk 4:3–12).11 J. R. Dummelow, ed., A Commentary on the Holy Bible (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1936), 1056.

2:15 Do not love this world. In this verse, the “world” (kosmos [2889, 3180]) is the morally evil system that is opposed to all that God is. In this sense, the world is the satanic system opposing Christ’s Kingdom on this earth. It is the dominating order of things—a system and a people. It is activity apart from and against God. It is anything that arouses “the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life” (2:16 lit. translation; 3:1; 4:4; 5:19; cf. John 12:31; 15:18; Eph 6:11–12; Jas 4:4).

nor the things it offers you. This statement would convict those who deny that they love the world but care keenly about some particular thing the world offers, such as wealth, honor, or pleasure.

for when you love the world, you do not have the love of the Father in you. God and the sinful world are such opposites that it is impossible to love both at once.

2:16 craving for physical pleasure. This refers to any kind of fleshly desire but especially “the craze for sex” (TLB) to which young people are particularly liable. We dare not excuse ourselves of lustful thoughts because they are not from God.

craving for everything we see. Satan tempted Christ this way by showing him all the kingdoms of the world (Matt 4:8–9).

and pride in our achievements and possessions. Many commentators have noted that the three evils mentioned here were the elements in Satan’s temptation of Eve (Gen 3:6) and of Jesus (Luke 4:1–12). Others see them as simply three categories of sin or three examples of sins characteristic of the world.

2:17 anyone who does what pleases God will live forever. In contrast to the three evil desires of the world, which are already “fading away,” the one who does God’s will remains forever united to God.

Commentary

These verses contain a pair of triplets that describe John’s readers as “children,” “fathers,” and “young men.” (Accordingly most translations, including the NLT, set 2:12–14 as poetry.) These three classifications are not physical age groups (John calls all his readers “dear children”—see 2:1) and their order is not chronological. Therefore, it seems that each group is a reference to all John’s readers. For example, viewed as little children, they know their sins are forgiven. Viewed as fathers, they not only have a relationship with God, they have knowledge of God that came from obedience to his commandments. Viewed as young men, they are strong. At the same time, John was being purposely ambiguous, as is inherent in poetry. Another understanding (which is secondary) is that these represent stages of spiritual maturity—for it is the children (the youngest believers) who would be most conscious of having their sins forgiven and of coming to know the Father; and it is the young, strong believers who would be engaged in spiritual warfare by means of God’s Word; and it is the fathers who would have experientially known Christ, the one from the beginning (as this suggests antiquity). It is possible that the “fathers” were the ones who saw and heard Jesus while he was on earth.

The main thrust of the section is to encourage the believers in their pursuit of knowing God experientially. The young children are seen in relation to God as their Father, whom they could know only through the Son (cf. Matt 11:27). The fathers and the young men are said to have known God; this is experiential knowledge. No one can know God the Father apart from the Son. This knowledge, as well as knowledge of the Scriptures, gives them the strength to overcome the evil one (2:14). This strength is not the natural physical vigor of young men but the power of God’s Word in them through the Holy Spirit (Isa 40:30–31). They can enjoy this power and this victory over Satan, John goes on to affirm, only by freeing themselves from the grasp of the evil things of the world.

John makes an unmistakable contrast: Those who love this world do so by pursuing the lust of their flesh, the lust of their eyes, and the pride of possessions (see notes on 2:15–16). They love a world that is passing away; whereas those who love the Father and obey him are those who live forever. Since Satan is in control of the world (5:19), believers must constantly guard against his assaults by becoming saturated with God’s Word (cf. John 17:15–17). We are strong only because the Word of God abides in us.

♦ B. Identifying the False Believers and the True (2:18–27)1

1 Grant Osborne, Philip W. Comfort, Cornerstone Biblical Commentary, Vol 13: John and 1, 2, and 3 John (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2007), 341–342.

In 2:15–17 the author moves from emphasizing the assurance that the members of the community have in their relationship with God to exhorting them about how they are to deal with the world that hates them and is opposed to God. He accentuates this change by using the present tense imperative form of agapaō to begin v. 15. Once again belief and behavior are linked together in John’s assurances and exhortations. Smalley notes that the exhortations can be divided into the following three interconnected stanzas:

2:15 Love of the world

↓

Love of the Father

↓

2:16 comes from the world

↓

comes from the Father

↓

2:17 the world passes away

the one who obeys remains forever

This strophic description illustrates the logic of John’s argument in these verses. Those who are members of the believing community should see that the things of the world, though they are alluring, lead to death and not life. These verses provide apt commentary on the temptations of Eve and Adam in Genesis 3 and the Lord Jesus in Matt 4:1–11 (cf. Luke 4:1–13). The parallels are too striking to be insignificant.

2:15 John begins this verse by issuing the command that the believer is not to love the world or anything in the world. Initially this command sounds strange given the fact that John 3:16 says clearly and beautifully that God loves the world and the fact that 1 John 2:2 says the Son made atonement for the sins of the world. What is the difference? The difference is found in the way John uses the term kosmos in each instance. Contextual considerations are crucial. In these epistles and the Gospel, John employs this term in three distinct and basic ways: (1) the created universe (3:17; 4:17; John 1:10); (2) the world of human persons (John 3:16; 1 John 2:2); and (3) an evil organized earthly system controlled by the power of the evil one that has aligned itself against God and his kingdom (4:3–5; 5:19; John 16:11). In these verses John uses the third meaning. One should note that John is not advocating an ontological dualism or a dualistic cosmology in which the creation is evil. He is advocating a temporal, ethical dualism in which there is a constant battle going on between the realms of darkness and light. That this dualism is temporal and not eternal is made clear by the transient nature of the world and its lust in v. 17.

The verb agapaō, used in this context to describe both the love of the world and the love of the Father could carry a different meaning in each usage. It is argued that when the word is used in its “Christian” sense it should be translated “love,” but when it is used in a negative way it should be translated “take a fancy to” or “to place a higher value on.” The difference in these uses is not the emotion that is felt by the individual but the application of that emotion, or attraction, in a positive or negative manner. When an individual believer fulfills the love command by showing compassion to a brother or sister (2:10), this love is properly motivated and properly directed. When people love the world, they are misapplying this human emotion in a way that will lead to their demise. In a sense love is neutral. The object of one’s love or affection is decisive. One must be careful that this love is going in the right direction and that it acts in a manner consistent with Christian confession. John charges us to love neither the world in general nor the things of the world in particular. The command is comprehensive. Our allegiance must not be divided. Our affection must be focused and specific.

The correct application of love springs from the fact that the believer has a singular loyalty and commitment to the Father. This verse states clearly that one cannot love the world and love God at the same time. The absolute nature of this statement is striking and compels careful and serious reflection. The stakes are high. Because the Father’s kingdom is at war with the kingdom of this world, the two will never coexist peacefully. To pledge allegiance to one side is to declare opposition to the other.

2:16 This verse clarifies in vivid terms those things that come from the evil world and attempt to lead astray those who have believed in Jesus Christ. Again it must be emphasized that this condemnation of everything that is in the world is not a declaration that the world created by God is evil. John fully embraced the doctrine of the goodness of creation as taught in Genesis 1–2 (see John 1:1–18). Rather, it is a proclamation that humanity in its sinfulness has followed evil rather than good and has worshiped the created things rather than the Creator (Rom 1:20). The problem is not that God created the material things of the world. The problem is that people have made these things into idols. The three things listed in this verse—“the cravings of sinful man, the lust of his eyes and the boasting of what he has and does”—should not be seen as a comprehensive list of vices. These are avenues by which sinful humanity is especially prone to pervert the goodness of God’s creation.

John first mentions the “cravings” or “lust” (the NIV translates two occurrences of the Gk. word epithymia by these two English words) of “sinful man” (Gk. sarx, “flesh”). The terms John uses in the Greek text, epithymia and sarx, are basically neutral terms. Epithymia can be used to describe both positive and negative human desires (cf. 1 Thess 2:17, which relates Paul’s “desire” to see his readers; Phil 1:23, where Paul relates his desire to be with Christ; and negatively Rom 1:24, which describes the “sinful desires” of the pagan heart). Most often it is used in the negative sense. The term sarx is not necessarily negative in that it may denote the idea of the whole person in his or her strengths and weaknesses. Yet it is obvious that in our present text John emphasizes the negative meaning of these terms that arises from the tendency of human beings to fulfill the natural desires they have that are contrary to God’s will. We are not sinful because we sin. We sin because we are sinful. We enter the world with a nature and bent predisposed to sin (cf. Rom 3:9–20). The only remedy for this sin condition, which results in both physical and spiritual death, is to become a child of God through faith in Jesus Christ. Schnackenburg argues that John has in mind “the overwhelming sexual desires which drive human beings to excess, the consequences of which can be devastating.”247 Although these types of desires must certainly be included, even emphasized in what John describes, one narrows the meaning of the phrase too much if this becomes the exclusive meaning of the text. John would include anything and any way in which humans improperly fulfill fleshly desires (overeating, drunkenness, etc.).

John then moves to address the “lust of his eyes,” which can be seen as an aspect of the “cravings of the sinful man” that he previously discussed. The eyes in and of themselves cannot be said to be guilty of sinful desires. Our eyes are a precious gift from God (Prov 20:12). They are, however, often the means by which sinful desires are introduced into the mind of the individual. Eyes are windows into the soul. “It is the eyes that lead most directly and quickly from the external observation to evil thoughts latent in the human heart” (cf. Mark 7:21–23). This reality is affirmed in the teachings of Jesus, who in the antitheses in the Sermon on the Mount equates adultery with the lustful look (5:27–30). Again one must be careful not to limit this area of temptation to sexual desire. Dodd notes that the desire of the eyes can be understood as “the tendency to be captivated by the outward show of things, without enquiring into their real values.” This insight cuts to the heart of the issue in that all of these temptations of the world focus on enjoyment in the present without an analysis or understanding of the future ramifications. How an action, or its value, compares with the worth of the eternal things that come from God must always be factored into the equations of life.

The final temptation that John cites is the “boasting of what he [man] has and does.” This translation of the phrase alazoneia tou biou (“the pride or vain glory of life”) focuses on an objective understanding of the genitive construction to condemn pride and boasting about having and doing things this worldly system deems important. Again one should not be too quick to dismiss the subjective genitive interpretation, for it is likely that John is also condemning the pride that results from giving false value to the things of the world. This pride that results from and in worldly possession is an affront to God, for it leads to a glorification of the self and a failure to realize the dependence of humanity upon God, the Creator, for existence. In this area of temptation, individuals make idols of their livelihood, social standing, and any other status symbol that the world determines is important but that matters little to God.252 Pride, prestige, power, and position count for nothing in the kingdom of God. The value system of this world is turned on its head when God provides the evaluation.

2:17 The heart of John’s argument is now given. This final verse of the section “contrasts the outcomes of these two loves, two lives, and two orientations toward Life.” When compared with a life lived in the will of God, the things this life has to offer are really empty imitations of God’s best. The things of the world seem to be of great value, but they are worthless when compared to the eternal blessings that come from doing the will of God. Jesus Christ in his death and resurrection has defeated the world that is opposed to God and has secured life eternal for those who believe.

John links the believer’s confession of faith to his conduct by using the phrase “the one who does the will of God remains forever” to describe who will be a part of God’s eternal kingdom. This idea of doing the will of God is closely linked to Jesus’ mission in the Gospel, for there are several occasions where Jesus explains that he only takes action in accordance with the will of the Father (4:34; 5:30; 6:38; note particularly that involving eternal life for believers in 6:39–40; 7:17). It is likely that John is again exhorting the readers to live as Jesus lived while he was on this earth, that is, solely focused on doing the will of the Father (2:6). As Culpepper notes, “Victory is assured, resistance is required.”

This passage has a clear eschatological focus that emphasizes that the things of the world, even the Earth itself, will one day pass from the scene, just as the darkness is passing away and the true light is already shining (2:8). The kingdom of God on earth was inaugurated in the death and resurrection of our Lord, and it will be established forever with his return. The eschatological nature of this verse provides a fitting transition to John’s discussion of the antichrists who have departed from the community in 2:18–19.1

1 Daniel L. Akin, 1, 2, 3 John, vol. 38, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2001), 107–112.

2:15–17 On Not Loving the World. John exhorts his readers not to love the world and highlights the positive alternative: doing the will of God and thus living forever.

2:15 the world. Not the people of the world nor the created order, but worldly attitudes or values opposed to God. anything in the world. The constituent elements that make up the world are described in v. 16. love for the Father is not in them. If people love the world, they do not love the Father. There is no middle ground (cf. Eph. 2:1–3; Col 1:13; Jas 4:4).

2:16 the lust of the flesh. A general category. The following are subcategories: the lust of the eyes. Sinful cravings that are activated by what people see. the pride of life. Includes being puffed up in pride because of one’s material possessions. The word translated “life” (Greek bios) can mean life, livelihood, living, property, and possessions. Here it means possessions (its predominant use in the NT).

2:17 does the will of God. The opposite of all that is involved in loving the world (v. 16). It includes believing in the Son and loving fellow believers (3:23). lives forever. Jesus promised believers that they will live, even though they die, and that they will live forever (John 6:51, 58; 8:51; 10:28; 11:25–26).1

1 Douglas J. Moo, “The Letters and Revelation,” in NIV Biblical Theology Study Bible, ed. D. A. Carson (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2018), 2261.

“Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world.” What “world” is John talking about? He does not mean the world of creation, that is, the system and order found in the physical creation. In spring the flowers bloom and the trees put out leaves. In the fall the leaves begin to turn all kinds of beautiful colors, like yellow and gold and red. Then the leaves fall off, and winter soon comes. This is not the world we are warned against loving. This is the world God created for our enjoyment.

It is just as the poet says in “The Vision of Sir Launfal”—

And what is so rare as a day in June?

Then, if ever, come perfect days;

Then Heaven tries earth if it be in tune,

And over it softly her warm ear lays;

Whether we look, or whether we listen,

We hear life murmur, or see it glisten.

—James Russell Lowell

I learned that poem when I was in grammar school, and it has always stayed with me. My birthday is in June, and in June I always think of how wonderful nature is.

The hymn writer has put it like this—

Heav’n above is softer blue,

Earth around is sweeter green!

Something lives in every hue

Christless eyes have never seen:

Birds with gladder songs o’erflow,

Flow’rs with deeper beauties shine,

Since I know, as now I know,

I am His, and He is mine.

“I Am His, and He Is Mine”

—Wade Robinson

Isn’t that lovely? John is not talking about the physical earth where beautiful roses and tall trees grow. The wonderful mountains and the falls and the running streams are not what we are to hate. Rather, they are something we can admire and relish and enjoy.

Nor is the world about which John speaks the world of humanity or mankind. We are told that “God so loved the world.” What world? The world of people, of human beings. “… God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son …” (John 3:16).

Then what world does John mean? The Greek word for “world” here is kosmos. It means the world system, the organized system headed by Satan which leaves God out and is actually in opposition to Him. The thing which we need to hate today is this thing in the world which is organized against God.

Believe me, there is a world system in operation today, and it is satanic. John mentions this in his Gospel where the Lord Jesus says, “Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me” (John 14:30). “The prince of this world”—the prince of the world system, which is included in the civilization that you and I are in today. The world system belongs to Satan. He offered the kingdoms of this world to the Lord Jesus, and I don’t think he left out the United States when he made the offer—it all belongs to him, and we are not to love this world. We read in John 16:11, “Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged.” Again, the Lord Jesus is referring to the satanic system that is in this world today. In Ephesians 1:4, when Paul speaks of “… the foundation of the world …”, he is talking about the material creation, but when we come to Ephesians 2:2, he says, “Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world….” What is “the course of this world”? This is a world that is filled with greed, with selfish ambition, with fleshly pleasures, with deceit, and lying and danger. That is the world we live in, and John says that we are not to love the world. We are living in a godless world that is in rebellion against God. Our contemporary culture and civilization is anti–God, and the child of God ought not to love it. We are in the world, but we are not of the world. Many of us must move in the business world, many of us must move even in the social realm, but we do not have to be a part of it.

We need to recognize that we are going to be obedient to one world or the other. You are either going to obey the world system and live in it and enjoy it, or you are going to obey God. Listen to Paul in Galatians 6:14: “But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world.” In effect Paul is saying, “There stands between me and this satanic world system, a cross. Both are bidding for me and, as a child of God, I am obedient unto Him, and I glory in the Cross of Christ.” You can be sure that the world today is not glorying in the Cross of Christ!

Peter also speaks of this: “For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world …” (2 Pet. 2:20, italics mine). He spoke earlier of the corruption of the world. We live in a world that is corrupted and polluted. We are hearing so much today about air pollution and water pollution, but what about the minds which are being polluted by all the pornography and vile language? What about the spirit of man that is being dulled by all these things?

“If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.” You may run with the Devil’s crowd all week long and then run with the Lord’s crowd on Sunday, but it is obvious that the love of the Father is not in you.

In Romans 7 Paul describes his own struggle as a Christian. He says in effect, “I have discovered that in my flesh dwelleth no good thing. I have found that there is no power in the new nature. What I would not do, I’m doing. What the new nature wants to do, the old nature balks at—the old nature backslides and will not do that thing.” So there is a real conflict which goes on in the heart of the Christian as long as he is in the world with that old nature. For the old nature is geared to this world in which we live; it’s meshed into the program of the world.

For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world [1 John 2:16].

John lists these three things that are in the world. These are not only the temptations which face us, they are also the temptations which Satan brought to Eve (see Gen. 3:6) and to the Lord Jesus Christ (see Matt. 4:1–11).

1. “The lust of the flesh.” Eve saw that the tree was good for food—if you were hungry, it was a good place to eat. Scripture condemns gluttony and the many other sins of the flesh. So many things appeal to the flesh. There is an overemphasis on sex today both in the church and out of the church—it is all of the flesh. Satan brought this same temptation to the Lord Jesus: “And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungered. And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread” (Matt. 4:2–3). The Lord Jesus could have done that. The difference between the Lord Jesus Christ and myself is that if I could turn stones into bread, I suspect that I would be doing it, but He didn’t. He was being tested in that same area in which you and I are being tested—the desires of the flesh. We are being tested, and there is no sin in being tested. The sin is in yielding to the temptation. This same principle applies to sex or to any other realm of the desires of the flesh.

2. “The lust of the eyes.” Eve saw that the tree was pleasant to the eyes. Remember also that Satan showed the Lord Jesus Christ all the kingdoms of this world. Let me tell you, they are very attractive, and they are in the hands of Satan. There is a godless philosophy which is trying to get control of the world today. There will come a day when Antichrist will arise—he is coming to rule this world for Satan. This is an attractive world that we live in, with all of its display, all of its pageantry, all of its human glory.

3. “The pride of life.” Eve saw that the tree was to be desired to make one wise. Many people like to pride themselves on their family. They pride themselves on the fact that they come from a very old family and upon the fact that they belong to a certain race. There are a number of races which are very proud of that. That was the appeal which Hitler made to the German people, and it is an appeal to any race. That is a pride of life. It is that which makes us feel superior to someone else. It is found even in religion today. I meet saints who feel they are super–duper saints. As one man said to me, “I heartily approve of your Bible study program on radio.” In fact, he has given financially to our program to help keep it going. He said, “I know a lot of people who listen to it, and they need it,” but he very frankly told me, “I don’t listen to it.” He felt that he didn’t need it, that he had arrived, that he was a very mature saint. Of course, it proves that he is a very immature saint when he even talks like that. Satan took the Lord Jesus to the pinnacle of the temple and said, “Cast yourself down. A great many people will witness it, and You will demonstrate to them Your superiority.” It was probably at a feast time when many would have seen Him, but the Lord Jesus never performed a miracle in order to demonstrate His superiority.

These are the three appeals that the world makes to you and me today. But when we make our tummy our goal in life, when we attempt to make beauty our goal, or even when we attempt to make that which is religious our goal, it leads to the most distorted view of life that is possible. These things are of the world, and they become deadly. We are told that we are not to love these things because God does not love them—He intends to destroy this world system someday. What is our enemy? The world, the flesh, and the Devil. This is the same temptation which Satan brought to Eve and to the Lord Jesus. He has not changed his tactics. He brings this same temptation to you and to me, and we fall for it.

Now John gives us the reason we are not to love this world—

And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever [1 John 2:17].

I have always enjoyed going to England and visiting such places as the Tower of London, Tewkesbury Castle, Warwick Castle, Hampton Court, Windsor Castle, and Canterbury. Many of us have ancestors who came from over there, but those folk were a bloody, cruel, vain, and worldly people. Just recall the way Henry VIII took Hampton Court away from Cardinal Wolsey who was the one who had built it. Poor old Cardinal Wolsey before he died said something like this, “If I had only served my God like I served my king, I wouldn’t be here today.”

My, how Henry VIII could eat! And when he got tired of a wife—he had several—he just sent her to the Tower to be beheaded. Go and look at all of that today—“the world passeth away.” What a story of bloodshed is told at the Tower of London, of the pride of life and of the lust of the flesh. The lust of the eyes also—how beautiful Windsor and Hampton Court are! Even the arrangement of the flowers was made by Sir Christopher Wren, the wonderful architect who also built St. Paul’s Cathedral. There is a glory that belongs to all of that, but it has already passed away. England is just a third–rate power in the world today and maybe not even a third–rate power. All of that has passed away and the lust of it. Where is the lust of Henry VIII today? It is in one of those tombs over there. Just think of all the glory which is buried in Westminster—all of that has passed away.

When I look back to when I was a young man, I wish that somehow I could reach back there and reclaim some of those days and some of the strength which I had then. I wish I could use for God what I squandered when I was young. “The world is passing away.”

“But he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.” Why don’t you work at something which is permanent, something which has stability, something which is going to last for eternity?1

1 J. Vernon McGee, Thru the Bible Commentary: The Epistles (1 John), electronic ed., vol. 56 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1991), 55–60.

2:15 the world (Gk., cosmos) is that organized system headed by Satan that leaves God out and is a rival to Him. Though God loves the world of men (John 3:16), believers are not to love at all that which organizes them against God (see 5:19; John 3:19; James 1:27; 4:4). love of the Father. Our love for the Father.

2:16 the lust of the flesh. Lusts, which have their base in our sinful nature. lust of the eyes, which often leads to greed and covetousness. pride of life. Vainglory, display, or boasting about one’s possessions.

2:17 Doing the will of God (the opposite of loving the world) proves the possession of eternal life and of living forever.1

1 Charles Caldwell Ryrie, Ryrie Study Bible: New American Standard Bible, 1995 Update, Expanded ed. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1995), 1993–1994.

1 John 2:15

The interpretation of vv. 15ff hinges on the right understanding of the term the world and its connotations, for which see below.

Do not love the world. The verb is used here with a non-personal goal in the sense of “to strive after,” “to try to get” (as in, “love the reserved seats in the synagogues,” Luke 11:43, TEV); then, “to prefer,” in the sense of, “to like better than the things of God” (as in, “men love the darkness rather than the light,” John 3:19, TEV). Therefore one often must use another rendering than in v. 10, for example, ‘to let the heart be taken up with,’ ‘to desire (lit. to have a bursting heart)’; or ‘to covet,’ lit. ‘to become small of heart’ (whereas in v. 10 the language concerned has ‘he who feels hurt in his heart for his brother’).

The world. This term occurs frequently in the New Testament in general and in the Johannine writings in particular (103 occurrences out of a total of 183). It is used with various shades of meaning, five of which are the following.

(1) In what may be called its central meaning the world refers to the (orderly) universe, the system of the physical creation, see for example, Acts 17:24. (2) Taken in a more restricted, locative sense the word means “the earth,” as the habitation of mankind, and the place of man’s organization of creation. It is the place where God is at work, sending his Son (1 John 4:9) and where men should serve God (4:17), but where evil forces may be at work too (4:1, 3; 2 John 1:7). (3) In several cases the world is used with a personal reference, meaning mankind as a whole, as in 1 John 2:2; 4:14, cp. also John 3:16. (4) Used metaphorically the word refers to man’s organization of creation, or to his way of life with its possessions, joys, desires, cares and sufferings (3:17).

In these four occurrences the term can be said to be essentially neutral in connotation. But the world can occur also (5) with a negative connotation, standing for all who are, or for all that is, in enmity with God and the believers (see 2:15–17; 3:1, 13; 4:4f, 19). Taken thus it refers to the world and the persons in it as an evil system, as a way of life that is in the power of the evil one and, therefore, is friendly to the false teachers. Then the opposition between world and “God” is parallel to that between “darkness” and “light,” cp. 1:5.

In practical usage the various meanings mentioned are, of course, not so neatly divided as is done here, for there is a certain inner unity among them. Where one of them is predominant, one or more of the other meanings may not be absent, though only in undertone. Translators, therefore, have here an especially delicate task. On the one hand, they must find a rendering that brings out, or at least does not obscure, the specific shade of meaning relevant in the context. On the other hand, they should try to preserve the inner unity of the term, or at least not to differentiate more than is required by idiom.

In order to reach this end it is sometimes possible to use one term, qualifying it according to context. One may have, for example, ‘the earth’ for meaning (2) and, metaphorically used, for meaning (4); ‘those who are in the earth’ for (3); ‘the evil earth,’ or ‘the evil persons in (or things in, or way of life on) the earth’ for (5). Another way to the same end, less explicit than the one just mentioned, is to say for meaning (5), ‘this (here) earth’ (tacitly implying a contrast to another and better one). In some languages it is the derived adjective that has the unfavorable connotation rather than the noun, for example, English “worldly”; the same is true of some Indonesian languages.

To preserve in this way the inner unity of the term is not always possible, however. In some receptor languages, for instance, one simply must use distinctive terms for meaning (2) and meaning (4). In another there exists no word for “world,” “earth,” or even for a wide stretch of land. Therefore, world in the sense of “mankind,” meaning (3), had to be rendered as, ‘people from everywhere.’

The things in the world, or ‘whatever is in the world,’ ‘whatever the world offers,’ ‘things of men’ (a common expression in the language concerned for ‘pagan way of life’); or, making explicit the negative connotation, ‘doing like bad people do.’

The second sentence of the verse states that love for the world and love for God cannot go together (cp. “a man cannot love the Father and love the world at the same time,” Phillips). Thus it expresses the first reason for the exhortation not to love the world, the second reason for which is given in v. 17. Cp. for a similar statement James 4:4, “to be the world’s friend means to be God’s enemy” (TEV).

Love for the Father is not in him. For the construction love for the Father, more lit. “love of the Father,” see “love for God” in 2:5. Taken thus the clause is another way of saying, ‘he cannot love the Father.’

The other interpretation of the construction, in which the Father is the agent of the process, is not to be wholly excluded, however. It is followed, for example, in “the Father’s love is not in him” (TT, footnote), and “he is a stranger to the Father’s love” (NEB), or, shifting to a verb, ‘he cannot love as the Father loves.’ Some translators feel that both meanings of the construction are probably intended. Therefore they prefer a reciprocal interpretation, for example, “there can be no love between (God) the father and men” (cp. TDV). In support of this interpretation one may quote, “we love because God first loved us” (4:19, TEV).

1 John 2:16

The verse serves to show why love for the world and love for God cannot go together.

All that is in the world takes up “the things in the world” (v. 15), but emphasizes it by adding “all.” The three following phrases are given not as an exhaustive enumeration but by way of characteristic examples of “all that is in the world.”

The lust of the flesh, of ‘what the flesh lusts after (or desires, or is hungry for).’ The expression includes sexual desires and sensuality, but its reference is not restricted to this (as is shown, for example, by Gal. 5:16–24).

Lust. The Greek term may have the meaning of “longing.” In cases like the present one and v. 17, however, it is used in an unfavorable sense, ‘sinful longing,’ ‘to desire what is unlawful’; cp. New Testament Wordbook, 42f/25f, DESIRE.

Flesh is, again, a term with various shades of meaning. The principal ones are, (1) the soft substance of which the body is composed (as in Luke 24:39); (2) body (as in Heb 9:10); (3) man, cp. “all flesh” in the sense of “all men” (as in Lk 3:6); (4) the physical, corporeal nature and existence of man, with all restrictions inherent in the fact that he and his emotions are “only human” (as in 1 John 4:2; 2 John 1:7); and (5) human nature and existence, ruled by sin and bearing the consequences of sin (as in Rom 8:5 and in the present verse).

As with world the use of one rendering in all contexts would be the ideal solution. This has actually been tried in several older and some modern versions. Such consistency, however, is often in conflict with the demands of meaningful translation.

On the other hand, one should not differentiate and specify more than is needed to be meaningful and idiomatic. Renderings of (4) and (5), for instance, can often be built on the same expression, for example, ‘the self,’ ‘human/physical nature,’ ‘what is-human (lit. is-like-man-on-earth).’ To such renderings one may have to add a qualification in passages where the negative connotation of (5) is not clear from the context, for example, “the sinful self” (TEV), ‘man’s evil nature.’*

In the present verse the above mentioned considerations may result in renderings like, ‘the (bad) desires of man’s nature,’ ‘what man’s sinful heart is longing for,’ ‘what men, sinners as they are, desire.’

The lust of the eyes, or ‘what the eyes lust after,’ etc. By adding this phrase John emphasizes that man’s desires are aroused chiefly by what he sees, an idea often expressed in the Old and the New Testament. If a shift from noun to verb is required, another subject may have to be used, as in, ‘what people want when they see it,’ “what people see and want” (TEV), ‘that from which one cannot keep one’s eyes.’

The pride of life. The second noun, life, may be the goal of the being proud (cp. “everything … that people are so proud of,” TEV), or its agent, ‘the pride which life gives.’ The latter agrees with the interpretation of the two preceding phrases. With a further shift it leads to a rendering like, ‘life which causes people to boast.’

The term used here for pride refers primarily to the behavior of a conceited and pretentious hypocrite who glorifies himself;* thence renderings such as ‘bragging,’ ‘boasting.’ For these related concepts languages often possess idiomatic phrases, for example, ‘saying, “Look at me,” ’ ‘thinking oneself high (or big),’ ‘lifting oneself up,’ ‘making oneself a chief,’ ‘declaring “I outrank others,” ’ ‘answering haughtily.’ Cp. also New Testament Wordbook/16, BOAST.

Life renders Greek bios (cp. 1:1). The word is used here in the sense of what one needs to sustain life; hence, ‘property,’ ‘possessions,’ ‘riches.’

Is not of the Father but is of the world. The Greek preposition rendered “(out) of” indicates origin, here probably quality as it is determined by origin. Accordingly, the sentence may be rendered, ‘springs from the world, not from the Father,’ ‘does not have the quality of the Father but (has the quality) of the world,’ ‘has nothing to do with the Father, but (has) everything (to do) with the world’. With “to be of the Father” is to be compared also, “to be born of him” (that is, of God) in v. 29.

For other occurrences of “to be of” in John’s Letters see 2:16b; 3:8, 12, 19; 4:1f, 4, 6a, 7; 5:19; 3 John 1:11. Its negative counterpart is found in 2:16a, 19, 21; 3:10; 4:3, 6b. The subject of the verb usually is personal, but in a few cases impersonal, namely “all that” in 2:16, “lie” in 2:21, “love” in 4:7. The object of the prepositional phrase is also personal, with a few exceptions, “the world” in 2:16 and 4:5, “the truth” in 2:21 and 3:19.

The meaning of the construction is always basically the same as the one it has here. The way that meaning has to be rendered may have to be different where features in the context, especially the classes of the participants, are different. For some such renderings see below on 2:19, 21; 3:8; 4:7.

1 John 2:17

The world passes away, and the lust of it. The sentence expresses the second reason for the exhortation given in v. 15a. The verb has durative aspect, referring to a continuing process that will be, but is not yet, completed. It may also be rendered, ‘is ending,’ ‘is coming to its end,’ ‘is on its way to perish,’ ‘will not exist much longer,’ is fading/disappearing.’

The phrase the lust of it briefly sums up the three phrases of v. 16. The pronoun may refer to the goal, that is, to what men desire, which leads to a rendering like, “everything in it that men desire” (TEV). Or it may refer to the agent; hence, ‘what it (or the world) lusts after,’ cp. also, ‘the desires it (or the world) arouses.’ The latter interpretation is in line with that of the comparable constructions in v. 16.

He who does the will of God abides for ever. This sentence is in strong contrast to the preceding one. Whereas the evil world is on the way to its end and has no permanence, those who do God’s will are without end and share in the permanent life of God.

“To do the will of” is a Hebraistic expression often found in the New Testament. It may be rendered here, ‘to act according to God’s will,’ ‘to do what God demands,’ ‘to do what God tells one to do.’ Some idiomatic renderings are, ‘to follow God’s heart,’ ‘to do the thing-loved of god.’ For comparable Hebraisms with “to do” see the note on “do not live according to the truth” in 1:6.

In some receptor languages the will is identified with various parts of the body. This may result in rendering the will of God by such expressions as, ‘the stomach of God,’ ‘what comes from God’s abdomen,’ or, laying a close connection between the voice and the will, ‘the throat/larynx of God.’

“To abide,” that is, to be-and-remain, in this context, ‘to stay,’ or ‘to live.’ Compare the note on “to abide in him” in v. 6. For For ever, see “eternal” in 1:2.

Additional Note on the Subdivision of Part One

Most editors, commentators, and translators Seem to agree that vv. 1:5–2:17 form the first part of the Letter, but there is less agreement on the question how this part is to be divided further. The above given division is not generally accepted. GNT, TEV and others, for instance, divide the part in three sections, namely, 1:5–10 (headed, “God is light”), 2:1–6 (“Christ our advocate/helper”), and 2:7–17 (“The new commandment”). In doing so they seem to be taking the forms of address (“my little children” in 2:1, and “beloved” in 2:7) as marking subdivisions of the discourse.

This solution is certainly a possible one, even more so when the last section is divided into two, 7–11 and 12–17. But in the opinion of the present authors a stronger case can be made for a division that is based on certain similarities, repetitions, and parallelisms, as discussed in the above notes.1

1 C. Haas, Marinus de Jonge, and J. L. Swellengrebel, A Handbook on the Letters of John, UBS Handbook Series (New York: United Bible Societies, 1994), 54–59.

2:15 When the moon shines, it’s actually reflecting the light of the sun. Sometimes the earth gets in the way, though, so that the moon’s light is diminished. Similarly, we have an enemy that prevents us from reflecting the Son’s light on us. That enemy is called the world.

Do not love the world. When John talks about “the world,” he’s not talking about planet earth. He’s talking about an organized system headed by Satan that draws us away from God’s love and will. If you love the world, you lose intimate fellowship with God. You love the world when it owns your affections and governs your choices by getting you to exclude God.

2:16–17 What does the world offer you? First, it promises to satisfy legitimate desires in illegitimate ways (the lust of the flesh). Eating is legitimate; gluttony is worldly. Sex is legitimate; immorality is worldly. Second, the world tempts your mind through what your eyes see (the lust of the eyes). The biblical word for this is covetousness, which is desiring and pursuing that which is not legitimate for you to have. Third, there is the pride in one’s possessions (2:16)—that is, living to impress others. What those in love with the world forget, however, is that the world with its lust is passing away. Worldliness makes the “now” more important than eternity. But you are passing through, and the world is passing by. It’s transient. Only the one who does the will of God remains forever (2:17). The price tag for loving the world is the loss of personal intimacy with God.1

1 Tony Evans, The Tony Evans Bible Commentary (Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 2019), 1373.

2:15–16 The world. See article on The Christian’s Relationship to the World11 J. Wesley Adams and Donald C. Stamps, Fire Bible (Springfield, MO: Life Publishers International, 2011), 1 Jn 2:15–16.

15. Love not the world—that lieth in the wicked one (1 Jn 5:19), whom ye young men have overcome. Having once for all, through faith, overcome the world (1 Jn 4:4; 5:4), carry forward the conquest by not loving it. “The world” here means “man, and man’s world” [Alford], in his and its state as fallen from God. “God loved [with the love of compassion] the world,” and we should feel the same kind of love for the fallen world; but we are not to love the world with congeniality and sympathy in its alienation from God; we cannot have this latter kind of love for the God-estranged world, and yet have also “the love of the Father in” us.

neither—Greek, “nor yet.” A man might deny in general that he loved the world, while keenly following some one of the things in it: its riches, honors, or pleasures; this clause prevents him escaping from conviction.

any man—therefore the warning, though primarily addressed to the young, applies to all.

love of—that is, towards “the Father.” The two, God and the (sinful) world, are so opposed, that both cannot be congenially loved at once.

16. all that is in the world—can be classed under one or other of the three; the world contains these and no more.

lust of the flesh—that is, the lust which has its seat and source in our lower animal nature. Satan tried this temptation the first on Christ: Lu 4:3, “Command this stone that it be made bread.” Youth is especially liable to fleshly lusts.

lust of the eyes—the avenue through which outward things of the world, riches, pomp, and beauty, inflame us. Satan tried this temptation on Christ when he showed Him the kingdoms of the world in a moment. By the lust of the eyes David (2 Sa 11:2) and Achan fell (Jos 7:21). Compare David’s prayer, Ps 119:37; Job’s resolve, Job 31:1; Mt 5:28. The only good of worldly riches to the possessor is the beholding them with the eyes. Compare Lu 14:18, “I must go and see it.”

pride of life—literally, “arrogant assumption”: vainglorious display. Pride was Satan’s sin whereby he fell and forms the link between the two foes of man, the world (answering to “the lust of the eyes”) and the devil (as “the lust of the flesh” is the third foe). Satan tried this temptation on Christ in setting Him on the temple pinnacle that, in spiritual pride and presumption, on the ground of His Father’s care, He should cast Himself down. The same three foes appear in the three classes of soil on which the divine seed falls: the wayside hearers, the devil; the thorns, the world; the rocky undersoil, the flesh (Mt 13:18–23; Mk 4:3–8). The world’s awful antitrinity, the “lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life,” similarly is presented in Satan’s temptation of Eve: “When she saw that the tree was good for food, pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise,” Ge 3:6 (one manifestation of “the pride of life,” the desire to know above what God has revealed, Col 2:8, the pride of unsanctified knowledge).

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

17. the world—with all who are of the world worldly.

passeth away—Greek, “is passing away” even now.

the lust thereof—in its threefold manifestation (1 Jn 2:16).

he that doeth the will of God—not his own fleshly will, or the will of the world, but that of God (1 Jn 2:3, 6), especially in respect to love.

abideth for ever—“even as God also abideth for ever” (with whom the godly is one; compare Ps 55:19, “God, even He that abideth of old): a true comment, which Cyprian and Lucifer have added to the text without support of Greek manuscripts. In contrast to the three passing lusts of the world, the doer of God’s will has three abiding goods, “riches, honor, and life” (Pr 22:4).1

1 Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible, vol. 2 (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997), 529.

2:15–17

Do Not Love the World

2:15. “The world” could refer to everything but God; here it means the system in competition with God. Just as Israel in the Old Testament repeatedly had to decide between allegiance to God and allegiance to the pagan nations around them, the Christians scattered among the nations had to choose Christ above whatever in their cultures conflicted with his demands. In the case of John’s readers, refusal to compromise might be a costly proposition (3:16).

2:16. The Old Testament often related the eyes to desire, especially sexual desire, and pride. Both Judaism and philosophers (e.g., Aristotle, Epictetus) condemned arrogant boastfulness. By listing the three vices together, John might allude, as some commentators have suggested, to Genesis 3:6, although the language here is more general.

2:17. Judaism spoke of the world passing away but of God’s word remaining forever (cf. also Is 40:6–8). John’s words here could encourage those who preferred death for the sake of Christ over the survival that the world offered (cf. 1 Jn 3:16).1

1 Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 1 Jn 2:15–17.

15–17. Love not the world. An exhortation to all three classes just named. The love of the world and of God are not reconcilable. See notes on James 4:4. By “the world” is meant the ways of the world, its passions, pleasures and pursuits. 16. For all that is in the world. This sinful world is comprehended under three heads. The lust of the flesh. The desires which spring from the appetites and passions. The lust of the eyes. The desires that are aroused by appeals made to our eyes. The pride of life. The vain glory of the world; its foolish display. Sensuality, avarice and pride, nearly, but not quite, illustrate what is meant. 17. And the world passeth away. All things are transient, but he who does the will of God builds on eternal foundations.11 Barton Warren Johnson, The People’s New Testament: With Explanatory Notes (St. Louis, MO: Christian Publishing Company, 1891), 1 Jn 2:15–17.

2:15 The exhortation begins, Do not love the world or anything in the world. The present form of the imperative is used in the prohibition, ‘do not love’ (mē agapate), indicating that the author is presenting the love of the world which he counsels his readers against here as an ongoing action. The love involved in this exhortation carries a different meaning from the love (of fellow believers) mentioned in 2:10. There love is focussed on the well-being of another, whereas here it is focussed on the pleasure and gratification one hopes to receive. The various meanings that the word ‘world’ carries in 1 John have been listed above (see comment on 2:2). There can be no doubt that in the present context it means ‘worldly attitudes or values that are opposed to God’ (cf. Jas 4:4). The difference between ‘the world’ and ‘anything [lit. “the things”] in the world’ is the difference between the world thought of as a whole and the constituent elements which make it up. What constitutes ‘the world’ in this context is clarified in 2:16.

Before explaining what constitutes ‘the world’, the author explains, using a conditional sentence, the consequences of loving ‘the world’. He begins, If anyone loves the world.… The form of the conditional sentence used (ean + subjunctive in the protasis) indicates that the author is projecting (rather than asserting) a particular situation in which people love the world. The use of the present subjunctive (agapa) indicates that the action being projected is ongoing. What it means to love the world becomes evident as this section unfolds, but, in a word, it means to be taken up with all that is in the world (as defined in 2:16) instead of seeking to do the will of God. What the outcome of this projected love of the world would be is stated in the apodosis: the love of the Father is not in him. As noted above (see comment on 2:5a), the expression ‘the love of God’, or, as here, ‘the love of the Father’, is susceptible to a number of interpretations (our love for God; God’s love for us; love which originates with God). But in the present context it is clear that ‘the love of the Father’ means the believers’ love for the Father, because it stands in opposition to believers’ love for the world. What the whole conditional sentence conveys, then, is that if people love the ‘world’, they do not love the Father.

2:16 While not stated explicitly, the main point of this verse is to explain why love for the world is incompatible with love for God. The author does this by showing that those things which make up the world (as he will define them) are antithetical to God. To make his point the author gives a definition of everything in the world. This definition involves three elements. The first of these is the cravings of sinful man (lit. ‘the desire of the flesh’ [hē epithymia tēs sarkos]). The word “desire” (epithymia) is found 38 times in the NT. In only three places does it have positive connotations (Luke 22:15; Phil 1:23; 1 Thess 2:17); in all the rest it has morally negative connotations, as it does in the present context, where the NIV translates it as ‘cravings’. This is a general category, and the second and third elements of those things which comprise the world are subcategories.80 The second of them is the lust of his eyes (lit. ‘the desire of the eyes’), that is, those sinful cravings which are activated by what people see, and lead to covetousness. Covetousness is one part of what makes up the ‘cravings of sinful man’ in this context. The third element is his pride in possessions (lit. ‘pride of life’, alazoneia tou biou). The word bios has a range of meanings, including ‘life’, ‘livelihood’, ‘living’, ‘property’, and ‘possessions’. It is used in 3:17 clearly with the sense of property or possessions, and this is the predominant use of the word in the NT. To construe it here, then, as ‘possessions’, as the NIV does, not only makes good sense but is also in line with the only other use of the word in 1 John (see 3:17) and the predominant use in the NT. Being puffed up in pride because of one’s material possessions is the second of those things which make up the ‘cravings of sinful man’ in this passage.

It has sometimes been suggested that the three elements of the world mentioned here represent a conscious allusion on the part of the author to the temptation of Eve in the garden: the craving of the flesh for the taste of the fruit itself, the desire of the eyes stimulating her to covet what was forbidden, and the pride of life which would result from eating the fruit when she became ‘like God’. This is ingenious, but, if our analysis of the text above is correct, this is not at all what the author had in mind when he wrote these things.

Having described the constituent elements that make up the world, the author reminds his readers that everything in the world comes not from the Father but from the world. Everything that makes up the world, those attitudes and values which are defined in 2:16, are ‘not from God’. Clearly then, as the author says in 2:15b, ‘if anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him’. This is more than enough reason for any believer not to love the world. However, there is another reason why believers should not love the world, and this is spelled out in the next verse.

2:17 The other reason why believers should not love the world is that the world and its desires pass away. Using a present tense form of the verb ‘to pass away’ (paragetai), the author depicts the world’s passing as an ongoing process. Already in 2:8 he has spoken in a similar vein about the darkness passing away because the true light of Jesus Christ is already shining, and that provides the clue to the meaning here. Because of all that has been set in motion by God through the coming of Jesus Christ, the world is passing away and its days are numbered (cf. 1 Cor 7:31). All that is antithetical to God and his grace is passing away; it is doomed. There is no future in worldliness. While the author says that the world and its desires pass away, he adds, but the man who does the will of God lives [lit. ‘remains’] forever. There will come a time when the world which is passing away will have passed away, but those who do the will of God will not have passed away with it, for they will remain forever.

In the Fourth Gospel Jesus speaks of his doing the will of God five times (4:34; 5:30; 6:38, 39, 40), and in each case it relates in one way or another to his carrying out the mission on which the Father sent him. What the author means by doing ‘the will of God’ in this context, however, is somewhat different. It is the opposite to all that is involved in loving the world. It means avoiding the ‘lust of the eyes’ and ‘pride in possessions’. Looking beyond the immediate context, doing the will of God in 1 John involves believing in his Son and loving fellow believers (3:23).

Probably the best explanation of what it means to ‘remain forever’ is to be found in the teaching of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel. Again and again Jesus stresses that those who believe in him (sometimes expressed in terms of eating the bread he gives, or keeping his word, or hearing his voice) shall never perish but shall live and remain forever (6:51, 58; 8:51; 10:28; 11:26).1

1 Colin G. Kruse, The Letters of John, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Leicester, England: W.B. Eerdmans Pub.; Apollos, 2000), 94–97.

1. Resisting the world (2:15–17)

2:15. The world—a moral and spiritual system designed to draw humanity away from the living God—is profoundly seductive (see v 16), and no Christian, however advanced, is fully immune to its allurements.

If a Christian does love the world or the things in it, he does not love God. John is not saying that God does not love those who love the world, but that God’s love is not working in and through those who love the world. It is impossible to love both the world and God at the same time.

2:16. All that is in the world can be summarized under three categories the apostle names here. Taken together they summarize the totality of the allurements of this godless system.

The first is the lust of the flesh, that is, every illicit physical activity that appeals to people’s sinful hearts. These are those things the flesh craves, such as illicit sexual pleasure or addictive drugs.

The second element of the world is the lust of the eyes, that is, whatever is visually appealing but not proper to desire or obtain. The object before the eyes might be a person or thing, but the desire to have it is what is called elsewhere as covetousness.

The pride of life means “the vain display of earthly life.” The Greek word rendered “pride” is alazoneia (arrogance, pretentiousness, or boasting about self, possessions, or accomplishments).

The Revisionists probably maintained that one could freely participate in the activities of the world. They may have argued that since God is its Maker, one was simply using what the Creator had made. But although the physical world is “of God” who created it, the world as a moral system is not. All that is in the world bears the taint of wickedness (cf. 1:5).

2:17. The world is also transient: The world is passing away. When the world no longer exists as an entity morally and spiritually opposed to God, none of its illicit experiences will exist either. The lust of it, that is, the world’s sinful gratification, is every bit as transient as the system it reflects.

By contrast, he who does the will of God abides forever. There is an eternal permanence to the character and activity of such a person. Since the “abiding” life has already been referred to (v 6) and is a prominent theme in the epistle (see comments on v 28), likely this is a reference to that kind of life. The one who does the will of God is inseparable from the Christ likeness which such a person has achieved. Likeness to Christ can give boldness at the Judgment Seat of Christ (4:17; cf. 1 Cor 3:11–15; 2 Cor 5:10).1

1 Zane C. Hodges, “The First Epistle of John,” in The Grace New Testament Commentary, ed. Robert N. Wilkin (Denton, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 2010), 1201–1202.

Verse 15. Love not the world] Though these several classes were so well acquainted with Divine things, and had all tasted the powers of the world to come; yet so apt are men to be drawn aside by sensible things, that the Holy Spirit saw it necessary to caution these against the love of the world, the inordinate desire of earthly things. Covetousness is the predominant vice of old age: Ye fathers, love not the world. The things which are in the world, its profits, pleasures, and honours, have the strongest allurements for youth; therefore, ye young men, little children, and babes, love not the things of this world. Let those hearts abide faithful to God who have taken him for their portion.

The love of the Father is not in him.] The love of God and the love of earthly things are incompatible. If you give place to the love of the world, the love of God cannot dwell in you; and if you have not his love, you can have no peace, no holiness, no heaven.

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

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

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

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

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

Verse 17. The world passeth away] All these things are continually fading and perishing; and the very state in which they are possessed is changing perpetually; and the earth and its works will be shortly burnt up.

And the lust thereof] The men of this world, their vain pursuits, and delusive pleasures, are passing away in their successive generations, and their very memory perishes; but he that doeth the will of God—that seeks the pleasure, profit, and honour that comes from above, shall abide for ever, always happy through time and eternity, because God, the unchangeable source of felicity, is his portion.1

1 Adam Clarke, The Holy Bible with a Commentary and Critical Notes, New Edition., vol. 6 (Bellingham, WA: Faithlife Corporation, 2014), 908.

A. Do Not Love the World (2:15–17)

2:15 Things that belong to the world are not just material objects. They are things that absorb human love for the Father to an undue degree, even to the point of supplanting God (see John’s warning about idols in 5:21 and note there).

2:16 John warned against what the body desires, what the eyes itch to see, and what people work hard to acquire. These are not from the Father but from the world.

2:17 Like the darkness in verse 8, the world with its lust is passing away because of the coming of Christ. This opens the way for doing God’s will and establishing fellowship with Him forever.1

1 Robert W. Yarbrough, “1 John,” in Holman Illustrated Bible Commentary, ed. E. Ray Clendenen and Jeremy Royal Howard (Broadman & Holman, 2015), 1369.

Love not the world (μη ἀγαπατε τον κοσμον [mē agapāte ton kosmon]). Prohibition with μη [mē] and the present active imperative of ἀγαπαω [agapaō], either stop doing it or do not have the habit of doing it. This use of κοσμος [kosmos] is common in John’s Gospel (1:10; 17:14ff.) and appears also in 1 John 5:19. In epitome the Roman Empire represented it. See it also in James 4:4. It confronts every believer today. If any man love (ἐαν τις ἀγαπᾳ [ean tis agapāi]). Third-class condition with ἐαν [ean] and present active subjunctive of ἀγαπαω [agapaō] (same form as indicative), “if any keep on loving the world.” The love of the Father (ἡ ἀγαπη του πατρος [hē agapē tou patros]). Objective genitive, this phrase only here in N. T., with which compare “love of God” in 2:5. In antithesis to love of the world.

1 John 2:16

All that (παν το [pān to]). Collective use of the neuter singular as in 5:4, like παν ὁ [pān ho] in John 6:37, 39. Three examples, not necessarily covering all sins, are given in the nominative in apposition with παν το [pān to]. “The lust of the flesh” (ἡ ἐπιθυμια της σαρκος [hē epithumia tēs sarkos], subjective genitive, lust felt by the flesh) may be illustrated by Mark 4:19 and Gal. 5:17. So the genitive with ἡ ἐπιθυμια των ὀφθαλμων [hē epithumia tōn ophthalmōn] (the lust of the eyes) is subjective, lust with the eyes as organs as shown by Jesus in Matt. 5:28. The use of the “movies” today for gain by lustful exhibitions is a case in point. For ἀλαζονεια [alazoneia] see on James 4:16, the only other N. T. example. Ἀλαζων [Alazōn] (a boaster) occurs in Rom. 1:30; 2 Tim. 3:2. Βιος [Bios] (life) as in 3:17 is the external aspect (Luke 8:14), not the inward principle (ζωη [zōē]). David Smith thinks that, as in the case of Eve (Gen. 3:1–6) and the temptations of Jesus (Matt. 4:1–11), these three sins include all possible sins. But they are all “of the world” (ἐκ του κοσμου [ek tou kosmou]) in origin, in no sense “of the Father” (ἐκ του πατρος [ek tou patros]). The problem for the believer is always how to be in the world and yet not of it (John 17:11, 14ff.).

1 John 2:17

Passeth away (παραγεται [paragetai]). “Is passing by” (linear action, present middle indicative), as in verse 8. There is consolation in this view of the transitoriness of the conflict with the world. Even the lust which belongs to the world passes also. The one who keeps on doing (ποιων [poiōn] present active participle of ποιεω [poieō]) the will of God “abides for ever” (μενει εἰς τον αἰωνα [menei eis ton aiōna]) “amid the flux of transitory things” (D. Smith).1

1 A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1933), 1 Jn 2:15–17.

15. Vv 15–17 form the remaining subsection of the passage 2:12–17. The preceding subsection (vv 12–14) acts as a forceful introduction to vv 15–17. These three latter vv are related to what has gone before; but they also provide a contrast to vv 12–14, and (in addition) act as a bridge to the following section, vv 18–29 (See further the literary analysis above.)

In vv 12–14 John has been describing, in very positive terms, the spiritual character of the true believer, as opposed to the heretic who falsely claims to have faith in God through Christ. Now, in vv 15–17, he turns from the Church to the world, and directly exhorts all his members to reject worldliness, as a condition of “living in the light.” Vv 12–14 consist of a series of doctrinal statements, the practical implications of which are not ignored (cf. vv 12, 13b, 14c), whereas vv 15–17 contain a series of ethical exhortations, the theological basis of which is consistently apparent. Once more, belief and behavior are inextricably linked in John’s teaching and appeal. This writer’s negative statements, some of which appear here, are usually fairly concise, and set in direct antithesis to their positive counterparts (see also 2:11, 19, 22–23a, 3:12; cf. Malatesta, Interiority, 174).

The exhortation of vv 15–17 is presented in three interlocking strophes, balancing the threefold structure of vv 12–13 and 14. Each contains a striking contrast. Thus:

15 Love of the World

Love of the Father

↓

16 comes from the world

comes from the Father

↓

17 the world passes away

the one who obeys God remains for ever.

Μὴ ἀγαπᾶτε τὸν κόσμον μηδὲ τὰ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ, “Do not love the world, or worldly things.” In vv 12–14 the characteristic tense, used to describe those who belong to “the new order of life inaugurated by Christ” (Dodd, 39), is the perfect indicative. Believers have experienced the knowledge of God and of his forgiveness in Christ, and they have been given the spiritual strength to conquer the evil one. In vv 15–17 the dominant tense is the present imperative; for now John moves from “affirmations about the Christians’ standing to warnings about their behaviour” (Stott, 98). He passes from a description of the “new order” to a discussion about the “old order” of the world, and the proper attitude which the believer should adopt toward it.

The first command is, “do not love the world (τὸν κόσμον).” The term κόσμος (used here for the second time in 1 John; see 2:2) appears in the letters and Gospel of John with two basic meanings: the created universe, or life on earth (cf. 3:17; 4:17; also John 1:10); and human society, temporarily controlled by the power of evil, organized in opposition to God (cf. 5:19; 4:3–5; also John 16:11). It is the latter meaning which κόσμος carries in this verse and vv 16–17 (where the word occurs six times in all). According to the biblical witness, there is nothing wrong with God’s living creation as such (John 1:3, 10; cf. Gen 1:31, “God saw all that he had made, and it was very good”). Rather, as John sees, it is an attitude of worldliness which is culpable: a determination to be anchored to a society which by nature does not know God, and is inclined to reject him (3:1; cf. John 15:18–19; 17:25).

There is, moreover, no conflict between the injunction here, “do not love the world,” and the statement in John 3:16 that God “loved the world.” For even if the world of men has rejected God, that world remains the object of God’s love and salvific activity (cf. 2:2; 4:9, 14); and victory over the world’s opposition is in the end assured (2:17; cf. John 16:33). Meanwhile the Christian, who has moved from the “world” of darkness to the sphere of light (1:5; cf. 1 Pet 2:9), is called to resist “worldly things” (τὰ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ, which is a unique expression in the NT). Details of these will be exemplified in v 16. It is such a disposition toward “worldliness” which is to be rejected, and not the world (with its legitimate pleasures) or human society as such. For while believers are “in” the world, they do not belong to it (they are not “of” it) ultimately (4:17; cf. John 17:11, Christians are ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ, “in the world”; and 17:16, they are not ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου, “of the world”). For this reason the world hates them (3:13).

On the meaning of “world” in this context, and also in vv 16–17, see further J. Guhrt, NIDNTT 1 (1975) 525–26; also Stott, 101–103; Malatesta, Interiority, 178–80, and the literature there cited. cf. also Brown, Community, 63–65 (for John’s attitude toward the world in the Fourth Gospel), and 143–44.

The injunction to resist worldliness, to choose light rather than darkness, presupposes a background of dualism: the struggle between good and evil. There is, however, no need to locate that dualism in Hellenistic, gnostic thought (so Bultmann, 33 n.18; cf. Dodd, 40). Given that the basic indebtedness of the Johannine church and its tradition was Jewish rather than Greek (see the introduction, xxv; also Smalley, John, 41–68), it is likely that the thought and literature of Judaism would have provided a leading influence on John’s outlook at this point (and throughout the section vv 15–17). And, as Malatesta (Interiority, 175–77) has shown (cf. N. Lazure, RB 76 [1969] 180), we do indeed find that a moral (as opposed to a cosmic, Greek) dualism underlies the Judaic doctrines of the two desires which vie within man, a concept developed by the rabbis, supremely in the Mishnah (cf. Isa 26:3, a good yeṣr; Gen 6:5; 8:21, an evil yeṣer; see also the Qumran documents, e.g. 1QS 5:5; 1QH 1:37); the two spirits which seek to claim the heart of man (1 Sam 16:14; cf. 1QS 4:23); and the two ways which a man may follow (Deut 30:15–20; Jer 21:8). In some intertestamental texts (e.g. T. Asher 1:3–5), these themes (two desires, two spirits, and two ways) become fused. Such ideas, of course, reappear in the NT (as here) and beyond (cf. also Matt 6:24 par.; Jas 4:4; Barn. 18–20).

Μὴ ἀγαπᾶτε τὸν κόσμον.… ἐάν τις ἀγαπᾷ τὸν κόσμον, “Do not love the world.… if anyone loves the world.” The command to reject worldliness (“do not love the world”) forms a contrast to the affirmative characterization of the spiritual qualities belonging to a true Christian which have been listed in vv 12–14. But the injunction (μὴ ἀγαπᾶτε … ἐὰν τις ἀγαπᾷ, “do not love … if anyone loves”) also looks back to 2:10, where the ἀγαπητοί (“beloved,” v 7) are reminded that anyone who loves his brother “remains in the light.” There they are told to love; here love is forbidden.

Some commenatators (e.g. Bultmann, 33 n.19; also Marshall, 143) argue that the verb ἀγαπᾶν, “to love,” as used in this context, means not love in the Christian sense of ἀγάπη (“love”), but rather (and in line with common Gr. usage) appetitus, meaning “to take a fancy to,” or “to place a higher value on” (they compare John 3:19, 12:43; also 2 Tim 4:10). Admittedly John is referring in v 10 to a compassionate care for other people; whereas here he is speaking of a selfish desire for pleasure which may be derived from material things. However, perhaps we should not distinguish too sharply between these two connotations of “love,” as “love” and “desire.” “Attraction” is a fundamentally human emotion; the question is whether that attraction is properly motivated, and directed to the right object. As a Christian, I may love the right person for the right reasons, and in the right way; but equally my love may be completely misdirected.

So here, the love of any Christian (John seems to be suggesting) may be directed, rightly and creatively, toward the brothers (cf. v 10), as a mark of “living in the light.” But it may also be bestowed, wrongly and selfishly, on the world and on worldly things. That this is a correct understanding of ἀγαπᾶν here is confirmed by the fact that John uses the same verb in both contexts: “whoever loves (ὁ ἀγαπῶν) his brother” (v 10); “do not love (μὴ ἀγαπᾶτε) the world” (v 15). The point is that, like “desire” (ἐπιθυμία, v 16), “love” (ἀγάπη) can go both ways; and John’s appeal is that the love of his readers should be properly directed.

οὐκ ἔστιν ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ πατρὸς ἐν αὐτῷ, “the Father’s love is not in him.” John’s exhortation not to love the world is based on two propositions. First, love for the world and love for the Father are mutually exclusive (vv 15–16); and second, the world is transitory, whereas the active believer is an inheritor of eternal life (v 17).

In this v the contrast is clearly stated: it is impossible to love the world and the Father at the same time. That is to say, commitment in any deep sense to worldly attitudes (as opposed to a responsible existence in society, and a genuine concern for its needs) inevitably militates against commitment to God. The expression ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ πατρός (“the Father’s love”) is unique in the NT (cf. ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ θεοῦ “God’s love,” in 2:5; also John 5:42), and it was possibly formulated as a result of the reference to Christians as “(little) children” who have known the Father (v 14a; but see 3:1–2). The Father’s children experience most intimately the Father’s love (cf. the contrast in v 16b).

The genitive (ἡ ἀγάπη) τοῦ πατρός may be interpreted as objective, meaning man’s love for God; in which case John is saying that love for the world and love for the Father cannot coexist (so Marshall, 143–44). But the subjective sense of the phrase “the Father’s love” (the love which belongs to the Father) cannot be excluded from the meaning of this passage; in which case the writer is claiming that if anyone loves the world, this can be taken as proof that God’s love has not come to dwell in him (cf. ἐκ τοῦ πατρός, “from the Father,” in v 16; thus Houlden, 73). In other words, both ideas are probably present (cf. v 5): love for the world inhibits a love for God which both answers his and derives from it (cf. 4:19; also John 17:26). For this reciprocal interpretation see Westcott, 64; similarly Haas, Handbook, 58; Malatesta, Interiority, 183. (For the term ἀγάπη in 1 John see the comment on 2:5; also 2:10; 4:7–12. For ἀγάπη/ἀγαπᾶν see further Segovia, Agape.)

Thus, John’s imperative is clear. Right behavior must follow right belief; for only by the former can the latter be attested. God’s gift of love and life must be properly used: by loving him in return, and by rejecting worldliness.

16. John continues his appeal for the genuine Christian (described in vv 12–14) to avoid worldly attitudes, and therefore worldly conduct, by exemplifying what is meant by “worldly things” (τὰ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ, v 15a). In so doing he explains why the world’s love and God’s love cannot exist together (v 15b): “for (ὅτι) everything in the world derives from the world.” The significance of this statement is discussed in the following comments.

ὅτι πᾶν τὸ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ, “for everything in the world.” This phrase, like its parallel in the previous v (τὰ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ, “worldly things”), is unique in the NT. The writer is still speaking about the κόσμος (“world”) as a place where sinful attitudes and desires can be expressed by fallen people (see the comment on v 15). John’s dualism is ethical, not cosmological. Like the biblical authors generally he does not regard God’s creation, the material world itself, as inherently evil; it is man’s inclination to follow evil instead of good by worshiping material things (rather than God their creator) which is condemned. In themselves all finite objects in any case derive “from the Father” (v 16b); it is a false view of them which “makes them idols” (Westcott, 64; cf. 5:21).

ἡ ἐπιθυμία τῆς σαρκός, “sinful desire.” The first example of “worldliness” is a general one; and (despite the structure of the sentence, with its repeated καί … καί, “and … and”) the following two instances (“a craving for what is seen,” and “pride in one’s life style”) are to be regarded as further definitions of what is here described as “sinful desire” (ἡ ἐπιθυμία τῆς σαρκός, literally, “the desire of the flesh,” taking τῆς σαρκός, “of the flesh,” in its natural sense as a subjective genitive).

The background to this phrase (ἡ ἐπιθυμία τῆς σαρκός) may well have been the sensual environment, typical of Asia Minor during the first century a.d., which surrounded the Johannine church when the Gospel and letters of John were being written (cf. Dodd, 41–42). But in addition, and more fundamentally, the writer of 1 John was probably indebted to a Jewish and biblical context for his understanding and use of the term σάρξ, “flesh,” meaning (in some texts) the nature of man as a whole, in his distance from God (cf. 3:17; also Gen 8:21; Ps 51:5; Isa 31:3; 1QH 4:30; Rom 8:5; Eph 2:3). See further J. A. T. Robinson, The Body. A Study in Pauline Theology. London: SCM Press (1952) 11–33; also A. C. Thiselton, NIDNTT 1 (1975) 671–82.

“Flesh” (σάρξ) is sometimes used neutrally in John, to denote humanity in physical terms (cf. 4:2; 2 John 7; also John 1:14; 6:51–55; 17:2). Similarly, “desire” (ἐπιθυμία), as used in the NT, is ultimately a morally neutral term; for human desires may be either good or bad (cf. 1 Thess 2:17, which speaks of Paul’s “intense longing” to see his readers; against Rom 1:24, describing the “sinful desires” of the pagan heart; see also the comment on v 15). However, in a biblical context σάρξ may also, and obviously, be represented as the source of wrong “desires,” including (but by no means exclusively) sexual cravings (cf. Schnackenburg, 129–30). The “desires” which John has in mind here are, clearly, ethically wrong. So that it is the opposition of the “fleshly” (attitude) to the “spiritual” which is characterized in this passage as ἡ ἐπιθυμία τῆς σαρκός (cf. John 3:6; 6:63). As with the “world” (cf. vv 15, 16a), there is in John’s view nothing inherently wrong with “the flesh”; rather, the writer is at this point indicating his disapproval of any attempt on the part of a Christian to live in purely “fleshly” (or “worldly”) terms. (Note that the related concepts of the world, the flesh and the devil are mentioned in close proximity in vv 14–16; so Stott, 100.)

The complete phrase, ἡ ἐπιθυμία τῆς σαρκός (“sinful desire”), therefore refers to fallen human nature in general; to a disposition of hostility toward God, and not simply to particular bodily lusts (cf. Haas, Handbook, 58). John is concerned to discourage such an inclusive expression of “worldliness” on the part of his readers: that is, a determination to live on their own account, apart from God (cf. Bultmann, 33–34). For the Jewish, rather than the Greek, background to John’s thought at this point see Lazure, RB 76 (1969) 177–90; also Schnackenburg, 129, who points out the association between “evil desire” and “the flesh” in the literature of Qumran (e.g. 1QS 11:9, 12; 1QH 10:22–23).

καὶ ἡ ἐπιθυμία τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν, “a craving for what is seen.” The writer further defines what may be involved in “sinful desire” by describing two of its possible aspects. One is a sinful “craving for what is seen” (literally, “the desire of the eyes”; taking τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν, “of the eyes,” as another subjective genitive): that is to say, “every variety of gratification of which sight is the instrument” (Law, Tests, 150), both physical and intellectual. The eyes alone, among the organs of sense, are (interestingly enough) mentioned as agents of perverted instinct. But cannot a blind person be guilty of lust or envy (for ἡ ἐπιθυμία, “desire,” see the comment above)?

By themselves, the eyes are obviously innocent of wrong desires. However, they may become the means whereby wrong desires are allowed to take root and grow in the human will (cf. Matt 5:28, “anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart”; also T. Reub. 2:4). In the OT there is a connection between the eyes and the sins of pride (e.g. Isa 5:15), desire (e.g. Josh 7:21) and unchastity (e.g. Gen 39:7; cf. Ecclus 9:8). See further Malatesta, Interiority, 184.

καὶ ἡ ἀλαζονεία τοῦ βίου, “pride in one’s life style.” The other aspect of “sinful desire” which John specifies is “pride in one’s life style.” The term ἀλαζονεία means “boastful pride” (arrogance, pretension) for which there is no real basis. But the literal translation of the whole expression, ἡ ἀλαζονεία τοῦ βίου, will depend on the way in which the genitive τοῦ βίου is understood. If it is taken as a subjective genitive, for the third time in this triad (so Malatesta, Interiority, 184), the phrase signifies “the pride deriving from life” (where βίος is, as always, “life in its external aspect”; so Brooke, 48). That is to say, John is condemning the empty boasting which can result from a false estimate of worldly possessions and attitudes. But if (with BAG, 34) τοῦ βίου is interpreted as an objective genitive, the meaning in view is, “boasting about such worldly things (must be avoided).”

However, these two senses need not be too sharply distinguished (so Marshall, 145 n.39; cf. Law, Tests, 152); for pride resulting from worldly things, and pride in those things, are scarcely separable from each other. We have adopted the translation, “pride in one’s life style,” without intending to exclude either sense; and also as a reminder that the externals of life include attitudes and activities (“styles” of life) as well as material possessions and attractions. But see, on the other side, Joüon (RSR 28 [1938] 480–81), who regards ἀλαζονεία as “la présomption des richesses” (boasting about riches).

For βίος see further 3:17, where the meaning is (more strictly) “material possessions.” For ἀλαζονεία, and its cognate adjective ἀλαζών (“boastful”), see Jas 4:16; Rom 1:30; 2 Tim 3:2. John probably uses the noun ἀλαζονεία rather than ἐπιθυμία (“desire”) in the third of these three phrases because, in contrast to the flesh and the eyes, life styles are more obviously (but not wholly) exterior to man (cf. Joüon, RSR 28 [1938] 479–81; see also the comment on ἐπιθυμία above).

Some have found in John’s threefold description of worldly desires and attitudes, which are to be avoided by the Christian, a parallel with the three factors which (according to Gen 3:6) led Eve to disobey God: she saw that the fruit of the forbidden tree was good for food, pleasing to the eye and desirable for gaining wisdom (so Morris, 1264); or a recollection of the three temptations of Jesus (Luke 4:1–12): the desire for the support of natural life, the offer of the kingdoms of the world, and the call to claim a manifestation of God’s power (so Westcott, 62); or (ibid.) some correspondence with the “three master vices which occupy a prominent place in ancient and medieval ethics”: φιληδονία (voluptas, lust), πλεονεξία (avaritia, avarice) and φιλοδοξία (superbia, pride). But all these attempts to draw parallels are less than satisfactory, since in each case the correspondences are by no means exact. Houlden, 74, finds a parallel between John’s triad and the “three nets of Satan” listed in CD 4:17–18. These are riches, fornication and the profanation of the temple. However, this attempted link with the literature of Qumran appears to be entirely tenuous.

οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς ἀλλὰ ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου ἐστίν, “derives not from the Father but from the world.” John’s threefold parenthesis is at an end. He has exemplified what he means by “everything in the world” which must be avoided, rather than loved (v 16a; cf. v 15a): namely, selfish human desire, which is “stimulated by what the eye sees and expresses itself in outward show” (Marshall, 146). Reform must start from within!

Now the writer resumes his thought by picking up the phrase πᾶν τὸ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ, “everything in the world” (v 16a). All worldly things, he says in effect, owe their derivation to “the finite order in so far as it has become estranged from God” (Brooke, 49). The world, human existence and material possessions are not sinful in themselves; it is man’s wrong attitude to these, and his insistence on being allied to them apart from God, which produce a materialistic character: a “worldliness” which is not holy, as it can be, but sinful. Love of the Father comes from the Father; but love of the world comes from the world (vv 15–16). Worldly conduct on the part of all Christians is to be steadily avoided; they are not to “love the world or worldly things” (v 15). John’s explanation, in this v, of what is meant by the “world” and “worldly things” shows the prohibition to be very necessary for anyone who claims to be “living in the light” (1:7), or who is actually trying to do so.

For the force of the preposition ἐκ (“from”), in the phrases ἐκ τοῦ πατρός (“from the Father”) and ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου (“from the world”), indicating origin or derivation, see John 17:16 (Christians are not ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου, “of the world”); see also the comment on v 15a. As Westcott (66) points out, the use of the formula εἶναι ἐκ (“to be from”), to express derivation and dependence, is characteristically Johannine (cf. 2:21; 3:19; 4:5; also John 3:31). See also Malatesta, Interiority, 200–201. John probably uses πατήρ (“Father”) as a description for God which would be particularly suited to those whom he is addressing as “children” (τεκνία, παιδία; vv 12, 14; cf. the use of πατήρ in v 15b).

17. The writer now advances his second reason for the command, “do not love the world” (v 15a). The first has been set out in vv 15 and 16: love for the world and the Father’s love are mutually exclusive. The second ground is that “the world is passing away.” (It is also possible to take this v as enunciating further proof for the fact that, as v 15 declares, love for the world militates against God’s love: namely, that these are at variance not only in their source but also in their outcome; cf. Westcott, 66. But this interpretation seems less natural than the one already suggested.)

καὶ ὁ κόσμος παράγεται καὶ ἡ ἐπιθυμία αὐτοῦ, “the world, with its desire, is passing away.” In the section 2:12–17, John has been contrasting the character of the genuine Christian (vv 12–14) with possible wrong attitudes to the world on the part of any believer or claimant to faith. He has issued the command, “do not love the world, or worldly things” (v 15) in this sense. It is not the created world as such which is wrong (as some heretically inclined members of his congregation might have believed), but the “world” as an external system which occupies the place of God (cf. Westcott, 66), a disposition toward worldliness which involves alignment with “worldly things,” to the exclusion of things spiritual. (For the term κόσμος, “world,” see further the comment on v 15.)

The trouble with “the world,” as thus understood, is (John claims) that “it is passing away” (παράγεται). In the first place this appears to mean that worldly attitudes, like material possessions, are transient; they do not last. One important reason why Christians should renounce worldliness, then, is that the things of the world are impermanent, and to that extent without ultimate value. However, although this dualist stance carries neo-Platonist overtones, John’s dualism, here and in the Gospel, is clearly ethical rather than cosmic (see above, xxiv, 81–82). Since the decisive moment of the Incarnation, according to Johannine theology, matter has become the potential carrier of spirit, and all “history” must be regarded in a new and positive light. (See further Smalley, John, 206–210.)

As in vv 15 and 16, therefore, the primary meaning of ὁ κόσμος here is not the created order itself, but “the things in the world” (τὰ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ, v 15; cf. πᾶν τὸ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ, “everything in the world,” v 16); and these have been illustrated in v 16b. That this is a correct inference is supported by the words which appear in apposition to ὁ κόσμος παράγεται, “the world is passing away.” Not only are worldly things transitory, and “passing away”; so also is the “desire” of the world (for ἐπιθυμία, “desire,” see the comment on v 16). The genitive αὐτοῦ (“its”) is certainly subjective (the sinful desire which belongs to the world); but an objective sense (the desire which is directed toward worldly things) cannot be excluded completely. The “world,” as both the origin and goal of wrong desire, is thus shown to be finite (cf. Titus 2:12).

Marshall (146) suggests the possibility that ἐπιθυμία in this context may be taken as an abstract noun representing a concrete reality: “the person who desires the world.” This certainly balances the personal form of the contrast in v 17b, “anyone who does God’s will.” But if an exact balance were intended, would not John have used a more obviously “personalized” expression in the first part of the v?

The primary sense of κόσμος here, then, is “worldly desires.” It is possible nevertheless that when John says, “the world, with its desire, is passing away,” he is also referring to the end of the created world (the theatre of society) as such (against Schnackenburg, 131–32). The writer has stated in 2:8 that “the darkness is fading (ἡ σκοτία παράγεται, using the same verb as here), and the real light is already shining.” In other words, with the advent of Jesus, as the genuine light of the world (cf. John 8:12; 9:5; 12:46), the old era of darkness has begun to pass away and the new age of light has been initiated (cf. 1:5). Now John claims that “the world is passing away,” meaning that the dissolution of the elements, as well as of earthly desires, is even now in process. The present tense of the verb, παράγεται, is “durative”; it expresses a continuous progression which will be, but has not yet been, completed.

For this idea cf. 1 Cor 7:31 (“this world in its present form is passing away,” using παράγει); also, in terms of the consummation of the process, 2 Pet 3:7–13; Rev 21:1–4. John’s eschatology at this point is characteristically “realized” in emphasis. For him the “end” is present as well as future; salvation and judgment are immediate, and not only ultimate, in their effect (cf. John 6:35 and 40; 3:18 and 5:29). In one sense the “last hour” has already struck; in another sense it is still to come (2:18). For the primarily Jewish background to the thought of v 17a see Schnackenburg, 132.

ὁ δὲ ποιῶν τὸ θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ μένει εἰστὸν αἰῶνα, “but anyone who does God’s will remains for ever.” The statement in the second part of this v contrasts sharply with the assertion just made by the author about the nature of the world and worldly desires. Whereas “the world is passing away,” anyone who does God’s will “remains for ever.” One is material and quantitative, the other spiritual and qualitative (on John’s dualism see the comment on v 17). The world is transitory; but the obedient Christian (who renounces sin, obeys the command to love, and rejects worldliness) is an inheritor of eternity. Such a person, indeed, has been given eternal life (cf. 3:14; 5:11–12; also 2 Cor 4:18, “what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal”).

ὁ δὲ ποιῶν τὸ θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ, “but anyone who does God’s will.” In v 15 John has said that the love of the world and the love of the Father cannot coexist. It might have been expected, therefore, that when he came to describe the permanence of Christian existence he would have used such an expression as “anyone who loves the Father (remains for ever).” Instead, in typical style, he balances theology and ethics; he combines spirituality with its practical outworking. The person who loves God is essentially the obedient Christian: “one who does God’s will” (ὁ δὲ ποιῶν τὸ θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ).

The “will of God” is the divine principle which makes up and holds together life and the universe. Permanency therefore results solely from remaining within the eternal will (or purpose) of God (cf. Rev 4:11; also 1 Thess 4:3). Westcott (67) suggests that the phrase “will of God” is used here, rather than “will of the Father” (cf. vv 15, 16), to indicate divine “majesty” instead of divine “love.” Possibly, however, these two attributes of God should not be too sharply distinguished. The expression “will of (the) Father” is exclusively Matthean (e.g. Matt 7:21; but cf. Gal 1:4); whereas “the will of God” is fairly common in the NT (cf. Rom 1:10; 1 Pet 2:15). In the Fourth Gospel θέλημα (“will”) occurs eleven times; and only once is it used to refer to man’s will, rather than to the will of God or of Jesus (John 1:13). When Jesus speaks in the Gospel of God’s will, it is usually in terms of (doing) “the will of him who sent me” (John 4:34; 5:30; 6:38–39; but see 6:40, τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πατρός μου, “my Father’s will”; also 7:17).

“Doing God’s will” is a frequent theme in the OT and Judaism (Ps 40:8; 1QS 5:9–10; see further Malatesta, Interiority, 187; Schnackenburg, 132 n.3). The obedience of Jesus to the Father’s will, which is a prominent feature of John’s Gospel (e.g. 4:34) is represented in 1 John as providing a model for Christian disciples to imitate. Thus believers are to follow the example of Jesus in their obedience to God’s commands (1 John 2:3–4; 3:22; 5:2–3), especially by believing in the name of Jesus himself, and by loving one another (3:23; cf. 2:5–6; 3:3, 7). The thought of “obedience” in this v (above all, obedience to God’s command of love) harks back to 2:10.

The term θέλημα is used only once more in 1 John, at 5:14. On “doing the will of God” see further Malatesta, Interiority, 187–88.

μένει εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, “remains for ever.” John completes the thought of vv 15–17 by saying that whereas the world is passing away, the obedient believer “remains for ever.” Here is the culmination of the writer’s appeal. Love of the world comes from the world; and the world is transient. But love of the Father comes from the Father; and as the Father is eternal, so is the life which he gives to the believer. It belongs to another dimension altogether, one which is permanent.

The idea of “remaining” (using μένειν, “to remain”), or “abiding,” is characteristic of John’s theology, especially with reference to Jesus (cf. John 15:4, “remain [μείνατε] in me, and I will remain in you”). The thought here is logical, and may indeed include some such christological overtones. The loving Christian “remains” (μένει) for ever; and by living “as Jesus lived” (2:6), he remains as Christ himself remains (John 12:34, ὁ Χριστὸς μένει εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, “the Christ will remain for ever”; cf. 8:35). For the absolute use of μένειν see (e.g.) John 15:16.

The phrase εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα (“for ever”) is common in the LXX, and also in the Johannine writings. In the Gospel of John this formula is often used to designate the promise of future blessings to those who believe in Jesus (e.g. John 6:51, 58, ζήσει εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, “he will live for ever”); and a christological flavor may, for this reason also, be contained in our present v. The expression itself occurs only twice in the letters of John: here, and in 2 John 2 (with ἔσται “it will be”). For the connection between obedience and “remaining for ever” see T. Judah 21:1; also 1QH 4:21–22. Malatesta (Interiority, 189) points out that in 3:24 obedience to God’s commandments relates to mutual “remaining”; whereas here the accent is on the permanent state of “remaining,” rather than its place. On “remaining for ever” see further Malatesta, Interiority, 189–91.

Explanation

The passage 2:12–17 contains John’s description of the character which belongs to the orthodox believer, as opposed to the heretic who falsely lays claim to faith (vv 12–14); it also includes his exhortation that those who have received these spiritual gifts should resist worldliness, as a means of “walking in the light” (15–17; cf. 1:7).

As often in 1 John, a section of parenesis follows a series of dogmatic statements. John’s practical concern for his church members is never far from his theological teaching, given on their behalf. Indeed, doctrine and ethics belong closely together throughout these vv, since the writer’s explanation of true spirituality (vv 12–14) has a constantly practical thrust (including the possibility of forgiveness, and of victory over sin); and his challenge to reject “the world” (vv 15–17) is based on theological truths about God and society. Moreover, a challenge to John’s readership is implicit throughout: to be a genuine Christian should mean the knowledge of God, a relationship with Christ and strength to conquer evil (vv 12–14). It should also mean, negatively, a rejection of worldly attitudes and, positively, a loving obedience of God (vv 15–17).

This assumes that John is here addressing the orthodox Christians within his congregation. Given the nature of the teaching in this passage, there is every reason to suppose that believers are uppermost in the writer’s mind at this point; since the person who is firmly committed to Christ is, for that very reason, subject to strong temptation (cf. 1 Cor 10:12; against Braun, ZTK 48 [1951] 262–92, who detects a weakening in these vv of the paradox belonging to 1:8–10, that confession of sins and possessing the truth of God can belong together).

But worldly attitudes may also have been characteristic of the heterodox secessionists, who were gnostically inclined and therefore (in some cases) ready to give themselves up to the world as a mark of their contempt of it (see the introduction, xxiv). To such readers also John says that worldliness must be rejected.

The strong contrast evident in these vv between the Johannine church “inside” and the world “outside,” together with its ethical dualism (Qumranic in type; cf. v 15), may suggest that the character of John’s circle was entirely sectarian and “withdrawn.” However, if we admit that the Johannine community was in any way “withdrawn,” in our view it can only have been in an organizational and not a doctrinal sense (against Bogart, Perfectionism). The church which ultimately owed its allegiance to John at Ephesus may have been to some extent self-contained (although Paul had been in Ephesus before John); but even if the Johannine version of the Jesus tradition existed in an individual form, it cannot ultimately be divorced (we submit) from mainstream Christianity in the Church of the first century a.d..1

1 Stephen S. Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, vol. 51, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1984), 80–90.

a. The Forbidden Sphere (2:15–17)

(1) the Love of the World (2:15)

The world—our enemy. One of our enemies. The Wicked One is enemy number one; the flesh is enemy number two; the world is enemy number three. The love of the world is, indeed, a very great peril. John tells us what a love of the world begets: “Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world” (2:15a). Doing so creates a vicious cycle—a love of the world begets a love of the things of the world, and a love of the things of the world begets an increasing love of the world. The word used here for “world” is kosmos, which has a considerable range of meaning in the New Testament. It can signify, for instance, the world as created by God, a place of great beauty and order. So used, the word stems from a root that carries the idea of something carved and planed and polished. It can also mean the world of human beings for whom Christ died (1:2). But in the sense John uses the word here, the world represents human life and society with God left out, human life and society as organized by Satan and in whose lap it lies (5:19). The world is the Devil’s lair for sinners and his lure for saints. Thus, the world is one of God’s enemies—it murdered His Son, and it hates His people.

The world is typified in the Old Testament in various ways—Egypt and its culture, Babylon and its cults, and Assyria and its cruelty are all Old Testament types of the world. The Bible story began in Babylon in Mesopotamia from whence Abraham came. The home of idolatry, Babylon represents this world’s false religion. Egypt, representing this world’s foolish wisdom, was a land of pyramids and of a people obsessed with death and ways to circumvent it. It was a land of great splendor and of many skills, in all of which Moses was learned. But it knew not God. The Pharaohs spent vast fortunes on their tombs, only to have them plundered and their mummies carted off to the world’s museums to be gawked at by thoughtless millions. Assyria, with its fiendish cruelty and its love for waging ruthless war, represents this world’s fearful wickedness.

Abraham no sooner escaped the world, as represented by Babylon, than he fell headlong into the world as represented by Egypt (Gen. 12:1–2, 10–20). It was a painful experience.

We are to “love not the world” or its “things.” Such was the bane of the rich fool of the Lord’s parable (Luke 12:15–21)—the man was rich, but he was not rich toward God. He loved things, but ended up leaving them all behind. And the key to the parable is “things” for things are the very essence of the trap set for us by the world. Its technique is to so focus our attention on this world so that we forget the world to come. That was the essential difference, right at the beginning of the human story, between the descendants of Cain (Gen. 4:17–24) and the descendants of Seth (Gen. 5:1–32). Cain’s kind of people lived for this world and what it had to offer. They built a great antediluvian society filled with the fruits of art, science, and industry—and lost it all in the Flood. Seth’s kind of people lived for the world to come—into which they were gathered, one by one, when their days on earth were done.

That, too, is what went wrong in Solomon’s life. In his early days he lived for God and walked with God. Over time, however, he greatly expanded his harem and lived increasingly like an Oriental despot. The affairs of this world and the deceitfulness of this world’s riches engulfed him, and in the end he made a shipwreck of his life, spending his last days wringing his hands over a misspent life. The book of Ecclesiastes reveals Solomon’s despair, wailing over having lived for so long for the wrong world.

John tells us also what a love of the world betrays: “If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him” (2:15b). Those who live for this world betray a serious lack of understanding that this world is the enemy of God. John could still hear the earnest voice of the Lord Jesus as it rang through that Jerusalem upper room, praying that His loved ones might be protected from the world, from its attacks and from its attractions. His sheep had been given to Him “out of the world” (John 17:6) so that now we, as God’s people, are in the world but no longer of the world.

The Lord said bluntly, “I pray not for the world” (John 17:9), so entrenched was its enmity. Thus, how can we love and admire a system that hates our Beloved? Moreover, the Lord was anticipating an imminent departure from the world: “Now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee” (John 17:11). The world’s animosity toward the Lord Jesus would soon be transferred to His people.

“While I was with them in the world,” He said, “I kept them in thy name” (John 17:12). That was nowhere more evident than in Gethsemane when the Romans, the rabbis, and the rabble came to arrest Him. He at once gave Himself up and secured the disciples’ escape. “The world hath hated them, because they are not of the world,” He continued, “even as I am not of the world” (John 17:14). Doubtless, many in high places would have rejoiced to make a clean sweep of the disciples as well as getting rid of their Master.

Still, the Lord did not pray for His disciples to be immediately raptured: “I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil” (John 17:15)—from the Evil One, that is, he who is the prince and god of this world. Satan would indeed attack them and their heirs and successors in the world from that day to this. The very gates of hell itself, however, cannot prevail against His church (Matt. 16:18).

The presence of His own in a world that hates them is for a purpose: “As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world,” Jesus declared (John 17:18). They are heaven’s ambassadors to the lost people of this world, having the task to evangelize and win out of the world a people for His name.

We can see, then, why coming to terms with this world betrays a sad state of soul. When the world puts on its friendly faces, it is often more to be feared than when it puts on its frowning face. Either way, it is our foe, and coming to terms with it is treason and betrays a cold heart.

(2) the Lusts of the World (2:16)

There are three of them, beginning with the world’s shameful appetites: “For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh … is not of the Father, but is of the world” (2:16a). We all have legitimate drives and desires placed in our hearts by an all-wise Creator, and the world knows how to whet our appetites and inflame them into lusts. Satan fans them into flames and they become roaring infernos, destructive to ourselves and to those around us.

The first temptation that Satan presented to the Lord Jesus in the wilderness, when He was at the end of His physical endurance and famished with hunger, appealed to the flesh. Satan challenged Jesus to turn stones into bread and put an end to His gnawing hunger. For fleshly temptations do not necessarily come from sexual desires. Consider, too, that there in the wilderness, the Lord Jesus was in the absolute center of God’s will—being hungry! The Devil sought to seduce the Lord away from His allegiance to His Father by persuading Him that if God loved Him, He would provide for His physical needs, and if He failed to do so, He would be perfectly justified in taking matters into His own hands. Something else is to be considered, as well—if Jesus had transformed the stones into bread and eaten it, the bread would have killed Him; a long fast has to be broken with liquids not solids.

We can learn, then, that indulging “the lust of the flesh” does not necessarily mean climbing into bed with another man’s wife or indulging some pornographic or perverted desire. It can mean simply satisfying a legitimate desire in an illegitimate way. The lust of the flesh is one of the world’s devices for weaning us away from complete trust in the goodness and faithfulness of God.

The second lust of the world is its showy appearance: “For all that is in the world … the lust of the eyes … is not of the Father, but is of the world” (2:16b). The world knows how to catch our eye and draw us into this, that, or the other form of lust. The Devil, in other words, knows how to package and merchandise his wares so that they appear attractive.

Satan used “the lust of the eye” with great effect in the temptation of Eve: “When the woman saw that the tree was pleasant to the eyes” (Gen. 3:6), she succumbed to its allure. It was much the same with Adam in his turn. Satan was too clever to try to deceive Adam with the kind of twisted logic he used on Eve. Indeed, he did not tempt Adam at all. He faded into the background and allowed Eve to tempt him. She stood there before him in her lost condition, desirable and persuasive, and he saw her, ruined by the Fall, and loved her notwithstanding all. She held out the forbidden fruit and, Adam, like Eve, followed his eyes into sin.

It was the same with the foolish young man whom Solomon watched from his window. The brief twilight of the Middle East had settled over the street where the wanton woman lived. She was a bold-faced hussy, and she seduced the fellow with her words—but what words! She painted alluring pictures with words, describing how she had picked him out from among all the others passing by. Then she talked about her bed, about its coverings of tapestry, its carved legs, the fine linen that covered it, the aloes, myrrh, and cinnamon that breathed their fragrance all about it. Then when the picture danced with allure in his mind’s eye, she moved on to the heady draft of pleasure that could be his if he came with her. He could drink and drink again until the dawn. These painted pictures did their work, and no doubt, she made full use of her physical attractions to reinforce her alluring words. He went with her, “as an ox goeth to the slaughter,” added Solomon (Prov. 7:22).

We cannot help but wonder how Solomon knew so much about the woman, and why he sat there by his window, moralizing, when he had all the authority of the law and all the power of the throne behind him to put a permanent stop to her activities. He evidently had watched her at work many times before. “She hath cast down many wounded, yea many strong men have been slain by her,” he confides to us. It would seem that Solomon himself, for all his poems and proverbs, found the woman alluring. The lust of the eye was as fatal to him as it was to the young man he described. He apparently enjoyed watching the woman ply her trade, finding her as attractive as she was deadly.[9]

The third lust of the world is its shallow applause. “For all that is in the world … the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world” (2:16c). Pride is the ultimate sin, the original sin, the sin that transformed brilliant Lucifer into the very Devil himself (Isa. 14:9–14; Ezek. 28:12–19). There can be pride of place, pride of race, and even pride of grace. It can take many forms. What do we take pride in? That is the quarter from which this particular danger is likely to come. As F. F. Bruce points out, there can even be a form of pride that apes humility. The loathsome Uriah Heep, in Dickens’s masterpiece David Copperfield, exuded this most objectionable sort of pride—pride in his humility.

When David first met Uriah Heep, he shook hands with him, and it was an unpleasant experience in itself. “I rubbed mine afterwards,” David Copperfield confesses, “to warm it, and to rub his off.” What follows is a typical exchange between the two, with David as the speaker:

“You are working late tonight, Uriah,” says I.

“Yes, Master Copperfield,” says Uriah.

As I was getting on the stool opposite, to talk to him more conveniently, I observed that he had not such a thing as a smile about him, and that he could only widen his mouth and make two hard creases down his cheeks, one on each side, to stand for one.

“I am not doing office-work, Master Copperfield,” said Uriah.

“What work, then?” I asked.

“I am improving my legal knowledge, Master Copperfield,” said Uriah. “I am going through Tidd’s Practice. Oh, what a writer Mr. Tidd is, Master Copperfield!”

My stool was such a tower of observation, that as I watched him reading on again, after this rapturous exclamation, and following up the lines with his forefinger, I observed that his nostrils, which were thin and pointed, with sharp dints in them, had a singular and most uncomfortable way of expanding and contracting themselves; that they seemed to twinkle instead of his eyes, which hardly ever twinkled at all.

“I suppose you are quite a great lawyer?” I said, after looking at him for some time.

“Me, Master Copperfield?” said Uriah. “Oh, no! I’m a very ‘umble person.”

It was no fancy of mine about his hands, I observed; for he frequently ground the palms against each other as if to squeeze them dry and warm, besides often wiping them, in a stealthy way, on his pocket-handkerchief.

“I am well aware that I am the ‘umblesh person going,” said Uriah Heep, modestly; “let the other be where he may. My mother is likewise a very ‘umble person. We live in a ‘umble abode, Master Copperfield, but have much to be thankful for. My father’s former calling was ‘umble. He was a sexton.”

“What is he now?” I asked.

“He is a partaker of glory at present, Master Copperfield,” said Uriah Heep. “But we have much to be thankful for. How much have I to be thankful for in living with Mr. Wickfield!”

I asked Uriah if he had been with Mr. Wickfield long.

“I have been with him going on four year, Master Copperfield,” said Uriah, shutting up his book, after carefully marking the place where he had left off. “Since a year after my father’s death. How much have I to be thankful for, in that! How much have I to be thankful for, in Mr. Wickfield’s kind intention to give me my articles, which would otherwise not lay within the ‘umble means of mother and self.”

“Then, when your articled time is over, you’ll be a regular lawyer, I suppose?” said I.

“With the blessing of Providence, Master Copperfield,” returned Uriah.

“Perhaps you’ll be a partner in Mr. Wickfield’s business, one of these days,” I said, to make myself agreeable, “and it will be Wickfield and Heep, or Heep late Wickfield.”

“Oh, no, Master Copperfield,” returned Uriah, shaking his head, “I am much too ‘umble for that!”

He certainly did look uncommonly like the carved face on the beam outside my window, as he sat, in his humility, eyeing me sideways, with his mouth widened, and the crease in his cheeks.

“Mr. Wickfield is a most excellent man, Master Copperfield,” said Uriah. “If you have known him long, you know it, I am sure, much better than I can inform you.”

I replied that I was certain he was; but that I had not known him long myself, though he was a friend of my aunt’s.

“Oh, indeed, Master Copperfield,” said Uriah, “Your aunt is a sweet lady, Master Copperfield.”

He had a way of writhing when he wanted to express enthusiasm, which was very ugly; and which diverted my attention from the compliment he had paid my relation, to the snaky twistings of his throat and body.[10]

Besides pride of humility, however, is another form of pride—pride of scholarship. This kind of pride is exhibited by those, for instance, who tell us that “thoughtful people” can no longer accept the plenary, verbal inspiration of the Scriptures.

Frederic William Farrar was a scholar of great repute in his day—Dean of Canterbury, honorary chaplain to the Queen, canon of Westminster, and later Archdeacon of Westminster and Chaplain of the House of Commons. Farrar was an intellectual of the highest order, as well as a popular preacher, and his two-volume Commentary on the Life of Christ makes fascinating reading.

That did not prevent him from falling into the trap of thinking that scholarship was essential to understanding the Scriptures. In his introduction to his two-volume commentary on the books of Kings, he tells us that he accepted without reservation the conclusions of the so-called “higher criticism,” which was coming into its stride in his day.

Of the destructive theory, he says, “I do not see how there can be any loss in the positive results of … Higher Criticism.”[11]

Our blessed Lord, with His consummate tenderness, and divine insight into the frailties of our nature, made tolerant allowance for inveterate prejudices. “No man,” He said, “having drunk old wine straightway desireth new; for he saith, The old is good.” But the pain of disillusionment is blessed and healing when it is incurred in the cause of insincerity. There must always be more value in results earned by heroic labour than in conventions accepted without serious inquiry. Already there has been a silent revolution. Many of the old opinions about the Bible have been greatly modified. There is scarcely a single competent scholar who does not now admit that the Hexateuch is a composite structure; that much of the Levitical legislation, which was once called Mosaic, is in reality an aftergrowth which in its present form is not earlier than the days of the prophet Ezekiel; that the Book of Deuteronomy belongs, in its present form, whatever older elements it may contain, to the era of Hezekiah’s or Josiah’s reformation; that the Books of Zechariah and Isaiah are not homogeneous, but preserve the writings of more prophets than their titles imply; that only a small section of the Psalter was the work of David; that the Book of Ecclesiastes was not the work of King Solomon; that most of the Book of Daniel belongs to the era of Antiochus Epiphanes; and so forth.[12]

In defending his love affair with the critics of his day, he says,

When we study the Bible it is surely one of our most primary duties to beware lest any idols of the caverns or of the forum tempt us “to offer to the God of truth the unclean sacrifice of a lie.”[13]

Presumably he is referring to those who still hold to the inerrancy of Scripture and to its plenary verbal inspiration. He speaks of “the ex cathedra assertions of ignorant readers, though they are often pronounced with an assumption of infallibility, are not worth the breath which utters them.”[14] He appeals to St. Jerome, who “complained in his day there was no old woman so fatuous as not to assume the right to lay down the law about Scriptural interpretation.”[15]

One of the many books Dean Farrar wrote was a commentary on the book of Daniel, in which he espoused all the outlandish claims of the higher critics. Doubtless, Farrar would have considered Sir Robert Anderson an untrained nonprofessional in matters of biblical exposition. Sir Robert, however, had a mind as keen as Farrar’s. A highly placed professional in Britain’s famed Scotland Yard, Anderson was also a brilliant student of the Scriptures. He refuted Farrar’s commentary in a book titled Daniel in the Critics Den and wrote a half-dozen other books that have been a help to God’s people for years—including his book The Silence of God, a Christian classic.[16]

Because Anderson repudiated higher criticism, Farrar would have dismissed him as not being a “competent scholar.” But among the Bible-believing, evangelical Christian who reject the soul-deadening theories of the liberal are many competent scholars—including, for instance, F. F. Bruce who, among many other great accomplishments, memorized the entire New Testament in Greek.

John, who faced the “intellectuals” in his day, was a humble former fisherman, but he knew more than all of the critics put together. The intellectualism and high-sounding nonsense (Col. 2:8) of the Gnostic cultists of John’s day has a modern counterpart in the pronouncements of the higher critics. They exhibit the same “pride of life” in a more religious form. John said that all this kind of thing is “not of the Father, but of the world.” And doubt it not—the same kind of pride that is found in those who seek to destroy the Bible can be found in the hearts of those who vehemently defend it.

(3) the Loss of the World (2:17)

John contrasts two things—that which is passing: “And the world passeth away” (2:17a); and that which is permanent: “But he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever” (2:17b).

The “world,” as a planet, is but a transitory fixture in space; its future, looking at things from the standpoint of modern science, is tied to that of the sun. The sun itself is a moderate star, said to be approaching middle age, powered by nuclear fusion, its energy derived, for the most part, from the conversion of hydrogen into helium. Although it is consuming itself at a prodigious rate, it is so vast that it has consumed only a few hundredths of 1 percent of its original mass. More significant than its conversion of mass to energy is the likelihood that about half the sun’s hydrogen mass in the core (the only place where fusion can take place) has already been converted into helium. Once it has consumed the remainder (five billion years from now, according to astrophysicists), the sun will become a red giant and eventually a frigid cinder. In the process of becoming a red giant, it will expand to one hundred times its present diameter and, in so doing, will vaporize the earth.[17]So, even from the standpoint of secular science, the world is in the process of passing away. Scripture confirms this—except that it does not give it the optimistic five billion years to meet its doom. The apostle John confirms Peter’s warning that the earth is to be destroyed in a nuclear-type holocaust (2 Peter 3:10–13; Rev. 21:1), this catastrophic disaster to close the soon-coming millennial reign of Christ. The world is truly passing away and is hastening toward its fiery end at breakneck speed.

This climax will also bring an end to the “world” as a God-rejecting, Bible-denying, Christ-hating, Spirit-despising, Christian-persecuting, soul-destroying place. The individual living on earth today, and going in for the things that the world (as a system) has to offer, faces the end much sooner than that. Death will put an end to the appeals of the world, and “after death the judgment,” God says (Heb. 9:27). For the Christ-rejecting, world-loving unbeliever, there awaits the Great White Throne (Rev. 20:11–15); for the believer there awaits the judgment seat of Christ (Rom. 14:10; 1 Cor. 3:12–15; 2 Cor. 5:10).

No wonder John urges us to “do the will of God,” for “he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.” Since the Christian is an heir of the world to come, he or she should hold lightly the desirable and legitimate things that the world (as a place) offers and vigorously reject the sinful things that the world (as a system) offers.

It is significant that half the book of Genesis is taken up with the stories of two men—Abraham and Jacob—both of whom exemplified the pilgrim character of God’s people in relation to this world. Abrahams symbol was a tent and an altar, his tent portraying his attitude toward this world, his altar speaking of his attitude toward the world to come. He confessed himself to the sons of Heth to be “a stranger and a sojourner [pilgrim] among them” (Gen. 23:4), and in this he stands in contrast with sin-cursed Cain, the man who founded this world’s system and who lamented that he was “a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth” (Gen. 4:12).

Jacob’s symbol was a staff, a fact of which he reminded the Lord when he prayed that he might be delivered from the vengeful hand of Esau, already marching to meet him with a force of four hundred men (Gen. 32:10–11). Our last glimpse of Jacob reveals the old patriarch as he prepares for his last pilgrimage. His boys are gathered around his bed and heaven is opening up before him. We see him, thus, leaning on his staff and blessing his boys (Gen. 49; Heb. 11:21).

Truly “the world passeth away, and the lust thereof.” We grow old and feeble and either lose our appetite at last for the pleasures and treasures of the world or try to hang on to them more tenaciously than ever. But, either way, they have no power in the hour of death. In contrast, “He that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.” John would have us keep eternity’s values in view.1

1 John Phillips, Exploring the Epistles of John: An Expository Commentary, The John Phillips Commentary Series (Kregel Publications; WORDsearch Corp., 2009), 1 Jn 2:15–17.

River and Rock

1 John 2:17

JOHN has been solemnly giving a charge not to love the world, nor the things that are in it. That charge was addressed to ‘children,’ ‘young men,’ ‘fathers.’ Whether these designations be taken as referring to growth and maturity of Christian experience, or of natural age, they equally carry the lesson that no age and no stage is beyond the danger of being drawn away by the world’s love, or beyond the need of the solemn dehortation therefrom.

My text is the second of the reasons which the Apostle gives for his earnest charge. We all, therefore, need it, and we always need it; though on the last Sunday of another year, it may be more than usually appropriate to turn our thoughts in its direction. ‘The world passeth away, and the lust thereof.’ Let us lay the handful of snow on our fevered foreheads and cool our desires.

Now there are but two things set forth in this text, which is a great and wonderful antithesis between something which is in perpetual flux and passage and something which is permanent. If I might venture to cast the two thoughts into metaphorical form, I should say that here are a river and a rock. The one, the sad truth of sense, universally believed and as universally forgotten; the other, the glad truth of faith, so little regarded or operative in men’s lives.

I ask you, then, to look with me for a few moments at each of these thoughts.

I. First, Then, The River, Or The Sad Truth Of Sense.

Now you observe that there are two things in my text of which this transiency is predicated, the one ‘the world,’ the other ‘the lust thereof’; the one outside us, the other within us. As to the former, I need only, I suppose, remind you in a sentence that what John means by ‘the world’ is not the material globe on which we dwell, but the whole aggregate of things visible and material, together with the lives of the men whose lives are directed to, and bounded by, that visible and material, and all considered as wrenched apart from God. That, and not the mere external physical creation, is what he means by ‘the world,’ and therefore the passing away of which he speaks is not only (although, of course, it includes) the decay and dissolution of material things, but the transiency of things which are or have to do with the visible, and are separated by us from God. Over all these, he says, there is written the sentence, ‘Dust thou art, and unto dust thou shalt return.’ There is a continual flowing on of the stream. As the original implies even more strongly than in our translation, ‘the world’ is in the act of ‘passing away.’ Like the slow travelling of the scenes of some moveable panorama which glide along, even as the eye looks upon them, and are concealed behind the side flats before the gazer has taken in the whole picture, so equably, constantly, silently, and therefore unnoticed by us, all is in a state of continual motion. There is no present time. Even whilst we name the moment it dies. The drop hangs for an instant on the verge, gleaming in the sunlight, and then falls into the gloomy abyss that silently sucks up years and centuries. There is no present, but all is movement.

Brethren, that has been the commonplace of moralists and poets and preachers from the beginning of time; and it would be folly for me to suppose that I can add anything to the impressiveness of the thought. All that I want to do is to wake you up to preach it to yourselves, for that is the only thing that is of any use.

‘So passeth, in the passing of an hour

Of mortal life, the leaf, the bud, the flower.’

But besides this transiency external to us, John finds a corresponding transiency within us. ‘The world passeth, and the lust thereof.’ Of course the word ‘lust’ is employed by him in a much wider sense than in our use of it. With us it means one specific and very ugly form of earthly desire. With him it includes the whole genus—all desires of every sort, more or less noble or ignoble, which have this for their characteristic, that they are directed to, stimulated by, and fed or starved on, the fleeting things of this outward life. If thus a man has anchored himself to that which has no perpetual stay, so long as the cable holds he follows the fate of the thing to which he has pinned himself. And if it perish he perishes, in a very profound sense, with it. If you trust yourselves in the leaky vessel, when the water rises in it, it will drown you, and you will go to the bottom with the craft to which you have trusted yourselves, If you embark in the little ship that carries Christ and His fortunes, you will come with Him to the haven.

But these fleeting desires, of which my text speaks, point to that sad feature of human experience, that we all outgrow and leave behind us, and think of very little value, the things that once to us were all but heaven. There was a time when toys and sweetmeats were our treasures, and since that day how many burnt-out hopes we all have had! How little we should know ourselves if we could go back to the fears and wishes and desires that used to agitate us ten, twenty, thirty years ago! They lie behind us, no longer part of ourselves; they have slipped away from us, and

‘We all are changed, by still degrees,

All but the basis of the soul.’

The self-conscious same man abides, and yet how different the same man is! Our lives, then will zig-zag instead of keeping a straight course, if we let desires that are limited by anything that we can see guide and regulate us.

But, brethren, though it be a digression from my text, I cannot help touching for a moment upon a yet sadder thought than that. There are desires that remain, when the gratification of them has become impossible. Sometimes the lust outlasts the world, sometimes the world outlasts the lust; and one knows not whether is the sadder. There is a hell upon earth for many of us who, having set our affections upon some creatural object, and having had that withdrawn from us, are ready to say, ‘They have taken away my gods! And what shall I do?’ And there is a hell of the same Sort waiting beyond those dark gates through which we have all to pass, where men who never desired anything, except what the world that has slipped out of their reluctant fingers could give them, are shut up with impossible longings after a for-ever-vanished good. ‘Father Abraham! a drop of water; for I am tormented in this flame.’ That is what men come to, if the fire of their lust burn after its objects are withdrawn.

But let me remind you that this transiency of which I have been speaking receives very strange treatment from most of us. I do not know that it is altogether to be regretted that it so seldom comes to men’s consciousness. Perhaps it is right that it should not be uppermost in our thoughts always; but yet there is no vindication for the entire oblivion to which we condemn it. The march of these fleeting things is like that of cavalry with their horses’ feet wrapped in straw, in the night, across the snow, silent and unnoticed. We cannot realise the revolution of the earth, because everything partakes in it. We talk about standing still, and we are whirling through space with inconceivable rapidity. By a like illusion we deceive ourselves with the notion of stability, when everything about us is hastening away. Some of you do not like to be reminded of it, and think it a killjoy. You try to get rid of the thought, and hide your head in the sand, and fancy that the rest of your body presents no mark to the archer’s arrow. Now surely common sense says to all, that if there be some fact certain and plain and applying to you, which, if accepted, would profoundly modify your life, you ought to take it into account. And what I want you to do, dear friends, now, is to look in the face this fact, which you all acknowledge so utterly that some of you are ready to say, ‘What was the use of coming to a chapel to hear that threadbare old thing dinned into my ears again?’ and to take it into account in shaping your lives. Have you done so? Have you? Suppose a man that lived in a land habitually shaken by earthquakes were to say, ‘I mean to ignore the fact; and I am going to build a house just as if there was not such a thing as an earthquake expected’; he would have it toppling about his ears very soon. Suppose a man upon the ice-slopes of the Alps was to say, ‘I am going to ignore slipperiness and gravitation,’ he would before long find himself, if there was any consciousness left in him, at the bottom of a precipice, bruised and bleeding. And suppose a man says, ‘I am not going to take the fleetingness of the things of earth into account at all, but intend to live as if all things were to remain as they are’; what would become of him do you think? Is he a wise man or a fool? And is he you? He is some of you! ‘So teach us to number our days that we may apply our hearts unto wisdom.’

Then let me say to you, see that you take noble lessons out of these undeniable and all-important facts. There is one kind of lesson that I do not want you to take out of it. ‘Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die,’ or, to put it into a more vulgar formula, ‘A short life and a merry one.’ The mere contemplation of the transiency of earthly things may, and often does, lend itself to very ignoble conclusions, and men draw from it the thought that, as life is short, they had better crowd into it as much of sensual enjoyment as they can.

‘Gather ye roses while ye may’ is a very common keynote, struck by poets of the baser sort. And it is a thought that influences some of us, I have little doubt. Or there may be another consideration, ‘Make hay whilst the sun shines.’ ‘Hurry on your getting rich, because you have not very long to do it in’; or the like.

Now all that is supremely unworthy. The true lesson to be drawn is the plain, old one which it is never superfluous to shout into men’s ears, until they have obeyed it—viz., ‘Set not thine heart on that which is not; and which flieth away as an eagle towards heaven.’ Do you, dear brother, see to it, that your roots go down through the gravel on the surface. Do you see to it that you dig deeper than that; and thrusting your hand, as it were, through the thin, silk-paper screen that stands between you and the Eternal, grasp the hand that you will find on the other side, waiting and ready to clasp you, and to hold you up.

When they build a new house in Rome they have to dig down through sometimes sixty or a hundred feet of rubbish that runs like water, the ruins of old temples and palaces, once occupied by men in the same flush of life in which we are now. We too have to dig down through ruins, until we get to the Rock and build there, and build secure. Withdraw your affections and your thoughts and your desires from the fleeting, and fix them on the permanent. If a captain takes anything but the pole-star for his fixed point he will lose his reckoning, and his ship will be on the reefs. If we take anything but God for our supreme delight and desire we shall perish.

Then let me say, too, let this thought stimulate us to crowd every moment, as full as it can be packed, with noble work and heavenly thoughts. These fleeting things are elastic, and you may put all but infinite treasure into them. Think of what the possibilities, for each of us, of this dying year were on the 1st of January; and of what the realisation has been by the 28th of December. So much that we could have done! so little that we have done! So many ripples of the river have passed, bearing no golden sand to pile upon the shore! ‘We have been’ is a sad word; but oh, the one sad word is, ‘We might have been!’ And, so, do you see to it that you fill time with that which is kindred to eternity, and make ‘one day as a thousand years’ in the elastic possibilities and realities of consecration and of service.

Further, let the thought help us to the conviction of the relative insignificance of all that can change. That will not spoil nor shade any real joy; rather it will add to it poignancy that prevents it from cloying or from becoming the enemy of our souls. But the thought will wondrously lighten the burden that we have to carry, and the tasks which we have to perform. ‘But for a moment,’ makes all light. There was an old rabbi, long ago, whose real name was all but lost, because everybody nick-named him ‘Rabbi Thisalso.’ The reason was because he had perpetually on his lips the saying about everything as it came, ‘This also will pass.’ He was a wise man. Let us go to his school and learn his wisdom.

II. Now Let Me Say A Word, ‘Rock’ Or The Glad Truth Of Faith.

And it can only be a word, about the second of the thoughts here, which I designated as the Rock, or the glad truth of Faith.

We might have expected that John’s antithesis to the world that passeth would have been the God that abides. But he does not so word his sentence, although the thought of the divine permanence underlies it. Rather over against the fleeting world he puts the abiding man who does the will of God.

Of course there is a very solemn sense in which all men, even they who have most exclusively lived for what they call the present, do last for ever, and in which their deeds do so too. After death is the judgment, and the issues of eternity depend upon the actions of time; and every fleeting thought comes back to the hand that projected it, like the Australian savage’s boomerang that, flung out, returns and falls at the feet of the thrower. But that is not what John means by ‘abiding for ever.’ He means something very much more blessed and lofty than that; and the following is the course of his thought. There is only one permanent Reality in the universe, and that is God. All else is shadow and He is the substance. All else was, is, and is not. He is the One who was, is, and is to come, the timeless and only permanent Being. The will of God is the permanent element in all changeful material things. And consequently he who does the will of God links himself with the Divine Eternity, and becomes partaker of that solemn and blessed Being which lives above mutation.

Obedience to God’s will is the permanent element in human life. Whosoever humbly and trustfully seeks to mould his will after the divine will, and to bring God’s will into practice in his doings, that man has pierced through the shadows and grasped the substance, and partakes of the Immortality which he adores and serves. Himself shall live for ever in the true life which is blessedness. His deeds shall live for ever when all that lifted itself in opposition to the Divine will shall be crushed and annihilated. They shall live in His own peaceful consciousness; they shall live in the blessed rewards which they shall bring to the doers. His habits will need no change.

What will you do when you are dead? You have to go into a world where there are no gossip and no housekeeping; no mills and no offices; no shops, no books; no colleges and no sciences to learn. What will you do there? ‘He that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.’ If you have done your housekeeping, and your weaving and spinning, and your book-keeping, and your buying and selling, and your studying, and your experimenting with a conscious reference to God, it is all right. That has made the act capable of eternity, and there will be no need for such a man to change. The material on which he works will change, but the inner substance of his life will be unaffected by the trivial change from earth to heaven. Whilst the endless ages roll he will be doing just what he was doing down here; only here he was playing with counters, and yonder he will be trusted with gold, and dominion over ten cities. To all other men the change that comes when earth passes from them, or they from it, is as when a trench is dug across a railway, into which the express goes with a smash, and there is an end. To the man who, in the trifles of time, has been obeying the will of God, and therefore subserving eternity and his interests there, the trench is bridged, and he will go on after he crosses it just as he did before, with the same purpose, the same desires, the same submission, and the same drinking into himself of the fulness of immortal life.

Brother, John tells us that obedience to the will of God brings permanence into our fleeting years. But how are we to obey the will of God? John tells us that the only way is by love. But how are we to love God? John tells us that the only way to love—which love is the only way to obedience—is by knowing and believing the love that God hath to us. But how are we to know that God hath love to us? John tells us that the only way to know the love of God, which is the only way of our loving Him, which in its turn is the only way to obedience, which again is the only way to permanence of life, is to believe in Jesus Christ and His propitiation for our sins. The river flows on for ever, but it sweeps round the base of the Rock of Ages. And in Him, by faith in His blood, we may find our sure refuge and eternal home.1

1 Alexander MacLaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture: 1 and 2 Peter, 1 John 1–4 (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2009), 279–289.

The Ageless Commandment—Old Yet New (2:7–17)

(2:7) Beloved ones, I do not write to you a new commandment but an old commandment which you have had from beginning; the commandment which is old is the word which you heard. (8) Again, a new commandment I write to you, which is true in him and in you, because darkness is passing away and the light which is true is shining already. (9) The person who claims to be in the light and hates his brother (or sister) is in darkness until now. (10) The one who loves his brother (or sister) remains in the light and there is no stumbling block in him or her (11) but the one who hates his brother (or sister) is in darkness and in darkness he (or she) walks and has not known where he (or she) is going, because the darkness has blinded his (or her) eyes.

(12) I write to you, children,

because your sins have been forgiven on account of his name

(13) I write to you fathers,

because you have known the one from the beginning

I write to you young men,

because you have overcome the evil one.

(14) I write to you children,

because you have known the Father.

I write to you fathers,

because you have known the one from the beginning.

I write to you young men,

because you are strong

and the word of God remains in you

and you have overcome the evil one.

(15) Do not love the world nor the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him (16) because everything in the world, the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes and the pride of life, is not of the Father but is of the world (17) And the world and its lusts pass away, but the person who does the will of God remains forever.

Having mentioned the need to keep God’s commandments (2:3–6) John now focuses on one of these commandments, namely, the commandment of love. Two objects are the focus of the love John is writing to promote here. There is the love toward a brother or sister (contrasted with hating) and there is the love toward the Father (contrasted with love of the world and what goes with it)

Love Toward a Brother or Sister

After addressing his readers as “beloved” (agapētoi) in 2:7a, John goes on to tell them that he is writing to them about a commandment. He gives the commandment the qualities of being both old (2:7) and new (2:8). It is old because his readers have had it from the beginning (hēn eichete ap’ archēs) and is by definition the word which they had already heard (hē entolē hē palaia estin ho logos hon ēkousate). At the same time, it is new (2:8). Its newness is most likely to be seen in the example of Christ who John has described as hilasmos for our sins (2:2). Jesus himself said that there is no greater love than one laying down his or her life for another (John 15:13). As hilasmos, Jesus did exactly this and so remains a supreme example of the act of love. John says that the practice of this commandment is true in Jesus and in the readers. He gives the basis for this conclusion as that darkness is passing away and the true light is already shining (2:8b). Jesus had said that he is the light of the world (John 9:5) and the readers have him as their Savior and Lord and so are living in his light. Where that light is in charge, there is love and not hatred. John writes to enhance this love as he encourages his readers to live in fellowship with God who is also described as light (1:5).

John moves on to give a clue as to what commandment he is talking about here by responding to the possible claim of being in the light and not loving a brother or sister (2:9–11). The one who hates his brother or sister “is in darkness (en tē skotia estin—repeated in 2:9, 11) until now” (heōs arti), even when he or she claims to be in the light. He or she is not only in darkness (sphere) but also “walks in darkness” (kai en tē skotia peripatei) and “does not know where he or she is going” (kai ouk oiden pou hupagei). The hating here is a continual practice (present tense misōn), the walking a continual act (present tense peripatei), and the ignorance a current status (the perfect tense oiden, used with the negative particle ouk). John gives the basis for the present status of such a person as that “the darkness has blinded his eyes” (hoti hē skotia etuphlōsen tous ophthalmous autou). If the act of hating puts one into the sphere of darkness (2:9) and in God there is no darkness (1:5), it means that the one who hates is not in God’s company. He or she has not known that the Christian walk is one of light (here shown by loving) and its destination is the city of holiness (Rev 21:22–27). The one who hates is not ready for heaven. Darkness clouds his or her eyes not to see the beauty of walking with God, enjoying his fellowship now and in eternity.

So as not to appear to be talking to only the person who makes the unacceptable claim, John also affirms the one who loves (2:10). The one who loves (as a habit, present tense agapōn) his brother (or sister) remains in the light (continual status) and in him is no stumbling block (another continual status). The stumbling block is that which can trip him or her from living in fellowship with God and with others. John’s words here are like calling to mind the verse “love covers a multitude of sins” (Prov 10:12; 1 Pet 4:8). When we love someone, we shall not do him or her harm of any kind. Love serves as a catalyst to keep us in the light, which is God’s sphere of existence.

While in 2:7–11 John tells his readers what he is writing to them, in 2:12–14 he tells them why he is writing (see discussion of this below). In summary, they have the qualification needed so as to be able to absorb what he is saying into their character. This is an important point because a repetition of the love commandment to a people who do not have that potential amounts to wasting of time. It is only the believer who can exercise the kind of love John is talking about here. It is a love that does not categorize people into classes for purpose of excluding some from love, not even into “enemies” and “friends” categories (Matt 5:43–48) and it is a love that permeates every aspect of one’s life.

John now addresses his readers using three classifications: little children (teknia, 2:12a), fathers (pateres, 2:13a), and young men (neaniskoi, 2:13b), which he repeats in 2:14 using the same classification except he now uses paidia and not teknia for children. These three verses (2:12–14) raise some interesting exegetical questions, including:

1. Are the classifications of children (teknia, paidia), fathers (pateres), and young men (neaniskoi) pointing to their level in physical age or in spiritual maturity, if either of the two?

2. Is there a difference between the two Greek words John uses for children here? That is, are teknia and paidia synonymous or does each have its own focus?

3. Why does John repeat the content of 2:12–13 in 2:14, with some of what he says to the group being exactly the same in both cases?

4. Why does he use the present tense, graphō, in the first set (2:12–13) and aorist tense, egrapsa, in the second set in 2:14?

Concerning the classification into children, fathers, and young men, the majority of scholars view these to be classification on their stage in Christian experience. The “children” represents those who have been born into the Christian faith recently (probably both teknia and paidia being used for this group) or have not moved far in their spiritual growth even if they have had many years of belonging to the family of God. The young men represent those believers whose lives show clear evidence of victory in facing temptations and trials, while the fathers represent those who have many years of experience walking in the path of wisdom and fear of God. They have come to know and teach that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom (Prov 1:7) and can counsel others about the same on basis of their experience.

Another approach, still under the spiritual experience classification, is to view the use of “children” (both teknia and paidia) as standing for all believers and the “young men” and “fathers” representing two levels in spiritual growth. Brown,87 who supports this position, sees the beauty of it as that once the entire community has been addressed as children (in both sets) the order of “fathers” and “young men” follows naturally (as opposed to the order: “children,” “fathers,” and “young men” if one took it to be three groups). To this can also be added the observation that John uses both teknia and paidia in contexts in which it is the whole community in view (2:1, 18, 28; 3:7, 18; 4:4; 5:21). However, the use of a word in different senses within the same document is not an impossibility. For example, John can use teknia as all inclusive in some passages (see above) while in a different context use it as distinct from other groups. Here, he uses it alongside neaniskoi (young men) and pateres (fathers) and this could be an indicator of a different usage from places where it includes all believers.

As for the use of the two Greek words for children, teknia and paidia, it seems like John is using them interchangeably to refer to all his readers. He uses teknia in 2:1, 28; 3:7, 18; 4:4; and 5:21 in a manner that parallels his use of paidia in 2:18. If this be the case, and it is reasonable that it is, we can also say that it is the same group of people he has in mind when he uses the two words in this passage (2:12 and 2:14) though now using it specifically for those who have come to faith recently so that he can draw attention also to those who have been growing spiritually for sometime, that is the neanisikoi and the pateres. John is probably using the two (teknia and paidia) for purpose of minimizing monotony, just as he may be doing in changing the tense from present to aorist (see discussion below). The dictionary meaning for the two words are “little child” for paidion (being diminutive of, and related to pais which covers ages of 7–14 years) and “little child” for teknion (being a diminitive of and related to teknon, which sees it from the standpoint of origin or birth). The contextual meaning seems to support this interchangeability in meaning. If there is any slight difference to be drawn between the two, it may simply be that teknion does not only communicate the “littleness” but also denotes affection. Moulton and Milligan note that teknon, of which teknion is a diminutive, may also be used “as a form of kindly address, even in the case of grown-up persons.” Jesus used teknia for his disciples in John 13:33 and it is the same word (tekna) that is used when reference is made to believers as belonging to the family of God (5:2).

The repetition of the thoughts here in two pairs of three is striking. For the “fathers,” for example, he repeats in 2:14 exactly what he said to them in 2:13: “you have known the one from (the) beginning” (egnōkate ton ap’ archēs) and for the young men he says exactly the same thing in 2:13 and 2:14: “you have overcome the evil one” (nenikēkate ton ponēron). It is not strange for John, as a Jew, to be repeating these thoughts for the purpose of emphasis. This was a feature of a Jewish style of communication of matters that need to be stressed. Describing this passage as the “most rhetorically structured” Jobes sees the passage as patterned after Hebrew parallelism. Lieu also sees the purpose of the variation as “to drive the point home.”92

It would be unnecessary to argue that John sees the spiritual experience of each group as exclusively theirs. However, we do see some progression here, especially if we take the three categories of “children,” “young men,” and “fathers” as implying different stages in spiritual growth. For the children (teknia/paidia) there are both the experiences of forgiveness of sin (“your sins have been forgiven on account of his name,” apheōntai humin hai hamartiai dia to onoma autou, 2:12b) and knowledge of the Father (“you have known the Father,” egnōkate ton patera, 2:14a). The spiritual journey of the believer starts with forgiveness of sin. John had told his readers in 1:8 that a denial of having sin is a deception of self. A believer is one who has come to that point where he or she has said, “I am a sinner” and in faith “confessed sin” (1:9) and then received the blessings of Jesus being his or her hilasmos (propitiation, 2:2) or the means by which God now turns his face toward him or her as a Father. It brings a new experience of not just knowing that God exists out there somewhere but a relationship John describes as “knowledge of.” It is deeper than knowledge about. It includes a personal experience of how this person is like. This knowledge comes on account of Jesus’ name. It is when we go before God and use the name of Jesus as the basis for God’s acceptance of us that we get to know God in this way. This is because by ourselves alone we cannot stand before God who is light (1:5), but on account of Jesus who is righteous (2:1) we can begin this experiential knowledge with God. By implication, taking the meaning of hoti in these three verses as causal (the reason why he writes), those he refers to as children are standing on a first step from which they can move on into the depths of the things he is writing. Their status95 is one of a “forgiven people” and “living in experience with God as Father.”

The second level is that of the young men (neaniskoi) though John mentions them last in both listings. Three things are said about them. They are overcomers (“you have overcome the evil one,” nenikēkate ton ponēron, 2:13, 14), they are strong (“you are strong,” ischuroi este, 2:14) and they are obedient (“the word of God remains in you,” ho logos tou theou en humin menei, 2:14). John uses a perfect tense, nenikēkate, for their victory. The perfect is to be understood as intensive. They have attained the status of being victors. He uses a present tense, este, for their being strong. This is also their status, taking the present tense here as perfective. Its focus is the reality of past action. The more battles they have won, the more spiritual strength they have acquired. John can evaluate them and say “you are strong” and on that basis, I know I am not wasting time as I exhort you on the issues I am writing to you about. The present tense menei translated as “remains” can be taken as a durative present. As their general habit, they allow the word of God to control their lives. This has helped them to achieve what they are now (conquerors and strong) and forms a good basis for what John is writing to them about. The phrase “the word of God” (ho logos tou theou) is making reference to the will of God as expressed in the Scriptures as his readers knew it. God has revealed it for the believer to be led by it. Jesus’ victory over the evil one as recorded in Matt 4:1–11 and Luke 4:1–13 is a clear demonstration on the centrality of God’s word in being conquerors. This is a clear reminder of the relationship between the place we give to the word of God and the victory we are able to attain. Paul in Eph 6:17 refers to the word of God (rhema theou) as the sword of the Spirit (machaira tou pneumatos). God has given or spoken the word (taking theou as genitive of source) and the Spirit uses the word (taking pneumatos as subjective genitive) to enable us to win the battle.

“Fathers” is the third level and John describes them twice but in the exact same way. They have known the one from the beginning (“you have known the one from the beginning,” egnōkate ton ap’ archēs, 2:13, 14). They have the experience of walking with him. Whether the one from the beginning is God the Father or God the Son makes no difference. Knowledge of one is knowledge of the other (John 14:7–11).

Taking the three verses together we note that John writes to the “children” because:

1. Their sins have been forgiven on account of his name (2:12b)

2. They have known the Father (2:14a)

He writes to the “Fathers” because:

1. They have known the one from the beginning (2:13a)

2. The same is repeated exactly in 2:14b

He writes to the “young men” because:

1. They have overcome the evil one (2:13b)

2. They are strong (2:14c)

3. The word of God remains in them (2:14c)

4. Exact repetition of no. 1 above, in 2:14c

Whether one views these classifications as referring to the same group of people from different perspectives or to three different groups, each of them has come to the level of believing in Jesus. By virtue of that experience, they are able to appreciate the command of love John writes to them in this section.

The fourth issue of using the present tense (graphō) in the first set (2:12–13) but the aorist tense (egrapsa) in the second set (2:14) also calls for comment. The literal translation of graphō is “I write” or “I am writing” and that of egrapsa is “I wrote.” While the present tense, graphō, is clear John means this epistle (1 John), the aorist tense, egrapsa, can imply that John had written another epistle earlier, to these same readers. This, however, is not necessary because it is not uncommon for a writer to write either within the perspective of where he/she sits as the writing is taking place or the perspective of the reader when he/she is reading the already written letter. This means that a writer can use “I write” and “I wrote” while referring to the same letter, depending on the glasses he/she has on at a given time. In the Greek language studies, this use of the aorist tense is referred to as “epistolary aorist”99 and this is what we most likely have here (2:14). This is why the NIV, for example, uses “I write” in both sets of statements even though the Greek has two different tenses. This provision in the Greek language can be utilized simply for purpose of variation or emphasis. As Kruse says, the use of both present and aorist tenses here probably serves “as a stylic device to heighten the rhetorical effect of what he is writing.”

Love Toward the Father

John is not only interested in his believing readers exercising the horizontal love but also the vertical love. In fact, it is the vertical relationship (with God) that makes it possible to have harmonious relationship with other persons.

The love of the Father is expressed within the context of prohibition not to love things that would strangle the love of the Father. This calls to mind Jesus’ words that one cannot serve two masters (Matt 6:24). John tells his readers, “Do not love the world nor the things in the world” (2:15, mē agapate ton kosmon mēde ta en tō kosmō). The prohibition here is expressed using mē and present imperative, and this allows for the possibility that John’s readers (at least some) were already at fault in this matter.102 John, however, tells them that love for the world and the things in it (kosmos here understood as that system which is in opposition to the things of God) excludes love of the Father. He says, “If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him” (ean tis agapa ton kosmon, ouk estin hē agapē tou patros en autō, 2:15b). The use of the third class condition here (projecting a possible situation, and not asserting a particular occurrence as a first class condition would) does not necessarily mean that the prohibition above cannot be an actual happening for some of his readers. He could here be stating the general principle that would apply to anyone if the condition is allowed so as to enforce the prohibition as it actually affected some. The genitive “of the Father” (tou patros) is here best taken as objective genitive. The one who loves the world is not able to love the Father also. There is a choice one must make for the two cannot go together. The reason for this exclusion is that what is in the world does not come from the Father (ouk estin ek tou patros). It is not his will. Specifically, what is in the world, in this negative usage, include, “lust of the flesh,” “lust of the eyes,” and “pride of life” (hē epithumia tēs sarkos kai hē epithumia tōn ophthalmōn kai hē alazoneia tou biou, 2:16)

The Greek word epithumia is neutral, with its context left to tell the reader whether it is negative or positive. In this context (qualified by two genitives, “of the flesh” and “of the eyes”) even as the translation provided communicates that it is negative. It is that strong desire that is driven by the flesh or/and the gluttony of the eyes,106 rather than the will of God. It shows itself in such evil practices as satisfying the evil desires of the flesh and grabbing what is not ours. It does not ask what is acceptable by God and a blessing to my fellow human beings, but it always thinks of self. No wonder John adds the third element, “pride of life.” Such a person places self above others and does not seek to submit to the will of God. It is a life characterized by pride. It is interesting to note that Satan attempted to have Jesus fail in these three same areas. He targeted the desire of his flesh as he asked him to change stones into bread, the desire of his eyes as he showed him what he would give to him, and his attitude toward the will of God as he challenged him to throw himself down from the pinnacle of the temple (Matt 4:1–11 and Luke 4:1–13). Jesus demonstrated well that the choice is clear cut. One either stays within the will of God or entertains lust and pride. Choice of one excludes the other. This is the same point John is making here. It draws from what the first Adam (Rom 5:19a) failed in (Gen 3:6, 17), and the second Adam succeeded in (Rom 5:19b) as an example for us.

With the first reason for obeying the prohibition, “do not love the world” (mē agapate ton kosmon), being that such a love excludes love of the Father, John finishes this section with a second reason why obedience to the prohibition is important. In fact, it is the wiser thing to do. He says, in 2:17, “the world and its lust pass away, but the one who does the will of God remains forever” (ho kosmos paragetai kai hē epithumia autou, ho de poiōn to thelēma tou theou menei eis ton aiōna). The world provides opportunities for expression of lusts. Those who put their trust in those lusts, at the expense of loving God, end up miserable for what the world offers. However, the one who continues in the love of the Father lasts into eternity as the Father himself is eternal. This is very true in our life experiences. Accumulation of pleasure, wealth, and fame do not go with us when we die. We leave them all behind as we enter the next phase of life. In that next phase of life, it is those who have lived in obedience to God who continue to enjoy his fellowship as their Father. What a challenge in terms of how we view what we have or are! As Paul said, they are “rubbish” if they in any way come into competition with the place of Christ in our lives (Phil 3:7). At times, the experience of pursuing the world’s promises and ending up being disappointed occurs within one’s earthly life. Some have pursued earthly pleasures and ended with serious sicknesses, others have pursued wealth by wrong means and ended up in prison, and others have sought their satisfaction in fame later to commit suicide when the fame is there no more. The world promises but never delivers. If we may draw again from Satan’s temptation of Jesus, were the things he promised in Matt 4:9 and Luke 4:6 truly his to give away? He created none of them. He entices with lies, and only the unwise listen to him!1

1 Samuel M. Ngewa, The Epistles of John: Their Message and Relevance for Today: A New Covenant Commentary, ed. Michael F. Bird and Craig Keener, New Covenant Commentary Series (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2019), 30–42.

Three classes of Christians

We next find three classes of Christians: fathers, young men, and babes. He addresses them each twice, fathers, young men, babes (ver. 13): fathers, in the first half of verse 14; young men, from the second half, to the end of verse 17; and babes from verse 18 to the end of verse 27. In verse 28 he returns to all Christians under the name of “children.”

The character of “fathers” in Christ

That which characterizes fathers in Christ is that they have known Him who is from the beginning, that is, Christ. This is all that he has to say about them. All had resulted in that. He only repeats the same thing again, when, changing his form of expression, he begins anew with these three classes. The fathers have known Christ. This is the result of all Christian experience. The flesh is judged, discerned, wherever it has mixed itself with Christ in our feelings: it is recognized, experimentally, as having no value; and, as the result of experience, Christ stands alone, free from all alloy. They have learnt to distinguish that which has only the appearance of good. They are not occupied with experience—that would be being occupied with self, with one’s own heart. All that has passed away; and Christ alone remains as our portion, unmingled with aught besides, even as He gave Himself to us. Moreover He is much better known; they have experienced what He is in so many details, whether of joy in communion with Him, or in the consciousness of weakness, or in the realization of His faithfulness, of the riches of His grace, of His adaptation to our need, of His love, and in the revelation of His own fulness; so that they are able now to say, “I know whom I have believed.” Attachment to Himself characterizes them. Such is the character of “fathers” in Christ.

The distinguishing mark of “young men”

“Young men” are the second class. They are distinguished by spiritual strength in conflict: the energy of faith. They have overcome the wicked one. For he speaks of what their character is as in Christ. Conflict they have as such, but the strength of Christ manifested in them.

The distinguishing mark of “babes,” of beginners

The third class is “babes.” These know the Father. We see here that the Spirit of adoption and of liberty characterizes the youngest child in the faith of Christ, that it is not the result of progress. It is the commencement. We possess it because we are Christians; and it is ever the distinguishing mark of beginners. The others do not lose it, but other things distinguish them.

The repetition of what was first said to the fathers, for all Christian experience had resulted in that: Christ stands alone

In again addressing these three classes of Christians, the apostle, as we have seen, has only to repeat that which he at first said with regard to the fathers. It is the result of Christian life.

Added exhortations for the young men: the sword of the Spirit to overcome the wicked one and his weapon, the world: the world in opposition with the Father

In the case of the young men he develops his idea and adds some exhortations. “Ye are strong,” he says, “and the Word of God abideth in you”—an important characteristic. The Word is the revelation of God, and the application of Christ, to the heart, so that we have thus the motives which form and govern it, and a testimony founded on the state of the heart, and on convictions which have a divine power in us. It is the sword of the Spirit in our relations with the world. We have been ourselves formed by those things to which we bear testimony in our relations with the world, and those things are in us according to the power of the Word of God. The wicked one is thus overcome; for he has only the world to present to our lusts: and the Word abiding in us keeps us in an altogether different sphere of thought in which a different nature is enlightened and strengthened by divine communications. The tendency of the young man is toward the world: the ardor of his nature, and the vigor of his age, tend to draw him away on that side. He has to guard against this by separating himself entirely from the world and the things that are in it; because, if any one love the world, the love of the Father is not in him, for those things do not come from the Father. He has a world of His own, of which Christ is the centre and glory. The lusts of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—these are the things that are in the world and that characterize it. There are really no other motives besides these in the world. Now these things are not of the Father.

The Father is the source of all that is according to His own heart—every grace, every spiritual gift, the glory, the heavenly holiness of all that was manifested in Christ Jesus, and that will be—all the world of glory to come, of which Christ is the centre. And all this had only the cross for its portion here below. But the apostle is speaking here of the source; and assuredly the Father is not the source of those other things.

The world’s transitory character: the everlasting character of the nature and will of God and of him who has followed after it

Now the world passes away; but he who does the will of God, he who, in going through this world, takes for his guide, not the desires of nature, but the will of God—a will which is according to His nature and which expresses it—such a one shall abide for ever according to the nature and the will that he has followed after.

Good and evil in opposition without any uncertainty as to the issue of the conflict

We shall find that the world, and the Father with all that is of Him, the flesh and the Spirit, the Son and the devil, are put respectively in opposition. Things are spoken of in their source and moral nature, the principles that act in us and that characterize our existence and our position, and the two agents in good and evil that are opposed to each other, without (thanks be to God!) any uncertainty as to the issue of the conflict; for the weakness of Christ, in death, is stronger than the strength of Satan. He has no power against that which is perfect. Christ came that He might destroy the works of the devil.

“Babes” warned of dangers from seducers and reminded of their sources of intelligence and strength: “the last time:” the true character of Antichrist

To the babes the apostle speaks principally of the dangers to which they were exposed from seducers. He warns them with tender affection, reminding them at the same time that all the sources of intelligence and strength were open to them and belonged to them. “It is the last time;” not exactly the last days, but the season which had the final character that belonged to the dealings of God with this world. The Antichrist was to come, and already there were many antichrists: by this it might be known it was the last time. It was not merely sin, nor the transgression of the law; but, Christ having already been manifested, and being now absent and hidden from the world, there was a formal opposition to the especial revelation that had been made. It was not a vague and ignorant unbelief; it took a definite shape as having a will directed against Jesus. They might for instance believe all that a Jew believed, as it was revealed in the word; but as to the testimony of God by Jesus Christ they opposed it. They would not own Him to be the Christ; they denied the Father and the Son. This, as to religious profession, is the true character of the Antichrist. He may indeed believe or pretend to believe, that there shall be a Christ; yea, set himself up to be it. But the two aspects of Christianity (that which, on the one hand, regards the accomplishment in the Person of Jesus of the promises made to the Jew; and, on the other hand, the heavenly and eternal blessings presented in the revelation of the Father by the Son), this the Antichrist does not accept. That which characterizes him as Antichrist is that he denies the Father and the Son. To deny that Jesus is the Christ is indeed the Jewish disbelief that forms part of his character. That which gives him the character of Antichrist is that he denies the foundation of Christianity. He is a liar in that he denies Jesus to be the Christ; consequently it is the work of the father of lies. But all the unbelieving Jews had done as much without being Antichrist. To deny the Father and the Son characterizes him.

Apostasy among Christians: the two means of confirming the faith of “babes” in Christ, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and the truth received

But there is something more. These antichrists came out from among the Christians. There was apostasy. Not that they were really Christians, but they had been among the Christians and had come out from them. (How instructive for our days also is this Epistle!) It was thus made manifest that they were not truly of the flock of Christ. All this had a tendency to shake the faith of babes in Christ. The apostle endeavors to strengthen them. There were two means of confirming their faith, which also inspired the apostle with confidence. First, they had the unction of the Holy One; secondly, that which was from the beginning was the touchstone for all new doctrine, and they already possessed that which was from the beginning.

The indwelling of the Holy Ghost as an unction and spiritual intelligence in them, and the truth which they had received at the beginning—the perfect revelation of Christ—these were the safeguards against seducers and seductions. All heresy and all error and corruption will be found to strike at the first and divine revelation of the truth, if the unction of the Holy One is in us to judge them. Now this unction is the portion of even the youngest babes in Christ, and they ought to be encouraged to realize it, however tenderly they may be cared for as they were here by the apostle.

What important truths we discover here for ourselves! The last time already manifested, so that we have to be on our guard against seducers—persons moreover issuing from the bosom of Christianity.

The character of this Antichrist: the Christian’s security against seductions: no so-called development of the truth which has been heard from the beginning

The character of this Antichrist is that he denies the Father and the Son. Unbelief in its Jewish form is also again manifested—owning that there is a Christ, but denying that Jesus is He. Our security against these seductions is the unction from the Holy One—the Holy Ghost, but in especial connection with the holiness of God, which enables us to see clearly into the truth (another characteristic of the Spirit); and, secondly, that that abide in us which we have heard from the beginning. It is this evidently which we have in the written Word. “Development,” note it well, is not that which we have from the beginning. By its very name it sins radically against the safeguard pointed out by the apostle. That which the Church has taught, as development of the truth, whencesoever she may have received it, is not that which has been heard from the beginning.

The Father not possessed without the Son

There is another point indicated here by the apostle that ought to be noticed. People might pretend by giving God in a vague way the name of Father, that they possessed Him without the true possession of the Son, Jesus Christ. This cannot be. He who has not the Son has not the Father. It is by Him that the Father is revealed, in Him that the Father is known.

The truth is the revelation of the Son and by Him: possessing it we possess the Son and the Father

If the truth that we have received from the beginning abides in us, we abide in the Son and in the Father; for this truth is the revelation of the Son, and is revealed by the Son, who is the truth. It is living truth if it abides in us; thus, by possessing it, we possess the Son, and in the Son, the Father also. We abide in it, and thereby we have eternal life. (Compare John 17:3.)

The Holy Spirit acting in the Word: the truth abiding in them and they in Him

Now the apostle had happy confidence that the unction which they had received of Him abode in them, so that they needed not to be taught of others, for this same unction taught them with respect to all things. It was the truth, for it was the Holy Ghost Himself acting in the Word, which was the revelation of the truth of Jesus Himself, and there was no lie in it. Thus should they abide in Him according to that which it had taught them.

The twofold effect of the teaching by the unction from on high as to discernment of the truth

Observe also, here, that the effect of this teaching by the unction from on high is twofold with regard to the discernment of the truth. They knew that no lie was of the truth; possessing this truth from God, that which was not it was a lie. They knew that this unction which taught them of all things was the truth, and that there was no lie in it. The unction taught them all things, that is to say, all the truth, as truth of God. Therefore that which was not it was a lie, and there was no lie in the unction. Thus the sheep hear the voice of the Good Shepherd; if another calls them, it is not His voice, and that is enough. They fear it and fly from it, because they do not know it.

The whole body of Christians again addressed: the test of those who claim to be Christians for the rejection of what is false: three proofs of divine life

With verse 27 ends the second series of exhortations to the three classes. The apostle begins again with the whole body of Christians (ver. 28). This verse appears to me to correspond with verse 8 of the Second Epistle, and with chapter 3 of the First Epistle to the Corinthians.

The apostle, having ended his address to those who were all in the communion of the Father, applies the essential principles of the divine life, of the divine nature as manifested in Christ, to test those who claimed participation in it; not in order to make the believer doubt, but for the rejection of that which was false. I say, “not to make the believer doubt;” for the apostle speaks of his position, and of the position of those to whom he was writing, with the most perfect assurance (chap. 3:1, 2). He had spoken, in re-commencement at verse 28, of the appearing of Jesus. This introduces the Lord in the full revelation of His character, and gives rise to the scrutiny of the pretensions of those who called themselves by His name. There are two proofs which belong essentially to the divine life, and a third which is accessory as privilege: righteousness or obedience, and love, and the presence of the Holy Ghost.

Righteousness the first proof of life

Righteousness is not in the flesh. If therefore it is really found in any one, he is born of Him, he derives his nature from God in Christ. We may remark, that it is righteousness as it was manifested in Jesus; for it is because we know that He is righteous, that we know that “he who doeth righteousness is born of Him.” It is the same nature demonstrated by the same fruits.1

1 J. N. Darby, Synopsis of the Books of the Bible: Colossians to Revelation. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2008), 499–508.

2:15–17 Love for the world. 15 John emphasizes world by using the word three times in this verse and another three times in the two succeeding verses. It is an important concept (in this letter he uses the term twenty-three times). Do not love the world, he says, and some see a contradiction here with ‘God so loved the world’ (Jn. 3:16). But that passage speaks of God’s love for all people, whereas this one is concerned with setting one’s heart on worldliness. John makes two points: first, love for the world in this sense is incompatible with love for the Father (cf. Jas. 4:4), and secondly, in any case the world and all that is in it are temporary.

16 The cravings of sinful man (lit. ‘the lust of the flesh’) points to the gratification of our fleshly desires. The lust of his eyes is the strong desire for what is seen, for the outward form of things; it is the lust after the superficial. The boasting of what he has and does (lit. ‘the boastfulness of life’) is the empty haughtiness of the worldly-minded. (With these three things compare the three things that led Eve to disobey God; Gn. 3:6.) None of these has its origin in God (not from the Father). They are all from the world, that world that is but a passing show on its way to ruin. Everything points to totality: evil is found throughout the world. 17 By contrast, whoever does the will of God lives for ever. Obedience is an important part of eternal life.1

1 Leon L. Morris, “1 John,” in New Bible Commentary: 21st Century Edition, ed. D. A. Carson et al., 4th ed. (Leicester, England; Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994), 1402.

Vv. 15–17. A warning against love of the world, which is directed neither specially to the children (Oecumenius: ἐπτόηται γὰρ ἀεὶ τὰ παιδία περὶ τὸ φαινόμενον ἡδύ), nor specially to the young men (Bengel, Semler, Besser), but to all (Bede: omnibus haec generaliter ecclesiae filiis scribit).

Ver. 15. μὴ ἀγαπᾶτε τὸν κόσμον] The meaning of ἀγαπᾶν depends on that of the idea κόσμος.—κόσμος is with John eminently an ethical conception = mankind, fallen away from God, and of hostile disposition towards Him, together with all that it lives for and has made its own; comp. on Jas. 1:27, 4:4 (similarly Gerlach, Besser, Düsterdieck, Myrberg, Ebrard, Braune). The explanations that deviate from this are divided into three leading classes—(1) Those in which κόσμος is regarded as a total number of men indeed, but in a limited way; either = “the heathen world” (Lange), or more indefinitely: “the mass of common men” (Oecumenius: ὁ συρφετὸς ὄχλος, ὃς οὐ τὴν τοῦ πατρὸς ἔχει ἀγάπην ἐν ἑαυτῷ; Calovius: homines dediti rebus hujus mundi), or “the greater part of men” (Grotius: humanum genus, secundum partem majorem, quae in malis actionibus versatur); Storr limits the idea here “to that part of the world which the antichristians constituted.” (2) Those which understand κόσμος not of the human world itself, but of the evil dwelling in it; so says the Scholiast: κόσμον τὴν κοσμικὴν φιληδονίαν καὶ διάχυσιν λέγει, ἧς ἐστὶν ἄρχων ὁ διάβολος; Luther: “the world, i.e. godlessness itself, through which a man has not the right use of the creatures;” to this class belong also the explanations of Calvin, Morus, S. Schmid, Semler; but in this abstract sense the word never appears elsewhere; and besides, taking this view, difficulties appear in the sequel which can only be overcome by arbitrary interpretations. (3) Those explanations in which κόσμος is regarded as the total of perishable (actual) things; these things being regarded as purely physical, there lies in the idea κόσμος, in and by itself, no ethical meaning, but this appears only through the ἀγαπᾷν which is connected with it; the κόσμος as a creature of God is in itself good and irreproachable, but the love to the κόσμος, through which man centres his affections on it, and makes it the single aim of his activity, is to be blamed, because amid all association with earthly things it is not they, but God, that must be loved; thus there results for the command: μὴ ἀγαπᾶτε τὸν κόσμον, certainly an appropriate idea; but what follows in vv. 16 and 17 has induced almost all commentators who accept this view to give, nevertheless, to the idea κόσμος itself, more or less distinctly, an ethical reference; thus Lücke indeed says: “ὁ κόσμος is, as the sum total of the temporal and sensuous, in contrast (!) to the πνεῦμα, always only the objective sphere of evil, i.e. to which it tends as ethical direction and disposition,” but immediately afterwards he explains the same idea “as the sum total of all sensuous appearances, which excite the desire of the senses;” still more definitely de Wette says: “the sum total of that which attracts desire, the temporal, sensuous, earthly—regarded in contrast with God;” but this connection of the ethical reference with the idea of actual things is itself rather unsuitable; not in the things, but in man himself, lies the cause of the seductive charm which things exercise upon him; besides, it is not possible to retain this conception of the word without modification to the end of the 17th verse. It is true some commentators distinctly say that John here makes a sort of play upon the word, but such an assumption does too much violence to the clearness and certainty of the thought for us to approve of it. The right view, therefore, is to take ὁ κόσμος here in the same sense that the word prevailingly has throughout John’s works, so that it signifies the world lying ἐν τῷ πονηρῷ. This κόσμος, this is the meaning of the apostle’s warning, is not to be the object of the ἀγάπη of believers. From this it follows that ἀγαπᾷν here means neither “to love too much,” nor “to love with unhallowed sense,” but love in the strictest sense of the word, consisting in a life of inner fellowship.—μηδὲ τὰ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ] As κόσμος is an ethical idea, natural objects as such cannot be meant by τὰ ἐν τ. κ., but only these in so far as they are taken by the ungodly world into its service; or better, the apparently good things which the world pursues, or with which it delights itself, and which therefore belong to it, as riches, honour, power, human wisdom, and such like. Ebrard erroneously understands thereby “the different kinds of sinful impulse, thought, and action, e.g. avarice, ambition, sensuality, and such like,” for either of these is plainly a love (although a false, unholy love) which cannot itself again be regarded as the object of love.—ἐάν τις ἀγαπᾷ τὸν κόσμον, οὐκ ἔστιν κ.τ.λ.] By this sentence the apostle confirms the previous exhortation, expressing the incongruity of love to the κόσμος with the ἀγάπη τοῦ πατρός; Bede: Unum cor duos tam sibi adversaries amores non capit. By ἀγάπη τοῦ πατρός is to be understood neither the love of God to us (Luther II., Calovius), nor the charitas quam Pater praescribit (Socinus); but, as by far the most of commentators (Bede, Beza, Grotius, Vatablus, Spener, etc., and all the modern commentators, even Ebrard, despite his erroneous interpretation of ver. 5), interpret, love to God.—If πατρός is the correct reading, then the name Father is here to be explained from the filial relationship of Christians to God, and points to their duty not to love the world, but God.—Between the two sorts of ἀγάπη there is the same exclusive contrast as between the Θεῷ δουλεύειν and μαμωνᾷ δουλεύειν, Matt. 6:24. Compare also Jas. 4:4: ἡ φιλία τοῦ κόσμου, ἔχθρα τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐστίν.

Ver. 16. Confirmation of the preceding thought that love to the world is inconsistent with love to God.—ὅτι πᾶν τὸ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ] Bede incorrectly explains the neuter here (as it certainly does appear elsewhere in John) as masculine: omnes mundi dilectores non habent nisi concupiscentiam; most commentators regard the expression as identical with the foregoing τὰ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ; even Düsterdieck, who, in reference to the following ἡ ἐπιθυμία κ.τ.λ., thinks that a “change occurs from the representation of the objects of the love of the world to the subjective desire itself and its actual manifestations.” But even apart from the fact that the assumption of such a change in the form is only a makeshift, the expression of the apostle himself is opposed to this; for had he not meant by πᾶν τὸ ἐν τ. κ. something else than by τὰ ἐν τῷ κ., he would have put the neuter plural here also. Besides, it must not be overlooked why the following: ἡ ἐπιθυμία κ.τ.λ. could not be the apposition stating the sense of πᾶν τ. ἐν τ. κ. (Frommann, p. 269). Accordingly, the apostle means by this expression: all that forms the contents, i.e. the substance of the κόσμος; its inner life, which animates it (Braune); in what this consists, the following words state. ἡ ἐπιθυμία τῆς σαρκὸς κ.τ.λ.] Although the ideas ἐπιθυμία and ἀλαζονεία in themselves denote a subjective disposition of man, yet several commentators think that here not this, but the objective things are meant, to which that subjective disposition is directed (Bengel, Russmeyer, Lange, Ewald), or that the otherwise subjective idea disappears into the objective (de Wette), or at least that both the subjective and the objective are to be thought of together (Lorinus, Brückner). But with the correct conception of the ideas κόσμος and πᾶν τὸ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ there is no apparent reason for such an arbitrary explanation, by which violence is done to the words of the apostle.—ἡ ἐπιθυμία τῆς σαρκός] The genitive is here not the genitive of the object, but, as is the case with ἐπιθυμία always in the N. T. (except 2 Pet. 2:10; on Eph. 4:22 comp. Meyer on this passage), the genitive of the subject, hence not: “the desire directed towards the flesh,” but: “the desire which the flesh, i.e. the corrupted sensual nature of man, cherishes, or which is peculiar to the flesh;” comp. Gal. 5:17: ἡ σὰρξ ἐπιθυμεῖ.—Ebrard interprets, describing the genitive as that “of quality and reference,” for which he wrongly appeals to Eph. 4:22, 2 Pet. 2:10: “the desire which occurs in the sphere of the flesh;” the apostle scarcely conceived the idea so indefinitely. The idea may be taken in a broader or in a narrower sense; the first view in Lücke (“fleshly, sensuous desire in general, in contrast to πνεύματι περιπατεῖν and ἄγεσθαι; comp. Eph. 2:3; 1 Pet. 2:11”), de Wette, Neander, Düsterdieck; in the second, the desire of sensuality and drunkenness is specially understood; Augustine: desiderium earum rerum, quae pertinent ad carnem, sicut cibus et concubitus et caetera hujusmodi; similarly Grotius, Baumgarten-Crusius, Sander, Besser, etc.; Brückner limits the idea to “the lust of the flesh in the narrower sense;” Gerlach specially to every sort of pursuit of enjoyment; and Ebrard to “sexual enjoyments.” The right explanation can be found only on the consideration of the following expression.—καὶ ἡ ἐπιθυμία τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν] i.e. “the desire that is inherent in the eyes, that is peculiar to them;” the expression is explained in this way, that the desire of seeing something is attributed to the sense of sight itself. This idea also is understood in a broader and in a narrower sense. As Lücke calls the eyes “as it were the principal gates of sensual desire for the external world,” he identifies this idea with the preceding one; de Wette does the same, interpreting it (in objective aspect): “what the eyes see, and by what sensual desire is excited.” The connection by καί, however, which is further followed by a second καί, shows that the two ideas are to be definitely distinguished. Accordingly, most commentators justly regard ἐπιθ. τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν as the description of a special sort of ἐπιθυμία; thus (against de Wette) Brückner in subjective and objective view: “the lust of the eyes, and, at the same time, that in which, as sensuous and earthly, the eyes delight.” Two different interpretations are found with a more exact definition. Very many commentators, as Luther, Socinus, Grotius, Hornejus, Estius, Lorinus, Wolf, Clarius, Paulus, Semler, Baumgarten-Crusius, Gerlach, etc., hold, though with some modifications, the expression to be substantially synonymous with πλεονεξία, avaritia. On behalf of this interpretation, appeal is made principally to several passages of the O. T., and especially to Eccles. 4:8, 5:10, Prov. 23:5, 27:20; but erroneously, for even though the eye of the covetous or avaricious man looks with pleasure on his treasures, and eagerly looks out for new ones, still the possession or acquirement of wealth is to him the chief thing; the striving for it, however, is not expressed by the phrase: ἐπιθυμία τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν. Still less justifiable is the explanation of Ebrard, who partly agrees with those commentators, but regards the idea of “avarice” as too narrow; and, with an appeal to passages such as Ps. 17:11, 54:6, 91:8, 92:12 Prov. 6:17, etc., maintains that by ἡ ἐπιθ. τ. ὀφθ. is meant “the whole sphere of the desires of selfishness, envy, and avarice, of hatred and revenge (!).” Other commentators, on the contrary, retain the reference to the pleasure of mere sight, but limit this too much to dramatic performances, etc.; thus Augustine: omnis curiositas in spectaculis, in theatris; similarly Neander and others. Such a limitation, however, is arbitrary; accordingly, others refer the expression to other objects of sight, thus Calvin: tam libidinosos conspectus comprehendit, quam vanitatem, quae in pompis et inani splendore vagatur; but it is more correct to take the reference to these things in a quite general way, and, with Spener, to interpret: “all sinful desire by which we seek delight in the seeing itself” (so also Braune); besides, it is to be observed that ἡ ἐπιθυμία τ. ὀφθ. is not the desire for wealth, etc., which is excited by the sight (Rickli and others), but the desire of seeing unseemly things, and the sinful pleasure which the sight of them affords.2 Thus, this idea is quite exclusive of the ἐπιθυμία τῆς σαρκός; if the latter is taken quite generally, then the lust of the eyes is a particular species of it, which the apostle specially mentions in order to meet the idea that the desire of seeing anything can have nothing sinful in it. But, having regard to the simple juxtaposition of the ideas by καί, it is more correct to suppose that John conceived the ἐπιθ. τῆς σαρκός not in that general sense, but in the particular sense of the “lust for wealth and immoderate enjoyment,” so that the two ideas stand to one another in the relation not of subordination, but of co-ordination, both being subordinate to the general idea of ἐπιθυμία.—καὶ ἡ ἀλαζονεία τοῦ βίου] ἀλαζονεία is usually translated by superbia, ambitio (Socinus: ambitio in honoribus quaerendis ac sectandis), and by similar words, and thereby is understood ambition, together with the pride and haughty contempt for others which are frequently associated with it; thus Cyril interprets (Homil. Pasch. xxvii.): ἀλαζονείαν τ. β. φησὶ τῶν ἀξιωμάτων ὑπεροχὴν καὶ τὸ ἠρμένον ὕψος κατά γε τιμὴν καὶ δόξαν. Thereby, however, its peculiar meaning is not assigned to the word. In the N. T. ἀλαζονεία only appears in Jas. 4:16 (in the plural); the adjective ἀλάζων in Rom. 1:30 and 2 Tim. 3:2, in close connection with ὑπερήφανος, from which, however, it does not follow that the idea of ambition, thirst for glory, etc., is contained in it, but only that the ἀλαζ. is related to ὑπερηφανία; in James is meant thereby—according to the context—the haughtiness which overlooks the uncertainty of earthly happiness, and ostentatiously relies on its permanence. In the same sense = ostentatious pride in the possession, whether real or pretended, of earthly good things, such as happiness, power, knowledge, etc., the word appears also in the Apocrypha of the O. T.; comp. Wisd. 5:8, 17:7; 2 Macc. 9:8, 15:6. In classical Greek ἀλαζονεία has almost always the collateral meaning of the unreality of proud ostentation (Theophr. Charact. 23: προσποίησίς τις ἀγαθῶν οὐκ ὄντων πρὸς δόξαν; Plato, Phaedr.: ἕξις προσποιητικὴ ἀγαθοῦ ἢ ἀγαθῶν τῶν μὴ ὑπαρχόντων; antithesis of εἰρωνεία), which has obtained in Hellenistic usage only in so far that the idea here also always refers to something by its very nature worthless and trifling, and in this way certainly includes a delusion or unreality. This meaning is to be retained here also, as is rightly done by Lücke, Sander, Besser, Braune; for examples in the Scriptures, comp. 1 Chron. 22:1 ff.; Eccles. 2:1 ff.; Ezek. 28:16, 17; Dan. 4:27; Rev. 17:4, 18:7, etc. The genitive τοῦ βίου serves for the more particular definition of the idea; βίος signifies in the N. T. either “temporal life” (1 Tim. 2:2; 1 Pet. 4:3, Rec.), or more commonly “the support of life, the means” (chap. 3:17; Mark 12:44; Luke 8:43, 15:12, 30, 21:4); it never has the meaning “conduct of life” (Ebrard). Following polyb. Hist. vi. 576: ἡ περὶ τοὺς βίους ἀλαζονεία καὶ πολυτέλεια, it is appropriate to take βίος here in the second meaning, and the genitive as objective genitive (so Lücke); as, however, σαρκός and ὀφθαλμῶν are subjective genitives, it is much more correct to take βίου also as subjective genitive, and accordingly to interpret: “the ἀλαζονεία peculiar to the βίος;” in the expression ἡδοναὶ τοῦ βίου, Luke 8:14, τοῦ βίου may also be the objective genitive, thus: “the pleasures which refer to the βίος, the temporal good;” but more probably it is the subjective genitive here also, especially if it be connected with the preceding ideas (see Meyer on this passage), thus: “the pleasures peculiar to the present life.”

Remark.—It has almost become traditional to find the modes of appearance of the evil fully stated in this threefold form, corresponding to the triplicity which appears in the Greek writers, as in Pythag. Clinias: φιληδονία μὲν ἐν ταῖς ἀπολαύσεσι ταῖς διὰ σώματος, πλεονεξία δὲ ἐν τῷ κερδαίνειν, φιλοδοξία δὲ ἐν τῷ καθυπερέχειν τῶν ἴσων τε καὶ ὁμοίων; for other expressions, see Wetstein. This threefold form, it has been thought, is found both in the fall and again in the temptation of Christ; thus Bede, following Augustine, says: Per haec tria tantum cupiditas humana tentatur; per haec tria Adam tentatus est et victus; per haec tentatus est Christus et vicit; while a Lapide finds expressed in it even the contrast with the three Persons in the divine Trinity.—Bengel opposes this view, and makes such a distinction between the ἐπιθ. τὴς σαρκός and the ἐπιθ. τ. ὀφθ., that he refers the former to the sensus fruitivi, the latter to the sensus investigativi, but says of the ἀλαζονεία τ. β.: arrogantia vitae est, quae cupiditatem foras educit et longius in mundum diffundit, ut homo velit quam plurimus esse in victu, cultu, etc.; and then observes: non concidunt cum his tribus tria vitia cardinalia: voluptas, avaritia, superbia; sed tarnen in his continentur. By the last clause Bengel shows, however, “that there is a trace of that scheme to be found even in him” (Düsterdieck).—Lücke has more decidedly expressed himself against it, inasmuch as he finds in that threefold form only “the three chief points of worldly lust” (according to the first edition, only “as examples”); and, moreover, the points “in which it proceeds from the sensual desire to the climax of the ἀλαζονεία.” But Lücke’s own interpretation of the particular ideas is opposed to such a progress, as he makes the first two ideas to coincide in regard to their substance, and thus no progress takes place from the one ἐπιθυμία to the other, nor is it, besides, in any way hinted at by the apostle.—Lücke rightly contends that particular leading vices are the subject here; not individual vices, but the leading forms (Lücke); or, as Brückner says, the leading tendencies of worldly sense are stated by the apostle in that threefold form. But in what relation do these stand to one another? According to Düsterdieck, the ἐπιθυμία τῆς σαρκός forms the superior idea, to which the two other ideas, as mutually co-ordinate, are in subordination: “The first-mentioned lust of the flesh, the most comprehensive and thorough description of the love of the world (ver. 15), embraces both the lust of the eyes and the pride of life.” This is incorrect. For, on the one hand, the ἀγάπη to the κόσμος is not to be identified with the ἐπιθυμία τῆς σαρκός, as the latter rather describes the inner nature of the κόσμος; the apostle warns against that love, because in the κόσμος the ἐπιθυμία which is not of God dominates; the thought that is to be supplied is this, that love to the κόσμος necessarily implies an entrance into its nature; and, on the other hand, the apostle’s form of expression is utterly opposed to such a subordination; the two first-mentioned forms of worldly sense are by the same appellation: ἐπιθυμία, closely connected with each other, and distinguished from the third, which is not called ἐπιθυμία, but ἀλαζονεία; it is unsuitable, however, to regard the latter as ἐπιθυμία; ἐπιθυμία is the desire directed to the attainment of any good—the lust for something (not exactly: the lust or delight in anything), but the ἀλαζονεία is a definite behaviour in regard to the good which one possesses. The worldly man stands in a double relationship to the perishable good things; on the one hand, he aspires after them, whether he wants to possess and enjoy them or to delight himself with looking at them; on the other hand, he fancies himself great in them when he has them as his own.—That the whole sphere of sinful life is not here surveyed, Luther has noticed when he says: “The following three things are not of the Father, viz.: (1) hatred of the brethren; (2) the three idols of the world; (3) false and seductive teaching.”—Sander also brings out the same trichotomy of sinful corruption, appealing for it to chap. 2:2–12, where the subject is the first, to vv. 15–17, where it is the second, and to ver. 19 ff., where it is the third. The apostle certainly mentions these different modes of the appearance of sin; but that the organism of the Epistle rests on this, is an assertion that goes too far.

The following words: οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς κ.τ.λ.] express the anti-divine character of the worldly nature of the ἐπιθυμία κ.τ.λ.—πατήρ, as in ver. 15; κόσμος here quite in the same sense as before.—εἶναι ἐκ is, according to Paulus, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, not the description of the origin, but only of the connection and similarity; by this view, however, the depth of John’s conception is ignored; the expression rather embraces both, but the second only as the result of the first (so also Ebrard); comp. John 8:44.—By the addition of ἀλλʼ ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου ἐστί the antagonism between God and the world, as the source of the ungodly disposition, is brought out with peculiar distinctness.

Ver. 17 adds a new element to the preceding, whereby the exhortation of ver. 15 is strengthened and confirmed.—καὶ ὁ κόσμος παράγεται] is frequently taken by commentators, with an appeal to 1 Cor. 7:31, as an expression of the transitoriness of the world; either the present being changed into the future (Bede: mundus transibit, quum in die judicii per ignem in meliorem mutabitur figuram, ut sit coelum novum et terra nova), or the peculiar nature of the world being regarded as described in it (Oecumenius: τὰ κοσμικὰ ἐπιθυμήματα οὐκ ἔχει τὸ μένον τε καὶ ἑστώς, ἀλλὰ παράγεται); Düsterdieck combines both; the apostle, according to him, expresses a truth “which holds good with ever present meaning, and which will thereby show itself some time in fact” (so also Ebrard and Braune). But ver. 8 and the following ἐσχάτη ὥρα ἐστίν make it more than probable that the apostle here also uses παράγεται in the consciousness of the approaching second advent of Christ and the judgment on the κόσμος which is connected with it, thus: “the world is in the state of disappearing;” in 1 Cor. 7:31: παράγει τὸ σχῆμα τοῦ κόσμου τούτου is said with the same feeling.—καὶ ἡ ἐπιθυμία αὐτοῦ] With the world passes away also the ἐπιθυμία which dwells in it; whereby the apostle briefly refers to the threefold form previously named: αὐτοῦ is not genitive of the object (Lücke, Neander, Sander, Besser), but of the subject (Düsterdieck, Braune); though there is mention previously of an ἀγαπᾷν τὸν κόσμον, yet there is none of an ἐπιθυμία directed towards the κόσμος; the contrary view rests on an erroneous interpretation of κόσμος.—ὁ δὲ ποιῶν τὸ θέλημα τοῦ Θεοῦ] antithesis to ὁ κόσμος, which in its ἐπιθυμία does not do the will of God. It is true, “ὁ πατήρ” is previously put as antithesis to the κόσμος, but it does not follow from this that the antithesis here is not to be taken as fully corresponding, and “ἐπιθυμῶν” to be taken out of ἐπιθυμία (Lücke); the appearance of this arises only from the fact that κόσμος is taken as something concrete. The expression used by the apostle is synonymous with ὁ ἀγαπῶν τὸν Θεόν; for the doing of the divine will is the effect of love to Him.—μένει εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα] antithesis of παράγεται; the expression signifies, as frequently, eternal, infinite endurance, comp. John 6:51, 58, 8:35, etc. That John regarded this abiding for ever as the eternally happy life in the fellowship of God is certain, but is not contained in the expression. To the κόσμος is assigned θάνατος, to the children of God ζωὴ αἰώνιος.

Vv. 18–27. Warning against the antichrists, whose presence shows that the last hour has come. Description of them, and exhortation to believers to continue in that which they have heard from the beginning, combined with the testimony that they have known the truth.—This section stands in closest connection with the preceding one; for, in the first place, the preceding exhortation is occasioned by the thought that it is ἐσχάτη ὥρα, as is evidenced by the appearance of the ἀντίχριστοι; and, in the second place, the ἀντίχριστοι, of whom the apostle treats here, are, as it is put in chap. 4:5: ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου.1

1 Joh. Ed. Huther, Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the General Epistles of James and John, trans. Paton J. Gloag and Clarke H. Irwin, Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1882), 336–348.

Reject the world—choose God

(1 John 2:15–17)

John urges his readers not to love the world. This sounds strange, when we know that God loves the world so much that he sent Jesus to be its Saviour (John 3:16). But there is a difference between loving the world for its values and ways and loving the world because you want to change it.

The Bible often gives the choice between loving the world and loving God. Joshua challenged the Israelites to choose between their old pagan gods and the Lord God (Joshua 24:15). Jesus gave his disciples a stark choice. He told them it is impossible to ‘serve both God and Money’ (Matthew 6:24).1

1 Andrew Knowles, The Bible Guide, 1st Augsburg books ed. (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, 2001), 687–688.

Even simple, clearly written sentences in this epistle can be puzzling because we lack an adequate frame of reference for interpreting them. These verses offer a case in point. Who are the “little children,” “fathers,” and “young men”? Do these terms refer to one, two, or three groups? Scholars are divided on this question, some arguing that all three terms refer to the community, and some arguing that the terms should be taken literally, designating three age groups in the community. Others point out that the elder regularly uses “little children” as a term of address, apparently for the community (2:1, 28; 3:7, 18; 5:21), and therefore “fathers” and “young men” must refer to older and younger members of the community.

The place to begin searching for a basis for interpreting these references should probably be Jeremiah’s promise of the new covenant, which lies behind earlier verses in this chapter (see above). The reference is far from conclusive, but when the new covenant is given, “they shall all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them” (Jer. 31:34). Similarly, Joel 2:28 promises that “your sons and daughters will prophesy, your old men will dream dreams, your young men will see visions.” There is some evidence that the early church took over the distinction between young men (Acts 2:17; 5:10; cf. also Mark 14:51; 16:7) and elders (Titus 2:2–8). In Matthew 23:8–9 Jesus warns his followers not to call anyone “Rabbi” or “Father,” and growth in spiritual instruction is frequently compared to growing to maturity (1 Cor. 3:1; Eph. 4:13; Heb. 5:13–6:1). At Qumran the members of the community sat in council and spoke according to their rank in the community (1QS 6:13–24; CD 13:11–13; 1QSa 1:6–19), and in the early church two tiers of leadership developed: the elders or overseers (presbyteroi or episkopoi) and the young men or deacons (neaniskoi or diakonoi). Polycarp, for example, counseled the Philippians, “Let the younger men (neaniskoi) be blameless in all things.… Wherefore it is necessary to refrain from all these things, and to be subject to the presbyters and deacons” (5.3; Apostolic Fathers, LCL 1:289–91). Very likely, the Johannine community had developed a similar pattern of church leadership. The author refers to himself at the beginning of each of the two shorter epistles as the elder or presbyter (presbyteros).

The faithful community is warned not to “love the world nor the things in the world” (2:15). Here “world” is used not in the sense of the created order, or all people, as in John 3:16, but in the negative sense of all that is opposed to God. For this reason the parallel with strains of Greek and Gnostic thought that viewed the material world as inherently evil is merely superficial. In the Corpus Hermeticum, Hermes says: “As for me, I give thanks to god for what he has put in my mind, even to know of the good that it is impossible for it to exist in the cosmos. For the cosmos is a plenitude [pleroma] of vice, as god is a plenitude of the good” (6.4; Boring, 542). The Gospel of John, however, affirms that “all things came into being through him” (1:3), or as Paul affirms, quoting the Psalmist (24:1), “The earth is the Lord’s, and the fullness [pleroma] thereof” (1 Cor. 10:26 kjv). Again, therefore, the thought is closer to that of the scrolls, where the community is instructed to “detest all the sons of darkness, each one in accordance with his blame” (1QS 1:10; García Martínez, 3). The “things in the world” are then enumerated: “the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life” (2:16). Similar triads were common in Jewish and early Christian writings. Jubilees 7:20 attributes the flood to three things: fornication, pollution, and injustice. Philo, On the Decalogue 28.153 traces wars to “the desire for money, or glory, or pleasure.” The Damascus Document identifies Belial’s three nets as fornication, wealth, and defilement of the temple (CD 4:15–17). Pirque ’Abot explains that “Jealousy, lust, and ambition put a man out of the world” (4:21; Danby, 455), and Justin Martyr lists as three false motives “love of money, or of glory, or of pleasure” (Dialogue with Trypho 82.4; ANF 1:240). Such things, the elder warns, are merely transient, and are already passing away.1

1 R. Alan Culpepper, “1 John, 2 John, 3 John,” in John’s Gospel, Hebrews–Revelation, ed. Craig A. Evans and Craig A. Bubeck, First Edition., The Bible Knowledge Background Commentary (Colorado Springs, CO; Paris, ON; Eastbourne: David C Cook, 2005), 172–173.

2:15 Do Not Love the World

Friendship with God. Didymus the Blind: Since the nature of friendship with God is such that if anyone loves this world he is an enemy of God, it follows that if someone wants to be a friend of God and dwell in God’s love, he must turn away from love of the world and the things which are in the world. Commentary on 1 John.

The Vanity of the World. Cyril of Alexandria: What is there in the world but vanity, which is of no use to anybody? The distractions of the present life are unnecessary and pointless, as is the excessive abundance of worldly passions. Catena.

The Things of the World. Eucherius: Do not love the world or the things in it, says the apostle, for all these things flatter our gaze with their deceptive show. Let the power of the eyes be focused on the light, not given over to error, and since that power is available for the enjoyment of life, let it not receive what causes death. Exhortation to His Kinsman Valerian.

The Desires of the World. Severus of Antioch: John means the lusts and desires of the world, which are ruled by the devil. Catena.

Loving That Which Vanishes. Hilary of Arles: A wise father warns his children not to love things which quickly vanish away. This wisdom is the crowning glory of the supreme Maker of all things, and it is well-suited to everyone who is righteous. Introductory Commentary on 1 John.

At War Within the Soul. Andreas: Lest anyone think that he has completely broken with the system of this world, John here reminds us that something of it remains inside us and that we are attracted by it because of the desires of our flesh, which are at war with our soul. From this it may be seen that the visible world is no longer loved by those who have risen above it, who no longer contemplate temporal things but gaze on eternity instead. Catena.

Use the World As Needed. Bede: John addresses these remarks to everyone indiscriminately, whether they are fathers, mature in their faith, whether they are just humble children or whether they are young people who are busily engaged in fighting spiritual battles. Whatever their situation, they must all learn to use the world when they have to but not to love it inordinately. On 1 John.

Flee the World. Symeon the New Theologian: Let us flee the world. For what have we got in common with it? Let us run and pursue until we have laid hold of something which is permanent and does not pass away, for all things perish and pass away like a dream, and nothing is lasting or certain among the things which are seen. Discourses 2.14.

2:16 The Lust of the Flesh

Vehement Lust. Augustine: The stronger and more vehement the lust which is not from the Father but from the world, the more each one becomes willing to accept all annoyances and griefs in pursuing the object of his desires. On Patience 17.

Enslaved to Bodily Desires. Augustine: This love of the world, which contains in itself the universal lust of the world, is the general kind of fornication by which one sins against one’s own body, in that the human mind is unceasingly enslaved to all bodily and visible desires and pleasures, left marooned and abandoned by the very Creator of all things. Sermons 162.4.

The Pride of Life. Hilary of Arles: The lust of the flesh is what pertains to our physical appetites, whereas the lust of the eye and the pride of life are what pertains to the vices of the soul, such as inordinate self-love, which does not come from the Father but from the devil. Introductory Commentary on 1 John.

Corruption Fades Away. Andreas: None of the vain pleasures of corruption will last. They are temporal and will fade away and in fact are flimsier than any cobweb. Catena.

Every Wickedness Described. Bede: Those who love the world have nothing but the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes and the pride of life. These few words describe every kind of wickedness which exists. On 1 John.

2:17 Time and Eternity

Abiding Forever. Andreas: In discussing with the Jews, Christ explained: “This is the will of the Father, that you should believe in the one whom he has sent.” The one who keeps his commandments will gain eternal life. Catena.

The World Passes Away. Bede: The world will pass away on the day of judgment when it will be transformed by fire into something better, for then there will be a new heaven and a new earth. The lust of the world will also disappear, because there will be no place for it in the new creation. But the person who does God’s will does not have to worry about this because the things which he desires are heavenly and eternal, so that they do not and cannot change, whatever happens to the world. On 1 John.

Clinging to Perishable Things. Oecumenius: Wise people do not go on despising the gospel and clinging to the perishable things of this world, for that is just like trying to build a house on sand. Commentary on 1 John.1

1 Gerald Bray, ed., James, 1-2 Peter, 1-3 John, Jude, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 183–185.

RIVALS FOR THE HUMAN HEART

1 John 2:15–17

Do not love the world nor the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For everything that is in the world—the flesh’s desire, the eye’s desire, life’s empty pride—does not come from the Father but comes from the world. And the world is passing away, and so is its desire; but he who does God’s will abides forever.

It was characteristic of ancient thought to see the world in terms of two conflicting principles. We see this very vividly in Zoroastrianism, the religion of the Persians. That was a religion with which the Jews had been brought into contact and which had left a mark upon their thinking. Zoroastrianism saw the world as the battle ground between the opposing forces of the light and the dark. The god of the light was Ahura-Mazda, the god of the dark was Angra-Mainyu; and the great decision in life was which side to serve. Every individual had to decide whether to side with the light or with the dark; that was a conception which the Jews were familiar with.

But, for Christians, the split between the world and the Church had another background. The Jews had for many centuries held to a basic belief which divided time into two ages—this present age, which was wholly evil, and the age to come, which was the age of God and, therefore, wholly good. It was a basic belief of Christians that in Christ the age to come had arrived; the kingdom of God was here. But the kingdom of God had not arrived in and for the world; it had arrived only in and for the Church. Hence Christians were bound to draw a contrast. The life of Christians within the Church was the life of the age to come, which was wholly good. On the other hand, the world was still living in the present age, which was wholly evil. It followed inevitably that there was a complete split between the Church and the world, and that there could be no fellowship, and even no compromise, between them.

But we must be careful to understand what John meant by the world, the kosmos. Christians did not hate the world as such. It was God’s creation; and God made all things well. Jesus had loved the beauty of the world; not even Solomon in all his glory was clothed like one of the scarlet anemones which bloomed for a day and died. Jesus again and again took his illustrations from the world. In that sense, Christians did not hate the world. The earth was not the devil’s; the earth and all its fullness was the Lord’s. But kosmos acquired a moral sense. It began to mean the world apart from God. C. H. Dodd defines this meaning of kosmos: ‘Our author means human society in so far as it is organized on wrong principles, and characterized by base desires, false values, and egoism.’ In other words, to John the world was nothing other than the society of the Roman Empire with its false values and its false gods.

The world in this passage does not mean the world in general, for God loved the world which he had made; it means the world which, in fact, had forsaken the God who made it.

It so happened that there was a factor in the situation of John’s people which made the circumstances even more perilous. It is clear that, although they might be unpopular, they were not undergoing persecution. They were, therefore, under the great and dangerous temptation to compromise with the world. It is always difficult to be different, and it was particularly difficult for them.

To this day, Christians cannot escape the obligation to be different from the world. In this passage, John sees things as he always sees them—in terms of black and white. As B. F. Westcott has it, ‘There cannot be a vacuum in the soul.’ This is a matter in which there is no neutrality; a person loves either the world or God. Jesus himself said: ‘No one can serve two masters’ (Matthew 6:24). The ultimate choice remains the same. Are we to accept the world’s standards or the standards of God?

THE LIFE IN WHICH THERE IS NO FUTURE

1 John 2:15–17 (contd)

John has two things to say about those who love the world and who compromise with it. First, he sets out three sins which are typical of the world.

(1) There is the flesh’s desire. This means far more than what we mean by sins of the flesh. To us, that expression has to do exclusively with sexual sin. But, in the New Testament, the flesh is that part of our nature which, when it is without the grace of Jesus Christ, offers a point of entry for sin. It includes the sins of the flesh but also all worldly ambitions and selfish aims. To be subject to physical desire is to judge everything in this world by purely material standards. It is to live a life dominated by the senses. It is to be gluttonous in eating habits, soft in luxury, slavish in pleasure, lustful and lax in morals, selfish in the use of possessions, heedless of all the spiritual values and extravagant in the gratification of material desires. The flesh’s desire is heedless of the commandments of God, the judgment of God, the standards of God and the very existence of God. We need not think of this as the sin of the gross sinner. Anyone who demands a pleasure which may be the ruin of someone else, anyone who has no respect for the personalities of other people in the gratification of personal desires, anyone who lives in luxury while others live in want, anyone who has made a god of comfort and of ambition in any part of life, is the servant of physical desire.

(2) There is the eye’s desire. This, as C. H. Dodd puts it, is ‘the tendency to be captivated by outward show’. It is the spirit which identifies lavish ostentation with real prosperity. It is the spirit which can see nothing without wishing to acquire it and which, having acquired it, flaunts it. It is the spirit which believes that happiness is to be found in the things that money can buy and the eye can see; it has no values other than the material.

(3) There is life’s empty pride. Here, John uses a most vivid Greek word, alazoneia. To the ancient moralists, the alazōn was the man who laid claims to possessions and to achievements which did not belong to him in order to exalt himself. The alazōn is the braggart; and C. H. Dodd translates alazoneia as pretentious egoism. Theophrastus, the great Greek master of the character study, has a study of the alazōn. He stands in the harbour and boasts of the ships that he has at sea; he ostentatiously sends a messenger to the bank when he has very little to his credit; he talks of his friends among the mighty and of the letters he receives from the famous. He details at length his charitable donations and his services to the state. He only lives in rented accommodation, but he talks of buying a bigger house to match his lavish entertaining. His conversation is a continual boasting about things which he does not possess, and all his life is spent in an attempt to impress everyone he meets with his own non-existent importance.

As John sees them, the men and women of the world are people who judge everything by their own appetites, the slaves of lavish ostentation, boastful braggarts who try to make themselves out to be far more important than they really are.

Then comes John’s second warning. Those who attach themselves to the world’s aims and the world’s ways are giving their lives to things which literally have no future. All these things are passing away, and none of them has any permanency. But those who have taken God as the centre of their lives have given themselves to the things which last forever. The people of this world are doomed to disappointment; the people of God are assured of lasting joy.1

1 William Barclay, The Letters of John and Jude, 3rd ed., The New Daily Study Bible (Louisville, KY; London: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002), 62–66.

2:16 John warned against what the body desires, what the eyes itch to see, and what people work hard to acquire. These are not from the Father but from the world.

2:17 Like the darkness in verse 8, the world with its lust is passing away because of the coming of Christ. This opens the way for doing God’s will and establishing fellowship with Him forever.1

1 Jeremy Royal Howard, ed., HCSB Study Bible: God’s Word for Life (B&H, 2010), 1 Jn 2:15–17.

Warning against the love of the world: V. 15. Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. V. 16. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. V. 17. And the world passeth away and the lust thereof; but he that doeth the will of God abideth forever. On the fact that he is dealing with believers who have a large experience of the mercy of the Father and of the grace of Christ, the apostle bases his warning appeal: Do not love the world nor the things that are in the world. If any one loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. It is true, on the one hand, that we should make all men, regardless of their attitude toward the Gospel, the object of our merciful and benevolent regard, Gal. 6:9, 10. Above all, we should try to bring them all the wonderful news of the grace of God in Christ Jesus, Matt. 28:19, 20. But an entirely different matter is that of fraternizing with them while the unbelievers persist in rejecting the Word of God and in remaining in their spiritual darkness and condemnation. In this sense we cannot and should not love the world, the unbelievers. We should shun and detest the things in which the unbelievers find their enjoyment, with which they are exclusively concerned—the avaricious love of money, the pleasures of sin, particularly transgressions of the Sixth Commandment, ambition for honor before men, business schemes and practices which are at variance with the law of love. If a person professes to be a Christian and yet seeks the company of the world, of the children of the world, and takes part in the sinful pleasures, pastimes, and practices in which they indulge, he thereby convicts himself as not being a genuine disciple of the Lord, and shows that the love toward God, his heavenly Father, is not living in his heart. For how can a person be united with the enemies of God in the bonds of a true friendship? Where love for the world and its ways begins, there begins also the hatred of God. Where love of the world gains the ascendancy, there is nothing but spiritual death.

How this condition is brought about the apostle explains: For everything that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the proud ostentation of life, not are they of the Father, but they are of the world. That is the entire imagination, the sole object of the children of this world: the lust of the flesh, the desire to have and enjoy that which pleases their corrupt nature, the evil inclination of their hearts, whether this be in eating and drinking or in sensual delights; the lust of the eyes, when people seek to gratify the sensuality of their hearts by such sights as are intended to satisfy this desire, as in impure, lewd pictures and filthy theatrical exhibitions; the pride, the braggart boasting, the conspicuous ostentation of this life, when people make it a point to show off their wealth, very often ill-gotten gains. All these things are not in agreement with the new spiritual mind which should be found in the believers, in the children of God; they do not come from above, from the Father of Lights, but from below, from the kingdom of darkness. Those sins are the sphere in which the children of the world live and move, and from which the believers should always be far removed.

With warning emphasis the apostle therefore adds: And the world passes away and its lust; but he that does the will of God remains to eternity. This world with all its sinful lusts and desires is passing away; the sentence of condemnation has been spoken, and the final destruction is inevitable. The thought is not only that the world and all its so-called pleasures are transient, but also that they are corrupt and subject to eternal damnation. Only he that does the will of God, that walks and conducts himself always in conformity with the will of the heavenly Father, whose fellowship with the Lord expresses itself in a behavior which always meets with His approval, only lie will obtain eternal life, for only he will have given that evidence in love which proves the presence of faith in the heart. Thus we Christians must never forget that our faith will bear the fruit of a Christian conduct, of true brotherly love, and of denial of the world and its lusts.1

1 Paul E. Kretzmann, The Popular Commentary of the Bible: The New Testament, vol. 2, The Popular Commentary of the Bible (St. Louis, MO: Concordia, 1921), 563.

1 John 2:15–17 Do not love the world

Intimacy with God remains a distant hope when worldly attractions and lust dominate the believer. The lust of the flesh includes all forms of carnal thinking, religiosity, and perversion. The lust of the eyes, from the Greek word, epithumia, longingly looks for and desires the things that are forbidden, especially in a sexual manner. During revival, lustful impulses have to be recognized and repented of if intimate relationship with Christ is to be restored and developed. The pride of life, or vainglory, boasts self-confidently about anything to anyone. It is the entrance for self-idolatry and is at odds with true intimacy. Revival can only progress as far as humility is allowed to advance. Pride of youth, pride of old age, pride of appearance, pride of abilities, and pride of wealth and power exemplify this sinful, worldly state hindering genuine revival.1

1 William Pratney, Steve Hill, and Tamara S. Winslow, eds., The Revival Study Bible (Singapore: Genesis Books, 2010), 1744.

2:15 Things in the world are not just material objects. They are things that absorb human love of the Father to an undue degree, even to the point of supplanting God (see John’s warning about idols in 5:21 and note there).

2:16 John warned against what the body desires, what the eyes itch to see, and what people work hard to acquire. These are not from the Father but from the world.

2:17 Like the darkness in v. 8, the world with its lust is passing away because of the coming of Christ. This opens the way for doing the will of God and establishing fellowship with him forever.1

1 Robert W. Yarbrough, “1 John,” in CSB Study Bible: Notes, ed. Edwin A. Blum and Trevin Wax (Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 2017), 1995.

1 John 2:15: Life Point

First John 2:15 urges us not to love the things that are in the world. Instead we should love people and use things to bless them. This is hard for us to do if we love things too much! You and I must strive to keep possessions in their proper place in our lives. We must not put worldly possessions before people. We must always put people first!

1 John 2:15–17: Putting the Word to Work

Love is a central theme of 1 John. There are things, as a believer, however, that you are not to love. What does it mean to not love the world or the things in the world (see 1 John 2:15)? It does not mean that you should not enjoy the natural beauty of creation, but pursuing what the world offers—things that distract you from God and His purposes for your life—are pursuits rooted in lust and pride. Ask God to deepen your love for Him and the things of His kingdom.

“In,” but Not “Of”

Jesus told us to be in the world but not of the world. We can enjoy the world and the things it offers, but we must maintain balance and not get too attached to them (see 1 John 2:15). We are to live in the world as strangers and aliens, and remember that we are just passing through; this world is not our home. God is our home and we are on our way to live in His manifest presence for eternity.

One of the ways we can determine if things mean more to us than they should is to watch how we behave when one of our possessions is lost or damaged. It may disappoint us, but it should not devastate us. How would you act if your spouse or child broke your favorite possession? Recently, my daughter and I were thinking about years gone by and she said, “Mom, one of the things you did that really meant a lot to me was what you said when I accidentally broke your new bottle of favorite perfume. You said, ‘Do not worry about it. You are more important to me than the perfume.” ’ Now, I did not always behave so lovingly, but on this occasion I did and she remembered. I urge you not to ever make people feel that they are not as important as things.

I believe God tests us in these areas just to help us maintain right attitudes. The apostle Paul said that he learned how to be content whether he was abased or abounding (see Philippians 4:12). We may experience times of plenty and times of need, but if we remain steady and unchanging no matter what, then we know that things do not have an ungodly hold on us. God wants us to be blessed and to enjoy the best life has to offer, but He wants us to keep Him first in our lives. One man said, “I am very rich, but when I got cancer I called on God, not the first bank of the U.S.”

When everything else is gone, and it will be some day, there will be God. We must keep Him in first place in our lives. We came into the world with nothing and we will leave the same way. You cannot take money and things with you when you go, so do not worship them while you are here.1

1 Joyce Meyer, The Everyday Life Bible: The Power of God’s Word for Everyday Living (WORDsearch, 2008), 2098–2099.

Vers. 15–17. Love not the world.… If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.—

The world and the Father:—We talk of sons going out into the world. Hitherto they have been dwelling in the house of their father. Day by day they have had experience of his care and government. This going out into the world we speak of as if it were a loss of some of these blessings. It may be a loss of them altogether; the father and the father’s house may be altogether forgotten. The world may seem to us a good world, because it sets us free from the restraints of the family in which we have been brought up. But, on the other hand, all children look forward to this time of going out into the world. Their fathers encourage them to look forward to it; they tell them their discipline in the nursery has been intended to prepare them for the world. Well, St. John is regarding these Ephesians as members of one family in different stages of their growth. Children, young men, fathers, are all treated as sons of God and as brothers of each other. St. John would have them understand that what is true in particular families is true also of this great family. There is a time of childhood, a time when the name of a Father, and the care of a Father, and the forgiveness of a Father, are all in all. But while St. John looks thus encouragingly and hopefully upon these youths he also wishes them to be alive to the danger of their new position. They may forget their heavenly Father’s house, just as any child may forget his earthly father’s house. And the cause will be the same. The attractions of the outward world are likely to put a great chasm between one period of their life and another; these may cause that the love of the Father shall not be in them. But are the cases parallel? The family of my parents is manifestly separated from the general world; to pass from one to the other is a great change indeed. But is not the world God’s world? Is not the order which we see His order? How then can these young men be told that they are not to love that which He, in whose image they are created, is said so earnestly to love? Assuredly it is God’s world, God’s order. And how has disorder come into this order?—for that it is there we all confess. It has come from men falling in love with this order, or with some of the things in it, and setting them up and making them into gods. It has come from each man beginning to dream that he is the centre, either of this world or of some little world that he has made for himself out of it. This selfish love is the counterfeit of God’s self-sacrificing love; the counterfeit, and therefore its great antagonist. The Father’s love must prevail over this, or it will drive that Father’s love out of us. Here, then, are good reasons why the young men shall not love the world, neither the things that are in the world. For if they do, first, their strength will forsake them; they will give up the power that is in them to the things on which the power is to be exerted; they will be ruled by that which they are meant to rule. Next, they will not have any real insight into these things or any real sympathy with them. Those who love the world, those who surrender themselves to it, never understand it, never in the best sense enjoy it; they are too much on the level of it—yes, too much below the level of it—for they look up to it, they depend upon it—to be capable of contemplating it and of appreciating what is most exquisite in it. Some will say, “But these young men to whom St. John wrote were godly young men, to whom he gave credit for all right and holy purposes.” I believe it; and therefore such words as these were all the more necessary for them. “Love not the world.” For there is a love in you that the world did not kindle, that your heavenly Father has kindled; love it not, lest you should be turned into worldlings, whose misery is their incapacity of loving anything. (F. D. Maurice, M.A.)

Worldliness:—Religion differs from morality in the value which it places on the affections. Morality requires that an act be done on principle. Religion goes deeper, and inquires into the state of the heart.

I. The nature of the forbidden world. Now to define what worldliness is. Remark, first, that it is determined by the spirit of a life, not the objects with which the life is conversant. It is not the “flesh,” nor the “eye,” nor “life,” which are forbidden, but it is the “lust of the flesh,” and the “lust of the eye,” and the “pride of life.” It is not this earth nor the men who inhabit it—nor the sphere of our legitimate activity, that we may not love; but the way in which the love is given which constitutes worldliness. Worldliness, then, consists in these three things:—Attachment to the Outward—attachment to the Transitory—attachment to the Unreal: in opposition to love for the Inward, the Eternal, the True; and the one of these affections is necessarily expelled by the other. If a man love the world the love of the Father is not in him. But let a man once feel the power of the kingdom that is within, and then the love fades of that emotion whose life consists only in the thrill of a nerve, or the vivid sensation of a feeling: he loses his happiness and wins his blessedness.

II. The reasons for which the love of the world is forbidden. The first reason assigned is, that the love of the world is incompatible with the love of God. If any man love the world the love of the Father is not in him. St. John takes it for granted that we must love something. Love misplaced, or love rightly placed—you have your choice between these two; you have not your choice between loving God or nothing. The second reason which the apostle gives for not squandering affection on the world is its transitoriness. Now this transitoriness exists in two shapes. It is transitory in itself—the world passeth away. It is transitory in its power of exciting desire—the lust thereof passeth away. Lastly, a reason for unlearning the love of the world is the solitary permanence of Christian action. In contrast with the fleetingness of this world the apostle tells us of the stability of labour. “He that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.” And let us mark this. Christian life is action: not a speculating, not a debating, but a doing. Observe, however, to distinguish between the act and the actor—it is not the thing done but the doer who lasts. The thing done often is a failure. Bless, and if the Son of Peace be there your act succeeds; but if not, your blessing shall return unto you again. In other words, the act may fail; but the doer of it abideth for ever. We close this subject with two practical truths. Let us learn from earthly changefulness a lesson of cheerful activity. Let not the Christian slack his hand from work, for he that doeth the will of God may defy hell itself to quench his immortality. Finally, the love of this world is only unlearned by the love of the Father. (F. W. Robertson, M.A.)

The peril of worldliness:—How many a hopeful beginning of Christian life is marred by worldly influences! How many a flower of Paradise seems to perish in the bud at the deadly touch of the world’s cruel frost. We mean by the world not only the place but the people, or at least some of the people, who live in it. Of them St. Paul says they “mind earthly things”; that is, their affections and desires are centred in this world. Now in primitive times the distinction between the world and the Church was very marked. Those who belonged to the world did not even profess to accept the authority of Jesus Christ; on the contrary, they proclaimed outward war against Him and His, and carried it on with cruel persecutions. But soon Satan began to change his tactics. He disposed the world to respect the Church, for he began to see that her strength lay in opposition. He therefore set his wisdom to work to rob her of this power, and he has attempted to compass this end by seeking to obliterate as far as possible that clear, sharp, well-defined line of demarcation which separated the children of God from the children of this world. There is such a line, and we ought in the first place to recognise that fact, and in the second place look to God for wisdom to discern it as clearly as we can. In a large number of instances it is not difficult to discern, because there are a great number of persons whose lives speak for themselves; evidently their object in life is not to glorify God or yield to His claims. In another large number of instances, where the lines are not so hardly drawn, a tolerably good idea of the character can be obtained from indications proceeding from the lives of those by whom you are surrounded. When it is apparent that the regal claims of Christ upon the human heart are not recognised; when there is no confession of Christ in either words or actions; when lower objects obviously engross the attention, and nothing in their character or conduct indicates that the will has been surrendered to Christ, then the honesty of true love constrains us to regard such persons as belonging to the kingdom of this world, and as destitute of the new life and life-instincts which belong to citizens of the New Jerusalem. Nor must we allow ourselves to be misled by the fact that most people are nominally Christians. What, then, is our relation to the world? Christ answers, “Ye are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.” By constant contact with the world and by exposure to the temptations which arise in our daily life, we are to be driven more and more to realise the fact that we are citizens of a heavenly country. But there is more to be said about our relations with the world than that we are in it but not of it. We notice that our text says we are not to love the world, neither the things that are in the world; and it goes so far as to say, “If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.” Now, side by side with this direction we must place another text, with which we are equally or more familiar: “God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son.” What shall we say then? If God loved the world, are we precluded from doing that which we thank God for having done? Let us contemplate a man in whose heart the love of benevolence is strong towards the world. That benevolence will induce him to recognise the world’s present position; to bear in mind the truth that the world has rebelled against God, and that God’s edict of condemnation has already gone forth against it. Realising this—its terrible peril—he will shrink from adopting any attitude towards the world that would be likely to make the world feel as if its danger were a mere doctrinal or sentimental unreality, and this will keep him from associating with the world on terms of reciprocal amity. Christ might have wrought miracles of salvation from heaven, but He preferred to come into the world to save sinners; and so we may go into the world too, provided it is to save sinners. This should be the great work of our lives. But when instead of this we associate with the world as if it were congenial to us, it is far more likely to drag us down than our friendship is to lift it up. I am afraid it must be sorrowfully admitted that too many professing Christians are leading two distinct kinds of lives, worldly with the worldly and Christian with the Christian. You would hardly think them the same persons were you to meet them under different circumstances. They cannot be distinguished from the citizens of this world to-day, and they might pass for excellent saints to-morrow. But such people as these really exercise their influence for the world and not for God. (W. H. M. H. Aitken, M.A.)

The guileless spirit loving not the world, which is darkness, but God, who is light:—The love of the world is here declared to be irreconcilable with the love of the Father. And the declaration applies to “the things that are in the world.” These are represented under three categories or heads—“the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life.” 1. “The lust of the flesh.” It is lust or desire of a carnal sort; such as the flesh prompts or occasions. It is the appetite of sense out of order, or in excess. The appetite for which food is God’s appointed ordinance, and the appetite for which marriage is God’s appointed ordinance—the general needs and cravings of the body which the laws of nature and the gifts of Providence so fully meet—the higher tastes which fair forms and sweet sounds delight—the eye for beauty and the ear or the soul for music—these are not, any of them, the lust of the flesh. But they all, every one of them, may become the lust of the flesh. And in the world they do become the lust of the flesh. It is the world’s aim to pervert them into the lust of the flesh and to pander to them in that character, either grossly or with refinement. 2. “The lust of the eyes.” It is not merely that the flesh lusts through the eyes, or that the eyes minister to the lust of the flesh. The eyes themselves have their own lust. It is lust that can be satisfied with mere sight, which the lust of the flesh never is nor can be. I may be one in whom the world’s sensual or sensuous delights no longer stimulate the lust of the flesh. But my eyes are pained when I see the giddy crowd so happy and secure. My bosom swells and my blood boils when I am forced to look on villany triumphant and vice caressed. It may be all righteous zeal and virtuous wrath—a pure desire to witness wrong redressed and justice done. But, alas! as I yield to it I find it fast assuming a worse character. I would not myself be partaker of the sinful happiness I see the world enjoying; but I grudge the world’s enjoyment of it. 3. “The pride of life.” What pains are taken in the world to save appearances and keep up a seemly and goodly state! It is a business all but reduced to system. Its means and appliances are ceremony and feigned civility. All is to be in good taste and in good style—correct, creditable, commendable. It is the world’s pride to have it so. What is otherwise must be somehow toned down or shaded off, concealed or coloured. Falsehood may be necessary; a false code of honour; false notions of duty, as between man and man or between man and woman; false liberality and spurious delicacy. It debauches conscience and is fatal to high aims. It puts the men and women of the world on a poor struggle to out-manœuvre and outshine one another, to outdo one another, for the most part, in mere externals, while, with all manner of politeness, they affect to give one another credit for what they all know to be little better than shams. Nevertheless, the general effect is imposing. Need I suggest how many sad instances of religious inconsistency and worldly conformity spring from this source? Do you not sometimes find yourselves more ashamed of a breach of worldly etiquette—some apparent descent from the customary platform of worldly respectability—than of such a concession to the world’s forms and fashions as may compromise your integrity in the sight of God and your right to acquit yourselves of guile? And now, for practical use, let three remarks be made. 1. Of “all that is in the world” it is said that “it is not of the Father, but of the world.” The choicest blessings of home, the holiest ordinances of religion, the very gospel itself, may thus come, when once “in the world,” to be “of the world.” There is nothing in them that rises above the natural influences of self-love and social, as these are blended “in the world.” 2. “All that is in the world is of the world,” wherever it may be found. Let us beware, then, of letting into the sanctuary and shrine of our soul, now become the dwelling-place of God by His Spirit, anything that savours of the world’s sloth and self-indulgence, or of the world’s jealousy and envy, or of the world’s vain pomp and pride. 3. Let us remember that the world which we are not to love, because “all that is in it is not of the Father but is of the world,” is yet itself the object of a love on the part of the Father, with which, as His children, having in us His love, we are to sympathise. Let us look at it as the Father looks at it—as a deep, dark mass of guilt, ungodliness, and woe. Let us plunge in to the rescue. (R. S. Candlish, D. D.)

Love not the world:—

I. The warning. Are we not required diligently to attend to the things of the world? And is not a promise of its enjoyment made to those who do so? True. The command is “Look well to thy flocks and herds.” “Not slothful in business.” And this is among the promises, “Godliness is profitable to all things, having promise of the life that now is and that which is to come.” We may value the world, we may seek to possess it, we may enjoy it. This is not what the apostle forbids. The true meaning of the injunction lies in the term, “Love not the world.” This affection is supreme in whatever heart it dwells. It is jealous, and admits no rival. If a man loves the world, he gives it the first place in his heart, and everything is subordinated to it. The world then becomes his God, and he worships it. Whatever comes in competition with it is discarded. It becomes the object of a passion of which it is wholly unworthy. Yet the love of the world is a principle fearfully prevalent. It is to be found in many who do not suspect it. Here is a man placed in a position where he may add to his worldly substance. But there is a difficulty. The law stares him in the face, “provide things honest in the sight of all men.” He would like to keep it, but the prospect is tempting. By degrees his principle of integrity is overcome, and he takes the golden bait, overcome by the love of the world. One other illustration may be added. Here is a man who does respect the laws of integrity, and honour, and devotion. But he is associated with another, who does not respect them. A case arises where both must act together. The former expresses his desire to act righteously. The other uses his influence to overcome what he denominates his scruples. He is afraid to offend him; his interests are too deeply involved to run so great a risk; he yields, and presents another example of a victim overcome by the love of the world.

II. The reasons of the warning. 1. The love of God and the love of the world are incompatible with one another, and cannot exist together in the same mind. This is precisely the sentiment of our Lord (Matt. 6:24). 2. The world is sinful, and therefore its service is incompatible with that of God. 3. We are ourselves perishing, and so is all that is earthly. 4. But to all this there is a glorious contrast in the last reason. “He that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.” Such a man is the subject of principles that will endure through all the trials and vicissitudes of life. (Jas. Morgan, D. D.)

Love not the world:—Intimately connected, as we are, with this point of space, we are connected still more intimately with something which transcends alike both time and space—the Eternal and the Infinite in which we live and move and have our being. It is because the world tends to draw off our thoughts from Him who is the centre and fountain of our life that we are warned not to love the world. The world against which we are warned is something transitory and changeable. It is that which appeals to our senses, which supplies to us the natural field of enjoyment and thought and action. It is plain that if the world means all this, it is utterly absurd to think we can escape from it, as some have fancied, by becoming hermits, or avoiding certain kinds of society or amusement. The world is wrapt up in our very nature. It is a necessity of our earthly life. We might as well say we would renounce our bodies, renounce eating or breathing, as say we would renounce the world in this sense. It is not the world then in itself, but a particular way of using the world, a particular way of being affected by the world, which we Christians are to give up. It may help us to understand what is the wrong use and the wrong influence of the world if we think first what is the right use and right influence. Why did God place us in such a world as this? Was it not in order that we might be raised from the animal to the spiritual, from the state of nature to the state of grace, that we might learn to know God and do His will, and so become partakers of eternal life? This, then, is the right use of the world, that, through the things which are made, we might come to understand the invisible things of God. Let us think of some of the ways in which this is done. The infant’s world is its mother’s lap. In and through that visible world it is taught, even before it can think, some of the invisible things of God. So again the astronomer when he ponders over the varying aspects of the starry heavens, the naturalist when he examines with the microscope the structure of creatures invisible to the naked eye, the poet when he bows down in reverence and adoration before the Holy Spirit revealing itself in nature—these all use the world aright, they rise through the visible, the outward transitory fact, to the invisible, the inner law, the unchanging character and will of the Eternal Father. Let us now descend from this wider view of our environment to that which we most commonly understand by the term “the world,” and which no doubt approaches more nearly to its use in the Bible—the influence of society in general upon each member of the society. Many men have been kept from doing wrong by fear of the world’s censure, many men have been stimulated to do right from hope of the world’s praise. In this way, then, the voice of society is to a certain extent an echo of the voice of God. But far more valuable and important is that other influence of society, when each individual man ceases to think of himself as a separate unit with his separate interests, and becomes conscious of a common membership and a common life. As, for instance, when a boy at school learns to care more for the honour and credit of the school than he does for any advantage or credit to himself, or when the soldier is so penetrated by the spirit of discipline and loyalty and patriotism that he willingly sacrifices his life to ensure the safety of his comrades or the triumph of his country. If through the world of nature we are taught something of the might and the wisdom and the glory of God, surely through the world of humanity, through the natural feeling of fellowship which binds us all together, we are taught a yet higher truth, we are brought into sympathy with Him who left the throne of glory to take upon Him the form of a servant. Such, then, being the right use and the right influence of the world, it will not be difficult to see what is its wrong use and wrong influence, what, in fact, is the meaning of the term “world” as used in my text. The world, in the bad sense, is that in our environment which has a tendency to lower our moral nature, to shut out the thought of God, to make us disbelieve in the eternal righteousness and love. Let us take a few examples. Public spirit, esprit de corps, which is the parent of so much that is good, may also be the parent of terrible evil. Men who would have shrunk from doing harm to their neighbour on private grounds have been ready to commit the worst atrocities when it was ordered by the society to which they belonged. So a man whom we have known as fair and honourable in private life, will use the most unfair means, will descend to intimidation and slander, if not to actual falsehood, in order to promote the interests of the religious or political party to which he belongs. In all these cases we see the evil influence of that world against which St. John warns us. The man forgets that the first and greatest commandment is his duty to God, and that his duty to man can only be rightly accomplished as long as he remembers his duty to God. I turn now to the second kind of social influence of which I spoke before. I mean where a man is not carried away by the prevailing feeling, but where he consciously adapts himself to it with a view to gain respect or admiration, or to avoid punishment, or blame, or contempt, or inconvenience of any kind. As I said before, the effect of this motive is to a certain extent favourable to virtuous action, but no action is made virtuous or right simply because it is done to get credit or avoid discredit. It becomes right when it is done to please God, and it is only when we believe that human judgment is in accordance with God’s judgment that we may properly take man’s approval as a guide for our conduct. The great danger is that we take the fashion, whether of a larger or smaller world, as being itself the authoritative standard of life; that we are so deafened by the outside noise that we cease to hear the still small voice of God in the heart; we do not ask whether He approves, we do not even stop to ask what is the origin, or meaning, or ground of the custom or opinion which fashion enjoins, till at last we become simple echoes, we have no genuine tastes or feelings left, our one anxiety is to repeat correctly the latest catch-word of the moment. (J. B. Mayor, M.A.)

Love of the world:—

I. Excessive affection for the mere things of the world must always be incompatible with the love of God. That which is of the earth is earthy, and cannot be made to incorporate with that which is heavenly. He who is warm in the chase after wealth or renown finds no time nor room in his heart for spiritual contemplation. It was fabled of old that when the arch tempter had made his allurements agreeable to a man his guardian angels uttered a sad lament, sang a melancholy dirge, and left him. When a licentious passion has gained dominion over the thoughts of a man, or when ambition is made free of his breast and constituted his privy-councillor, then do his anxious watchings over the purity of his spirit, and his delicate perceptions of right and wrong, and his tender feelings of universal benevolence, and his meditations on futurity, and his frequent and holy communions with God, which may indeed be called our guardian angels, take farewell of the habitation where they must stay no longer, carrying out their peace and glory with them. Alas! this is no fable, but a daily sight.

II. The love of the world, being incompatible with the love of God, is consequently at enmity with His service. The lover of the world is perhaps a votary of gain; if so, he cannot serve God with the accepted obedience of generosity and benevolence. He may have enrolled himself on the lists of ambition; but God dwells with the lowly and with him on whose lips there is no guile. He may have plunged into the roaring vortex of dissipation and intoxicating pleasure; he surely cannot serve God there.

III. There is nothing durable in these objects, which appear so enchanting, and are pursued so eagerly.

IV. We ought not to love the world because an excessive attachment to it makes us unwilling to leave it at death.

V. It is but little to say that we are thus rendered unwilling to leave it when we have also to say that we are thus rendered unworthy to leave it, unfit to leave it. The discipline which the soul receives in the schools of selfishness and the bowers of pleasure and the halls of pride is not such as will fit it for heaven. (F. W. P. Greenwood, D. D.)

Love of the world:—Is it true, then, that religion requires us to sacrifice every natural affection? If it is, then comply with it. If religion is such a thing, then Simeon Stylites, on his pillar-top, was a pattern saint. But if this is not the ideal of religion, let us find out what the true ideal is. If there is a love of natural things perfectly consistent with and flowing out from the love of God, let us know it and act accordingly. Now what is the doctrine in the text? When we consider it in its connection we find it is not a mere statement of negations. “Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world.” It does not stop with this. Why not love these? Because we are called to cherish a higher and more comprehensive affection. We are to love the Father supremely. There are some who try to preserve a sort of balance between the two—between the spirit that makes this world supreme, which of course dissolves all moral distinction between right and wrong; and the spirit that makes God supreme, which claims as right the love of right only. It is like compromising with a cancer, or holding negotiations with the yellow fever. There are only two standards—that which proceeds from the love of God as supreme; that which proceeds from the love of the world as supreme. You cannot serve them both. The whole statement of the text rests upon the simple fact that every man has a master-motive in his heart, which he more or less consciously acts upon. There is one general ground from which a man measures. Here, for instance, is a man that measures from the love of the world, from the summit of worldly advantage. If you want to explain his life you do it in this way: he starts with worldly sanctions and worldly interests, and thus sometimes measures up to spiritual claims and moral laws. So you see men in every avocation of life, from the most private to the most public transactions, willing enough to confess the right, but after all holding it subordinate to the ground from which they measure—worldly advantage. Now a thing is either right or it is wrong. If we measure from God’s supreme law, the love of the Father, we must bring everything else down before that; if we measure from worldly advantage, we must bring God’s law down before that. Love not the world, is the principle. What the apostle means by loving the world and the things of the world, is loving them supremely and making them a standard; measuring from the ground of worldly sanction and interest up to the supreme right. No, we are to measure from the love of the Father downward—not from the love of worldly advantage and sanction upward. That is the real meaning of the text. Loving the Father supremely, we shall know what to love as He loves, and we shall see everything in the relation in which He sees it. From His all-comprehending affection we shall go forth to see everything truly and to love everything as we ought to love it. Every daily duty, every daily care, every common interest—your homes, your toils, your trials, will all be loved by you in due proportion, because you will read in them the Father’s meaning and you will see them in their true relations and significance. And still again, when we start from this ground of love we learn to distinguish the essence of things from the outside of things. When, for instance, a man becomes so enamoured of nature that he forgets the God who made it; when he touches not the pulses of the infinite in the motions of the worlds, but all is a dead blank and all traces of God have vanished, then man has that love of the world and of the things that are in it which is condemned by the apostle. So, too, a man may love humanity simply on its outside—for its advantage to him—merely for that which is pleasing to him, not in its essence. Jesus Christ did not look at the outside of men. He looked into humanity as an emanation from God. He saw it in its priceless worth, and died for it—not for its relations to him of friendliness, or kindness, or love, or service, or beauty, or use, but for its intrinsic worth. That is the way to love humanity. Not because it serves us, not because it is pleasant to us, not because it is friendly to us. That is a very little thing. How sour men get by and by who love it on that account! The true Christian never falters in his high faith in and deep love for humanity, because he sees it and loves it as Jesus Christ did—not with reference to himself but for its intrinsic character and value in the eyes of God. (E. H. Chapin, D. D.) When do we love the world too much?—1. When, for the sake of any profit or pleasure, we wilfully and knowingly and deliberately transgress the commandments of God and become openly and habitually wicked and vicious, and live addicted to sensuality, to intemperance, to fraud, to extortion, to injustice. 2. When we take more pains to obtain and secure the conveniences of this life than to qualify ourselves for the rewards of the next. 3. When we cannot be contented, or patient and resigned, under low or inconvenient circumstances. 4. When we cannot part with anything that we possess to those who want it, who deserve it, and who have indeed a right to it. 5. When we envy those who are more fortunate and more favoured by the world than we are, and cannot behold their success without repining; when at the same time we can see others better and wiser and more religious, if they be in a lower state than ourselves, without the least uneasiness, without emulation and a desire to equal them. 6. When we esteem and favour persons purely according to their birth, fortunes, and success, measuring our judgment and approbation by their outward appearance and situation in life. 7. When we dislike and slight others only because the world favours them not, and thus suffer our affections, our judgment, and our behaviour to be regulated by the notions and customs of men, and indeed of the worst sort of men. 8. When worldly prosperity makes us proud and vain, and we expect to be greatly honoured by others, only because they are placed beneath us, though in other respects, in valuable qualities, they may surpass us; and when we resent any little failure of homage as a real injury. 9. When we omit no opportunity of enjoying the good things of this life, when our great business and serious employment is to amuse ourselves, till we contract an indifference for manly and rational occupations, deceiving ourselves, and fancying that we are in a safe condition, because we are not so bad as several whom we could name, nor guilty of such and such vices with which the world abounds. (J. Jortin, D. D.)

The expulsive power of a new affection:—There are two ways in which a practical moralist may attempt to displace from the human heart its love of the world—either by a demonstration of the world’s vanity, so as that the heart shall be prevailed upon simply to withdraw its regards from an object that is not worthy of it; or by setting forth another object, even God, as more worthy of its attachment. Love may be regarded in two different conditions. The first is, when its object is at a distance, and then it becomes love in a state of desire. The second is, when its object is in possession, and then it becomes love in a state of indulgence. Such is the grasping tendency of the human heart that it must have a something to lay hold of—and which, if wrested away without the substitution of another something in its place, would leave a void as painful to the mind as hunger is to the natural system. It may be dispossessed of one object, or of any, but it cannot be desolated of all. We know not a more sweeping interdict upon the affections of nature than that which is delivered by the apostle in the verse before us. To bid a man into whom there has not yet entered the great and ascendant influence of the principle of regeneration, to bid him withdraw his love from all the things that are in the world, is to bid him give up all the affections that are in his heart. The world is the all of a natural man. He has not a taste nor a desire that points not to a something placed within the confines of its visible horizon. He loves nothing above it, and he cares for nothing beyond it; and to bid him love not the world, is to pass a sentence of expulsion on all the inmates of his bosom. The love of the world cannot be expunged by a mere demonstration of the world’s worthlessness. But may it not be supplanted by the love of that which is more worthy than itself? The heart cannot be prevailed upon to part with the world by a simple act of resignation. But may not the heart be prevailed upon to admit into its preference another, who shall subordinate the world, and bring it down from its wonted ascendency? This explains the operation of that charm which accompanies the effectual preaching of the gospel. Beside the world, it places before the eye of the mind Him who made the world, and with this peculiarity, which is all its own—that in the gospel do we so behold God, as that we may love God. It is there, and there only, where God stands revealed as an object of confidence to sinners—and where our desire after Him is not chilled into apathy, by that barrier of human guilt which intercepts every approach that is not made to Him through the appointed mediator. It is the bringing in of this better hope, whereby we draw nigh unto God—and to live without hope is to live without God; and if the heart be without God, the world will then have all the ascendency. It is God apprehended by the believer as God in Christ, who alone can dispost it from this ascendency. And here let us advert to the incredulity of a worldly man: when he brings his own sound and secular experience to bear upon the high doctrines of Christianity—when he looks on regeneration as a thing impossible. We think that we have seen such men, who, firmly trenched in their own vigorous and homebred sagacity, and shrewdly regardful of all that passes before them through the week, and upon the scenes of ordinary, business, look on that transition of the heart by which it gradually dies unto time, and awakens in all the life of a new-felt and ever-growing desire towards God, as a mere Sabbath speculation; and who thus, with all their attention engrossed upon the concerns of earthliness, continue unmoved to the end of their days, amongst the feelings and the appetites and the pursuits of earthliness. Now, it is altogether worthy of being remarked of those men who thus disrelish spiritual Christianity, and in fact deem it an impracticable acquirement, how much of a piece their incredulity about the demands of Christianity, and their incredulity about the doctrines of Christianity, are with one another. No wonder that they feel the work of the New Testament to be beyond their strength, so long as they hold the words of the New Testament to be beneath their attention. Neither they nor any one else can dispossess the heart of an old affection but by the expulsive power of a new one; and if that new affection be the love of God, neither they nor any one else can be made to entertain it, but on such a representation of the Deity as shall draw the heart of the sinner towards Him. Now it is just their unbelief which screens from the discernment of their minds this representation. They do not see the love of God in sending His Son unto the world. It is a mystery to them how a man should pass to the state of godliness from a state of nature; but had they only a believing view of God manifest in the flesh, this would resolve for them the whole mystery of godliness. As it is, they cannot get quit of their old affections, because they are out of sight from all those truths which have influence to raise a new one. But if there be a consistency in the errors, in like manner is there a consistency in the truths which are opposite to them. The man who believes in the peculiar doctrines, will readily bow to the peculiar demands of Christianity. The effect is great, but the cause is equal to it—and stupendous as this moral resurrection to the precepts of Christianity undoubtedly is, there is an element of strength enough to give it being and continuance in the principles of Christianity. Conceive a man to be standing on the margin of this green world; and that, when he looked towards it, he saw abundance smiling upon every field, and all the blessings which earth can afford scattered in profusion throughout every family, and the joys of human companionship brightening many a happy circle of society—conceive this to be the general character of the scene upon one side of his contemplation; and that on the other, beyond the verge of the goodly planet on which he was situated, he could descry nothing but a dark and fathomless unknown. Think you that he would bid a voluntary adieu to all the brightness and all the beauty that were before him upon earth, and commit himself to the frightful solitude away from it? But if, during the time of his contemplation, some happy island of the blest had floated by; and there had burst upon his senses the light of its surpassing glories, and its sounds of sweeter melody; and he clearly saw that there a purer beauty rested upon every field, and a more heartfelt joy spread itself among all the families; and he could discern there, a peace, and a piety, and a benevolence, which put a moral gladness into every bosom, and united the whole society in one rejoicing sympathy with each other, and with the beneficent Father of them all. Could he further see that pain and mortality were there unknown; and above all, that signals of welcome were hung out, and an avenue of communication was made for him—perceive you not, that what was before the wilderness, would become the land of invitation; and that now the world would be the wilderness? What unpeopled space could not do, can be done by space teeming with beatific scenes, and beatific society. (T. Chalmers, D. D.)

Worldly affections destructive of love to God:—There are things in the world which, although not actually sinful in themselves, do nevertheless so cheek the love of God in us as to stifle and destroy it. For instance, it is lawful for us to possess wealth and worldly substance; we may serve God with it, and consecrate it at His altar; but we cannot love wealth without growing ostentatious, or soft, or careful, or narrow-hearted (1 Tim. 6:10). So, again, with friends and what is called society.

I. Love of the world brings a dulness over the whole of a man’s soul. Fasting, and prayer, and a spare life, and plainness, and freedom from the cumbering offices and possessions of the world, give to the eye and ear of the soul a keen and piercing sense. But this discipline is almost impossible to the man that moves with the stream of the world; it carries him away against his will. The oppressive nearness of the things which throng upon him from without defrauds him of solitude with God. They come and thrust themselves between his soul and the realities unseen; they drop like a veil over the faint outlines of the invisible world, and hide it from his eyes. And the spiritual powers that are in him grow inert and lose their virtue by the dulness of inaction. The acts of religion, such as reading, thought, contemplation of the unseen, prayer, self-examination, first seem to lose their savour, and are less delighted in: then they grow irksome, and are consciously avoided.

II. As we grow to be attached to the things that are in the world, there comes over us what I may call a vulnerableness of mind. We lay ourselves open on just so many sides as we have objects of desire. We give hostages to this changeful world, and we are ever either losing them, or trembling lest they be wrested from us. What a life of disappointment, and bitterness, and aching fear, and restless uncertainty, is the life of the ambitious, or covetous, or self-indulgent! But it is not only in this form that the mind is made vulnerable by a love of the world. It lays itself open not more to chastisements than to temptations; it gives so many inlets to the suggestions of evil. Every earthly fondness is an ambush for a thousand solicitations of the wicked one. It is a lure to the tempter—a signal which betrays our weaker side; and as the subtle infection of evil temper winds itself into the mind, the spirit of the Dove is grieved by an irritable and unloving spirit. The very affections of the heart recoil sullenly into themselves, and sometimes even turn against the objects of their immoderate fondness. In this way the love of the world becomes a cause of very serious deterioration of character. It soon stifles the love of God; and when that is gone, and the character has lost its unity, particular features unfold themselves into a fearful prominence. The chief among its earthly affections becomes thenceforth its ruling passion, and so predominates over all the rest, and draws the whole mind to itself, as to stamp the man with the character of a besetting sin. And this is what we mean when we call one man purse-proud, and another ostentatious, or selfish, and the like. The world has eaten its way into his soul, and “the love of the Father is not in him.”

III. Now, if this be so, what shall we do? We cannot withdraw ourselves. One has wealth, another a family, a third rank and influence, another a large business: and all these bring with them an endless variety of duties and offices, and usages of custom and courtesy. If a man is to break through all these, he must needs go out of this world. All this is very true; but, at the same time, it is certain that every one of us might reduce his life to a greater simplicity. In every position of life there is a great multitude of unnecessary things which we may readily abandon. And as for all the necessary cares of life, they need involve us in no dangers. In them, if we be true-hearted, we are safe. When God leads men into positions of great trial, whether by wealth, or rank, or business, He compensates by larger gifts of grace. (Archdeacon Manning.)

The nature and danger of an inordinate love of the world:—

I. What we are to understand by the world. A general inventory of this world’s goods is given us by the apostle, divided into three lots. The first contains all the pleasures of the world, called the lust of the flesh, because they are proper to a corporeal nature, or such as the soul now desires, only by reason of its union with the body. The next class is riches, which he calls the lust of the eyes, because the eye takes a peculiar pleasure in gazing at those things which they immediately procure. The pleasures I before mentioned are gone with a touch, these with a look. So unsubstantial are the goods contained in the two first lots of this world’s inventory. Let us now examine the third, and see if we can find anything more solid there. This opens to us all the honours, the high stations, the power and preferments of the world. This the apostle calls the pride of life, because it is the ambitious man’s great object, and at once attracts and foments the vanity of his heart. But it never satisfies the vanity which it excites. Ambition is insatiable as arvarice.

II. The extent of this prohibition; or with what restrictions it must necessarily be taken. 1. This does not forbid us (1) to prosecute our worldly affairs with application and diligence. (2) Nor does it countenance, much less require, a total separation from the world. (3) Nor are we hereby forbid to enjoy the world, or to take any delight in the good things of the present life. (4) This text does not forbid us to value, or in a certain degree desire to possess the good things of this world: because they are in some respects desirable, and to many good purposes useful; and therefore a wise man will not indulge an absolute contempt of them, or be totally indifferent to them. (5) Neither are we forbid a conformity to the innocent customs, manners and fashions of the world. 2. What is it then that it does forbid?—I answer in one word, an excessive love of the world, or an immoderate attachment of the heart to it. (1) We then love this world too much when we neglect our souls, or our interest in a better world, for the sake of it. (2) ’Tis a certain sign that a man loves the world too much when he grows vain, imperious and assuming, and despises others merely on the score of their wanting that affluence which he enjoys. (3) When a man grows confident in the world, and trusts to it as his chief good. (4) We then love the good things of this world too much when we dare to venture on any known transgression with a view to secure or increase them. (5) When a man has no heart to do good with what he has in the world, and is averse to acts of charity, piety and beneficence. (6) When we are tormented with an anxious solicitude about the things of this world. (7) It is a sign that our hearts are two much attached to earthly things if we cannot bear our earthly losses and disappointments with temper. (8) It is an indication that we love the good things of this life too much when we are not thankful for them, and forget to make our acknowledgements to Him at whose hand we hold them.

III. The grounds of this prohibition. 1. I am to suggest a few general considerations proper to guard us against an immoderate love of the present world. To this end then let it be considered. (1) How many dangerous temptations it lays in the way of our souls. (2) The more fond we are of the world the greater is our danger from it. The more it engages our hearts the more power it has to captivate them. (3) An excessive passion for the world defeats its own end. The more inordinately we love it, the less capable we are of the true enjoyment of it. If we squeeze the world too hard we wring out dregs. In our cup of worldly bliss the sweetest lies at top: he who drinks too deep will find it nauseous. (4) Why should we love the world so much, when there is nothing in it that suits the dignity or satisfies the desires of our souls? 2. Let us now particularly consider those two motives whereby the apostle himself enforces the caution he gives in the text. (1) An excessive love of the world is inconsistent with a sincere love of God. An immoderate love of the world, or of anything in it, is paying that devotion and homage of our heart to the creature which is due only to the Creator. What vile ingratitude as well as folly is here! To love the world more than God is a plain indication of the apostacy of the heart from him. And from this inward apostacy of the heart begins the outward apostacy in life. (2) The world and everything in it is mutable and mortal, constantly changing, and hastening apace to dissolution. (John Mason, M.A.)

Worldliness:—I speak to you, not as hermits, but as men of the world, occupied constantly in honourable vocations, and yet conscious that there is a life above this world—an eternal, spiritual, divine life. Will you suffer me to put before you two or three suggestions which may enable us, while living in this world, yet to rise above it? 1. And the first suggestion I would make is, that it would be well for him who desires the spiritual life to adopt some definite, constant action of self-denial. It may be abstinence from alcoholic drink, from theatres and balls—things perfectly right and legitimate in themselves; it may be even so small a thing as early rising in the morning, or it may be some pecuniary generosity; but whatever it is, if it be adopted as a definite self-denial, as a definite self-consecration of the man to God, it will undoubtedly have a purifying and elevating influence. 2. My second suggestion is this, that every one of us who desires to live the spiritual life should ask himself the question, In what respect does my ordinary life, my professional, my regular routine of existence, tend to draw me from God, tend to deaden the spiritual activities and faculties? and then that he should set himself to encourage a practice which will limit this tendency. For, according to the familiar illustration of the philosopher Aristotle, if a stick is bent in one direction, and you want to straighten it, you must bend it violently in the opposite direction. Suppose, for example, as is quite likely, that one is engaged in the business of commerce, it is his object to make money, and this is legitimate in itself; yet, if he be spiritually minded, he will not be blind to the fact that the occupation of making money does tend to set the soul upon earthly, and not upon heavenly things. In order to remedy this tendency he will encourage in himself a definite, systematic practice of generosity; he will aim at using his money, not as an owner, but as a trustee, so that by means of it he may make the world better, he may increase the happiness and joy of those less fortunate than himself. 3. Let me take a third instance to show the duty and beauty of this spiritual life. It is easy to get into the state in which the very being of God Himself becomes a doubt and a difficulty, and yet it is vital to avoid that state altogether and always. Is it not the case in public life that there are dangers which threaten the well-being of the spiritual nature—I mean the love of victory for instance, which is not the love of truth? The voice of the people is not the voice of God, it tends now-a-days to drown the voice of God. What can be the effect of the malice and uncharitableness which men display so often towards one another, but to make God seem distant, and as if He had no relation to the human soul? Any one then who in the noble field of public life is anxious not to let his spirituality die out will be careful at times to retire into solitude to commune with his Maker and with his own soul, and he will cry out, “Lord, what wilt Thou have me to do?” Such a man will try always to live as in the sight of God. (J. E. Welldon, D. D.)

The world we must not love:—Let us not confuse “the world” with the earth, with the whole race of man, with general society, with any particular set, however much some sets are to be avoided. Look at the thing fairly. Yet let us read the letters of Mary Godolphin. She bore a life unspotted by the world in the dissolute court of Charles II., because the love of the Father was in her. In small serious circles are there no hidden lusts which blaze up in scandals? Is there no vanity, no pride, no hatred? In the world of Charles II.’s court Mary Godolphin lived out of the world which God hated; in the religious world not a few, certainly, live in the world which is not God’s. For once more, the world is not so much a place—though at times its power seems to have been drawn into one intense focus, as in the empire of which Rome was the centre, and which may have been in the apostle’s thought in the following verse. In the truest and deepest sense the world consists of our own spiritual surrounding; it is the place which we make for our own souls. No walls that ever were reared can shut out the world from us; the “Nun of Kenmare” found that it followed her into the seemingly spiritual retreat of a severe Order. The world in its essence is subtler and thinner than the most infinitesimal of the bacterian germs in the air. They can be strained off by the exquisite apparatus of a man of science. At a certain height they cease to exist. But the world may be wherever we are; we carry it with us wherever we go, it lasts while our lives last. No consecration can utterly banish it even from within the church’s walls; it dares to be round us while we kneel, and follows us into the presence of God. (Abp. Wm. Alexander.)

The Christian in the world:—A true Christian living in the world is like a ship sailing on the ocean. It is not the ship being in the water which will sink it, but the water getting into the ship. So in like manner the Christian is not ruined by living in the world, which he must needs do while he remains in the body, but by the world living in him. Our daily avocations, yea, our most lawful employments, have need to be narrowly watched, lest they insensibly steal upon our affections, and draw away our hearts from God.

A dangerous experiment:—Whoever is contriving, by how little faith or how little grace, and with how large interspersing of gaieties and worldly pleasure he may make his title to salvation good, is engaged in a very critical experiment. He is trying how to be a Christian without being at all a saintly person. How to love God enough without loving Him enough to be taken away from his lighter pleasures, and he really thinks that, aiming low enough to be a little of a Christian, he still may just hit the target on the lower edge. Perhaps he will; but is he sure of it? And, if he really is, what miserable economy is it to be so little in the love of God and the joys of a glorious devotion, that he can be just empty enough to want his deficit made up by amusements! If that will answer, a very mean soul certainly can be saved. (H. Bushnell, D. D.)

Unlading:—When ballast is thrown out, the balloon shoots up. A general unlading of the “thick clay” which weighs down the Christian life of England and of America, would let thousands soar to heights which they will never reach as long as they love money and what it buys as much as they do. (A. Maclaren, D. D.)

Worldliness impedes the sight of higher things:—Suppose I were shut up within a round tower, whose massive wall had in some time of trouble been pierced here and there for musketry; suppose, further, that by choice or necessity, I am whirled rapidly and incessantly round its inner circumference, will I appreciate the beauties of the surrounding landscape or recognise the features of the men who labour in the field below? I will not! Why? Are there not openings in the wall which I pass at every circuit? Yes; but the eye, set for objects near, has not time to adjust itself to objects at a distance until it has passed the openings; and so the result is the same as if it were a dead wall all round. Behold the circle of human life! of the earth, earthy it is, almost throughout its whole circumference. A dead wall, very near and very thick, obstructs the view. Here and there, on a Sabbath or other season of seriousness, a slit is left open in its side. Heaven might be seen through these; but alas! the eye which is habitually set for the earthly cannot, during such momentary glimpses, adjust itself to higher things. Unless you pause and look steadfastly, you will see neither clouds nor sunshine through these openings, or the distant sky. So long has the soul looked upon the world, and so firmly is the world’s picture fixed in its eye, that when it is turned for a moment heavenward, it feels only a quiver of inarticulate light, and retains no distinct impression of the things that are unseen and eternal. (W. Arnot, D. D.)

Love not the world:—“Love not the world,” cries St. John in a shuddering laconicism. A multitude of voices echo his words. The shores of time are strewn with many a wreck, each serving as a beacon to point out the rock on which they stranded. Here the merchant who worked seven days in the week, who forgot God in piling up riches, and failed at last, cries, “Love not the world.” Here the millionaire who inherited a fortune and doubled it every ten years, and drained every cup of pleasure, and now faces death with a tainted body and a leprous character, cries, “Love not the world.” Here the statesman who reached the senate chamber and laid his hand on dishonest gold and went down in ignominy, cries, “Love not the world.” Here the brilliant journalist, the clever student, the gifted artist, who reached distinction at the sacrifice of strength, life, reputation, cry, “Love not the world.” Could we lift the curtain that shrouds the tomb, what awful warnings would break upon our ears! Miser, spendthrift, drunkard, libertine, sensualist, what sayest thou? That gluttony is shame, and drunkenness woe, and debauchery corruption, and the wages of sin death. “Love not the world.” Apart from God there is nothing. In Him are all things. The love of the creature more than the Creator is the curse and condemnation of the soul. Supreme affection toward God is the coronation of humanity. (S. S. Roche.)

Ver. 16. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. The three elements of a worldly life: love of pleasure, the love of knowledge, and the love of power:—What then is the meaning of the phrase “desire of the flesh?” It is the desire which we naturally have to gratify our lower impulses, that animal nature which we share with the brutes, but which in man ought to be under the control of the superior faculty of reason. If we name this desire from its object, rather than from its origin or source, we might call it loosely “the desire of pleasure uncontrolled by a sense of duty.” It is more difficult to ascertain the exact force of the “desire of the eyes.” If taken literally, it would simply stand for a particular form of the desire of the flesh, a more refined and human form of sensual pleasure, the desire of seeing beautiful objects; but I am inclined to think that, so far as this is sensual, it is included under the former head, and that it is more in accordance with Hebrew ideas and with the facts of life to suppose that we have here a quite distinct class of desires, the desires of the intellect. But how, it may be asked, can the desire of knowledge be condemned as characteristic of the world. Knowledge is not dependent on society, like pleasure, and moreover the desire of knowledge is especially commended in the Bible. How then can it be to the discredit of the world, or make its influence more injurious, if it is accompanied by the desire of knowledge? The answer is that neither pleasure nor knowledge is in itself condemned in the Bible. The pleasure which is condemned in the phrase “lust of the flesh,” is, as we have seen, selfish and predominantly sensual, unchecked by higher thoughts and feelings. And so by the “desire of the eyes” is meant primarily not the desire for truth as such, but the desire for a knowledge of the world, knowledge as contrasted not with ignorance and stupidity, but with simplicity, ingenuousness and innocence. How many owe their fall to an impatience of restraint and a curiosity which is attracted to evil rather than to good! How few remember that knowledge no more than pleasure can claim our absolute allegiance! We now come to the third of these worldly lusts, as they are styled in the Epistle to Titus, the “pride,” or as the Revised Version has it, the “vainglory” of life, the desire to make a show, the desire of honour and distinction, which is as naturally characteristic of the active principle within us, as the desire of pleasure is of the passive or sensitive principle. Supposing this to be a generally correct account of St. John’s analysis of the spirit of the world, it is evident that it corresponds with the common division of man’s nature into the feeling, the thinking, and the willing part; the desire of pleasure corresponding to the appetites, the desire of knowledge to the intellect, while ambition, the desire of honour and of power, corresponds to the will. But human life consists in the exercise of these different elements of man’s nature. How is it possible, then, that these gifts of God should be the source of the evil that is in the world? If man were perfect, as God intended him to be, this would not be the case. His various impulses would all work harmoniously together under the control of reason and conscience, enlightened and guided by the Spirit of God himself. But we know that, whatever we may hope for the future, this is far from being the case at present. At present every impulse is a source of danger, because it is not satisfied with doing the work and attaining the end for which it was implanted in our nature, but continues to urge us on where its action is injurious, antagonistic to higher ends and higher activities, and contrary to the will of Him Who made us. It is these blind unruly impulses which constitute the spirit of the world, and are employed by him, who is described as the prince of this world, to band men together in evil, and so build up a kingdom of the world, in opposition to the kingdom of God. St. John implies the unrestrained action of these impulses when he tells us they make up all that is in the world. If we can trust contemporary evidence, the historians and satirists of Rome, no less than Christian writers, the moral condition of society in the imperial city is not too darkly coloured in St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. In the catalogue of sin and vice there given, two main lines of evil may be distinguished, which at first sight seem to be very remote from each other, but which are in fact closely allied, being continually associated together in history, as they are in Milton’s famous line, “Lust hard by hate.” Cruelty and profligacy were the most marked characteristics of the Caligulas and the Neros of Rome; they were the notes of that degraded aristocracy, in which even the women, dead to all sense of shame, were also dead to all feeling of pity, and could look on with a horrible delight at the sports in the arena, where gladiators were butchered to make a Roman holiday, and Christians were burnt alive at night in order to light up the chariot races of the emperor. And the profligacy of the capitol was faithfully copied in the provinces. St. Paul’s epistles, with their constant warnings against impurity, show how deeply even the humbler ranks of society, from which the Church was mainly recruited, were infected with this vice of paganism. We see, then, that as regards the desire or lust of the flesh, the state of contemporary society fully bore out St. John’s description of the world. How did the case stand with regard to the second point in his description, the lust of the eyes? Understanding this of the desire of knowledge, we find St. Paul in his Epistle to the Corinthians describing it as the distinctive feature of the Greek as opposed to the Hebrew, that the Greeks seek after wisdom; but “God (he says) hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise”; “Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth.” So St. Luke mentions curiosity, which is merely the undisciplined desire of knowledge, as the chief characteristic of the Athenians, “all the Athenians spent their time in nothing else but either to tell or to hear some new thing.” Ephesus, where St. John is believed to have spent the latter part of his life, was especially noted for the study of curious arts, prying into forbidden things. Lastly, if we ask how far that third constituent of the worldly spirit, ambition, vainglory, the pride of life, was to be found in Paganism at the time of St. John’s writing, we need not look further than the temple of Ephesus, which was held to be one of the wonders of the world; we need only think of the magnificence of the architecture, the splendour of the ceremonial, the frenzied enthusiasm of the multitudes which gathered at the festival of “the great goddess Diana, whom all Asia and the world worshippeth.” How hard it must have been for the little band of Christians to realise that all this pageantry and power was but an empty show, destined in a few short years to vanish away; to feel that the weakness of God was stronger than men, that “God had chosen the base things of the world to confound the things which are mighty, that no flesh might glory in His presence.” And if this was true of a provincial town like Ephesus, how much more of what was even then known as the eternal city, to which all the wealth and power and greatness, all the art and science and skill of the whole earth was attracted, where one man commanded the lives and fortunes of all, and was worshipped as God on earth, the only God whose worship was obligatory on all. It was such a world-dominion as this, that St. John had in his mind, when he warned his disciples against being dazzled by the vainglory of life, when he spoke of the whole world lying in wickedness, when he encouraged them with the thought that “He that is born of God overcometh the world.” I think that what we have seen to be true of the pagan world of St. John’s day, is also true of all the more marked historical appearances of the worldly spirit. Two such appearances may be especially noticed. One was that period of revolt against the Middle Ages, which preceded and accompanied the Reformation, the other was that period of scepticism which prepared the way for the French Revolution. In both we find the most influential classes of society, those which may be regarded as the truest embodiment of the worldly spirit of their time, characterised by the combination of these three elements, the love of pleasure, the love of knowledge, and the love of power. Enlightenment was the special boast of both eras, and the effect of this enlightenment was to shake off the old-fashioned restraints of religion and morality and give free scope to the selfish instincts, whether in the direction of pleasure or ambition. Cæsar Borgia was the natural outcome of the first era; Napoleon Bonaparte of the second. (J. B. Mayor, M.A.)

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

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

The pride of life is transitory:—It may signify either the pride of power or the pride of knowledge. 1. Take it, for instance, as the pride of power. Take it in regard to that great and splendid empire with which the apostles were familiar. It seemed built to last for ever. To be a Roman was to be armed with an invincible defence. It was a proud boast which clothed the meanest man with dignity. The tramp of the legions of Rome echoed in every city; the silver eagles were borne in triumph through all the world; its laws had imposed civilisation upon the most barbarous peoples; and its power had crushed nation after nation. There was no sign in John’s day of any overthrow. Yet this solitary man told the truth when he said, not merely that it would pass away, but that it was passing away. He recognised that mysterious law of God, which seems to give to nations their chance and strengthen them with universal victory, and then depose them, lest one good custom should corrupt the world. Egypt, Chaldea, Babylon, Greece, all had had their day, and ceased to be. And so it would be with Rome. We to-day know that it has passed away. 2. And it is true of the pride of knowledge. The noblest pride of life, because the highest, is the pride of knowledge. Yet that, too, is transient. Nothing shifts its boundaries so often. Nothing is so illusive. Nothing passes through such strange and rapid transformations. The knowledge of Galileo would be the ignorance of to-day; and if Isaac Newton were alive now he would have to go to school again. A century, a half-century, a single decade, is often sufficient to thrust the most brilliant discoveries into oblivion. The steam-engine has supplanted the coach; but the steam-engine is already passing away, and in fifty years’ time will be supplanted by some greater and more serviceable power. The telegraph has bound nations together and has made all nations neighbours; but the telephone is becoming its rival, and in another century, and less perhaps, men will hear each other’s whispers round the globe. A thousand illustrations might be given of how knowledge perpetually effaces its past. Nor is this a mournful truth. It is no tolling-bell which announces that the world is passing away. It is rather a trumpet. It means that God’s law is progress: and that is a glorious truth for those who can understand it. (Ibid.)

The worldling’s trinity:—Pleasure, profit, preferment (called here “the lust of the flesh,” &c.) are the worldling’s trinity, to the which he performeth inward and outward worship. (J. Trapp.) What is “the world”?—The world is not altogether matter, nor yet altogether spirit. It is not man only, nor Satan only, nor is it exactly sin. It is an infection, an inspiration, an atmosphere, a life, a colouring matter, a pageantry, a fashion, a taste, a witchery. None of all these names suit it, and all of them suit it. (S. Faber.)

Ver. 17. The world passeth away, and the lust thereof.—

River and rock:—There are but two things set forth in this text—a great antithesis between something which is in perpetual flux and passage and something which is permanent. If I might venture to cast the two thoughts into metaphorical form, I should say that here are a river and a rock.

I. The river, or the sad truth of sense. “The world” is in the act of “passing away.” Like the slow travelling of the scenes of some movable panorama which glide along, even as the eye looks upon them, and are concealed behind the side flats before the gazer has taken in the whole picture, so constantly, silently, and therefore unnoticed by us, all is in a state of continual motion. There is no present, but all is movement. But besides this transiency external to us, John finds a corresponding analogous transiency within us. “The world passeth, and the lust thereof.” Of course the word “lust” is employed by him in a much wider sense than in our use of it. With us it means one specific and very ugly form of earthly desire. With him it includes the whole genus—all desires of every sort, more or less noble or ignoble, which have this for their characteristic, that they are directed to, stimulated by, and fed or disappointed on, the fleeting things of this outward life. If thus a man has anchored himself to that which has no perpetual stay, so long as the cable holds he follows the fate of the thing to which he has pinned himself, and if it perish he perishes, in a very profound sense, with it. But these fleeting desires, of which my text speaks, point to that sad feature of human experience, that we all outgrow and leave behind us, and think of very little value, the things that once to us were all but heaven. The self-conscious same man abides, and yet how different the same man is! Our lives, then, will zig-zag instead of keeping a straight course if we let desires that are limited by anything that we can see guide and regulate us. The march of these fleeting things is like that of cavalry with their horses’ feet wrapped in straw in the night, across the snow, silent and unnoticed. We cannot realise the revolution of the earth because everything partakes in it. We talk about standing still, and we are whirling through space with inconceivable rapidity. By a like illusion we deceive ourselves with the notion of stability when everything about us is hastening away. Some of you do not like to be reminded of it, and think it a killjoy. Now, surely common sense says to all that if there be some fact certain and plain and applying to you, which, if accepted, would profoundly modify your life, you ought to take it into account. Suppose a man that lived in a land habitually shaken by earthquakes were to say, “I mean to ignore the fact, and I am going to build a house just as if there was not such a thing as an earthquake expected,” he would have it toppling about his ears very soon. And suppose a man says, “I am not going to take the fleetingness of the things of earth into account at all, but am going to live as if all things were to remain as they are,” what would become of him do you think? Is he a wise man or a fool? And is he you? When they build a new house in Rome they have to dig down through sometimes sixty or a hundred feet of rubbish that runs like water, the ruins of old temples and palaces once occupied by men in the same flush of life in which we are now. We, too, have to dig down through ruins, until we get to rock and build there, and build secure. Withdraw your affections and thoughts and desires from the fleeting, and fix them on the permanent. If a captain takes anything but the pole star for his fixed point he will lose his reckoning, and his ship will be on the reefs. If we take anything but God for our supreme delight and desire we shall perish. There was an old rabbi long ago whose own real name was all but lost because everybody nicknamed him “Rabbi This-also.” The reason was because he had perpetually on his lips the saying about everything as it came, “This also will pass.” He was a wise man. Let us go to his school and learn his wisdom.

II. The Rock, or the glad truth of faith. We might have expected that John’s antithesis to “the world that passeth” would have been “the God that abides.” But he does not so word his sentence, although the thought of the Divine permanence underlies it. Rather over against the fleeting world he puts the abiding man who does the will of God. There is only one permanent reality in the universe, and that is God. All else is shadow. The will of God is the permanent element in all changeful material things, and consequently he who does the will of God links himself with the Divine eternity, and becomes partaker of that blessed Being which lives above mutation. What will you do when you are dead? You have to go into a world where there are no gossip and no housekeeping, no mills and no offices, no shops, no books, no colleges, and no sciences to learn. “He that doeth the will of God abideth forever.” If you have done your housekeeping, and your weaving and spinning, and your bookkeeping, and your buying and selling, and your studying, and your experimenting with a conscious reference to God, it is all right. That has made the act capable of eternity, and there will be no need for that man to change. The material on which he works will change, but the inner substance of his life will be unaffected by the trivial change from earth to heaven. Whilst the endless ages roll he will be doing just what he was doing down here, only here he was playing with counters and yonder he will be trusted with gold and dominion over ten cities. (A. Maclaren, D. D.)

National worldliness:—There is one thing makes and keeps a nation great; it is a love of invisible ideas. There is one thing that makes and keeps it base; it is love of the visible and the transient. The one love we call spiritual and the other worldly. The latter, when it is first, excludes the former; the former does not exclude the latter, but ennobles its work by making the motives of it worthy. What is the spiritual life in a nation? That is our first question. It is when there is an ever-present spiritual power in the people which rules and influences their whole national life. I may state what I mean by that in this way. Through knowledge of our nation’s history in the past, through admiration of her greatness, through love of her scenery, through the subtle traditionary feelings which have been sent down in our blood—through these, and through a crowd of desires and enjoyments and sorrows which are shared by us all as Englishmen, and through a crowd of hopes for the future of our country, there grows up before us an ideal image of our nation. Afterwards we separate the qualities of her character, and from them, seen one by one, we conceive other spiritual ideas. She loves, we say, rightousness in her children, and there are certain ways of action which she has always thought right for Englishmen. Knowing this, her children conceive the idea of duty to her. She says, It is better to die than to be false to these demands; and the ideas of duty and courage are both invisible. Then we conceive that she loves all her children equally, and we believe that; and immediately we conceive the spiritual idea of a brotherhood in which all Englishmen are one. When each man, far beyond his personal interests, beyond his home affections, beyond his passions, feels these things as the power of his life and lives by them, and lives to do them; when the love he has to them is so powerful that he bends to its service all he is and all he has, then the nation that has such men within it lives a spiritual national life and not a worldly one. Can you imagine this or part of it being in a nation’s life and that nation not being great and keeping great? The nearest approach to the picture was in the days of Elizabeth. Not long after her accession men began to realise the freedom they had won, and passed from despair into a passionate love of their country. They idealised England, and represented their ideal in the queen. And the life that came out of this—the adventure, the sacrifices, the abounding thought, the audacious power—is even to us astonishing. A vehemence of activity and faith tilled the commonest sailor and yeoman with the same spirit as Raleigh and Greville. The intellectual work was just as great. We cannot yet cease to wonder at a time when all men seemed giants, when Elizabeth and Cecil played on Europe as on an instrument, when Spenser re-created romance and wedded her to religion, when Shakespeare made all mankind talk and act upon a rude stage, when Bacon reopened the closed doors of Nature and philosophy, when Hooker’s judgment made wise the Church, and when among these kings of thought there moved a crowd of princes who in any other age would themselves have been kings of art and song and learning. That was a noble national life, and it was such because it was lived in and for spiritual ideas. Nor because of that was it less practical. The life the ideas made and supported entered into the work of wealth the commerce of England began under Elizabeth, the agriculture of the country was trebled, houses rose everywhere, comfort and luxury and art increased. But, though wealth and comfort grew, they were never the first. Ideal motives ruled them—worship of God and England, and the queen as the image of England. An ideal national life then included all the good of a worldly one. It was no less practical in its results on the spirit of the country. There is none among us who is not the better for the example of that time, who is not prouder of our land with that pride that makes heroic deeds, who does not look back with reverence to the great names that then adorned our country. The opposite life to that is that of national worldliness. It is when there are but very few ideas in a nation, and when these few do not rule it; when its action, thoughts, and feelings are governed by what is present or visible or transitory. It is when the men in it worship as the first thing personal getting on; when wealth is first and any means are good that attain it; when those who have it or rank or position are bowed down to without consideration of character; when art is even stained and men work at it not for love of its own reward but to sell it dearly; when politics are governed solely by desire for the material prosperity of the country; when the commerce of a nation is to be kept at all hazards, even the hazard of disgrace. And as there are a great many among us who are in that condition or tending to it, we should be in bad way were it not that there are numbers who hate that condition, who do not live in it or for it, to whom it is vile and hideous and contemptible. Let all those who think thus do their best to keep the worldly spirit out of the nation’s life; it will be a sacred duty. And it is one of those things which everyone can do, each in his own society. Take a few instances of it in certain spheres of thought and act that we may know it. Take the scientific world. On one side of it it is quite unworldly. It demands that it should be allowed to do its work without any practical motive, without any end such as, when reached, would increase the wealth or comfort of the world. But in two ways it may become worldly. First, it becomes partially worldly when it tries to put aside all ideal life but its own, when it mocks at any belief in the invisible except its own invisibles, when it is so foolish as to see nothing beyond itself. Secondly, it may become altogether worldly if it should tie itself to the car of the practical man, hire itself out to the manufacturer, or the police, or the politician, or the people who love luxury, making itself like Aladdin’s lamp in the hands of a clodhopper. Oh, protect it from that fate! Again take art. Of all men it is true, but of the artist it is especially true, that he must not love the world nor the things of the world. He runs passionately towards the ideal beauty. The impossible is his aim; nothing he does should ever satisfy him. If he could say, “Now I grasp the perfect; the present is all in all to me; I live in and through the visible thing I have made,” then were he really dead in sin; then would art glide away from him forever, and when he knew that misery as his he would die of the knowledge of it. But worse, infinitely worse, than such a death is his becoming worldly, and he may be lured into that by the love of money. He may give up all his own ideas, all the ideal he once had of his work, to do work he hates and despises. He may even get to like the base work for the sake of the goods it brings him. There is no ruin so ghastly as this. Once more, take national economy. There is a good thrift when the money of a people is carefully watched that the greatest amount of reproductive good may be got out of it, when none is wasted, when work is honestly paid its full value and no more, when no money is given for bad work, or, as is often the case, for no work at all. Such economy is ruled by ideas, especially by this main one: All expenditure, even to the last sixpence, must have some relation to the good of England. But there is a base thrift, and that is ruled by this maxim: All expenditure must increase material wealth, or have a visible practical end, practical as enabling men to get on better in this world. Love not the world, nor the things of the world in your nation, any more than in your own heart. You may think this has nothing to do with religion, with the faith and life of Christ. Then you will be much mistaken. Such a national temper will put men into the atmosphere in which a Christian life is possible. If you can get men to live an unworldly national life you have made the first step to get them to live after Christ. (S. A. Brooke, M.A.)

The evanescent and the enduring in human history:—

I. Everything in worldliness is evanescent. 1. The worldly man’s possessions are evanescent. Though he has pyramids of gold they will pass away like a morning cloud. 2. The worldly man’s purposes are evanescent. His great schemes are only splendid dreams which pass away in the waking hour. 3. The worldly man’s pleasures are evanescent. 4. The worldly man’s productions are evanescent. Architecture, painting, commerce, literature, legislation—what are these? A glaring pageant that passeth away.

II. Everything in godliness is enduring. “He that doeth the will of God abideth forever.” Such a man has received a “kingdom that cannot be moved.” 1. His principles are abiding. 2. His possessions are abiding. No moth nor rust can corrupt his treasures. “The Lord is his portion.” 3. His prospects are abiding. His hopes are not fixed on objects that are passing away, but on an “inheritance incorruptible,” &c. (D. Thomas, D. D.) But he that doeth the will of God abideth forever.—

The guileless spirit, amid the dark world’s flow, established in the light of godliness:—

I. The characteristic of the world is that it does not “do the will of God”; it is the sphere or region in which the will of God is not done. As not doing the will of God, the world and its lust must pass away, for it is identical with the darkness which is passing. Passing! But it is passing to where it will pass no more, but stay, fixed unchangeably forever. It is not annihilated, it does not cease to be, it only ceases to be passing. Have you ever thought how much of the world’s endurableness—I say not its attractiveness but its endurableness—depends on its being a world that passes, and therefore changes? Is there any sensation, any delight, any rapture of worldly joy, however engrossing, that you could bear to have prolonged indefinitely, forever, unaltered, unalterable? But I put the case too favourably. I speak of your finding the world with its lust, not passing but abiding, in the place whither you yourselves pass when you pass hence. True, you find it there. But you find it not as you have it here. There are means and appliances here for quenching by gratification, or mitigating by variety, its impetuous fires. But there you find it where these fires burn, unslaked, unsolaced, the world being all within and the world’s lust, and nothing outside but the Holy One. Place yourself with your loved world and its cherished lust where you and it and God are alone together, with nothing of God’s providing that you can use or abuse for your relief. Your creature comforts are not there with you. Nothing of this earth, which is the Lord’s, is there; nothing of its beauty or its bounty, its grace or loveliness or warm affection; nothing of that very bustle and distraction and change which dissipates reflection and drowns remorse; nothing but your worldly lust, your conscience, and your God. That is hell, the hell to which the world is passing.

II. But now let us turn to a brighter picture. “He that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.” Suppose that the world has passed away and the lust thereof. Does it follow that the earth is dissolved or perishes? Nay, it remains. And whatever in it or about it is of God remains. This abode of men is to be assimilated thoroughly to yonder abode of angels in respect of the will of God being alike done in both. That at all events is the heavenly state, let its localities be adjusted as they may. But the precise point of his statement is not adequately brought out unless we connect and identify the future and the present. There may be stages of advancement and varieties of experience, a temporary break, perhaps, in the outer continuity of your thread of life, between the soul’s quitting the body to be with Christ where now He is and its receiving the body anew at His coming hither again. But substantially you are now as you are to be always. (R. S. Candlish, D. D.)

Obedience and abiding:—What God wills He approves or loves. What God wills He is. If, then, He has an express will concerning us, it follows that when we know it we know all that vitally concerns us. There can be nothing above, behind, beyond it. The will of God is all. Knowing that, we know the nature of things; we know the character of virtue, we know what truth is, and goodness. We get to the source of law, obligation, authority. All are inseparably connected with, all indeed are contained in, the will of God. We ask, now, what the natural will of man is? Is it for or against the will of God? Against, unquestionably. Not that there is declared, or even in most cases very conscious, opposition. For it is not true that men to their own consciousness, and by direct acts of their own will, go against God. They fill their lives, or strive to do, without Him who is the alone abiding fulness, and direct their conduct without reference to His authority, and habitually act from principles which He condemns, and seek after ends which are different from and inconsistent with the great ends He has put before us all. Now remember that as in God, so in man, will is character. What a man wills settles what he is. And since men do will against the will of God the character and condition of man must be evil. What could be sin if this is not sin? And since God did not design man for this, since His ideal of the human creature and life is just the opposite of this, it follows that we are justly and honestly described as “fallen,” “alienated,” “depraved.” It is always more or less touching to see feebleness matched against strength, even when the feebleness is all in the wrong and the strength is all in the right; and therefore, simply as a conflict, it is pitiful enough to see man in his frailty matching himself against the omnipotence and justice of God. But, viewed from the higher ground, it is even more terrible than it is touching. What can come of it? Nothing but destruction, nothing but the fate of that which changeth and “passeth away.” Can a man will against time so as to stop the flow of its moments? Can a man will against space and put himself out of it, in thought even, not to say in act? Can a man will against mathematical or necessary truth by making two and two into five, or by changing himself into another being? He may do any of these things as soon as will against the will of God, and make his will prevail and succeed. Surely, then, it is evident that if there be a gospel—a message from God that shall be “good news” to a man—it must bear directly and effectually upon man’s evil will. There are many ways of compendiously expressing the gospel, but a better it would be hard to find than this—that it is the good will of God overcoming the evil will of man. By means, no doubt, wondrous means! By His own self-sacrifice, by suffering love, by revelation of truth, by donation of the Spirit, because these are necessary elements for the case, the nature of man being such as to forbid the hope of any change being wrought in it by mere strength, by what we call omnipotence. Then the question of questions to a man must be this, “Am I now with my will doing the will of God?” Not, “Have I undergone a certain spiritual change? and have I had, subsequently, a requisite amount of spiritual experience?” But just this, “Am I yet a self-willed creature, or have I become one of the Saviour’s willing people? Am I still keeping up the black, silent controversy of a misjudging heart with and against God? Or have I been won over, at least in spirit and will, although not yet perfectly in feeling and act, from self and sin to truth and love and God?” Happy he who can at once say, “I am of those who do the will of God. Through grace I am aiming at the life of whole and constant obedience.” Happy he, for whoso thus doeth the will of God has entered the world of reality and permanence as one belonging to it. He, too, is going to abide for ever, is now already in the ever-abiding state. (A. Raleigh, D. D.)

The abiding life:—Like most writers and speakers, John had favourite expressions. One of his pet words is this “abide,” significant of the quiet, contemplative temper of the man, but significant of a great deal more. He uses it, if I reckon rightly, somewhere between sixty and seventy times in the Gospel and Epistles. And he almost always employs it in a metaphorical, or, if you like the word better, a “mystical” sense. The frequency of its recurrence is masked to an English reader by the variety of translation which our renderers have chosen to adopt, but wherever you find in John’s writings the synonyms “dwell,” “abide,” “continue,” “remain,” it is pretty safe to conclude that he is using this word. To John one great characteristic of the Christian life was that it was the abiding life.

I. The Christian life is a life of dwelling in Christ. I have said that this is one of John’s favourite words. He learnt it from his Master. It was in the upper room where it came from Christ’s lips with a pathos which was increased by the shadow of departure that lay over His heart and theirs. “Abide in me, and I in you.” No doubt the old apostle had meditated long on the words. “Abide in me and I in you.” That is the ideal of the Christian life, a reciprocal mutual dwelling of Christ in us and of us in Christ. These two thoughts are but two sides of the one truth, the interpenetration by faith and love of the believing heart and the beloved Saviour, and the community of spiritual life as between them. The one sets forth more distinctly Christ’s gracious activity and wondrous love by which He condescends to enter into the narrow room of our spirits, and to communicate their life and all the blessings that He can bestow. The other sets forth more distinctly our activity, and suggests the blessed thought of a home and a shelter, an inexpugnable fortress and a sure dwelling-place, a habitation to which all generations may continually resort. Christ for us is the preface and introduction. I do not want that that great truth should be in any measure obscured, but I do want that, inseparably connected with it in our belief and in our experience, there should be far more than there is, the companion sister-thought, Christ in us and we in Christ. I need not remind you how this great thought of mutual indwelling is, through John’s writings, extended not only to our relation to Christ, but to our relations to God the Father and God the Spirit. The apostle almost as frequently speaks about our dwelling in God and God’s dwelling in us, as he does about our dwelling in Christ and Christ’s dwelling in us. Let me say one word about the ways by which this mutual indwelling may be procured and maintained. You talk about the doctrine as being mystical. Well, the way to realise it as a fact is plain and unmystical enough to suit anybody. There are two streams of representation in John’s writings about this matter. Here is a sample of one of them, “He that eateth My flesh and drinketh My blood abideth in Me, and I in him.” Similarly He says, “If that which ye have heard from the beginning abide in you, ye also shall abide in the Son and in the Father.” And, still more definitely, “Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.” So, then, the acceptance by our understandings and by our hearts of the truth concerning Jesus Christ, and the grasping of these truths so closely by faith that they become the nourishment of our spirits, so that we eat His flesh and drink His blood, is the condition of that mutual indwelling. And if that seems to be too far removed from ordinary moralities to satisfy those who will have no mysteries in their religion, and will not have it anything else than a repetition of the plain dictates of conscience, take the other stream of representations, “If we love one another, God abideth in us.” “He that abideth in love abideth in God.” “If ye keep My commandments ye shall abide in My love.” The harm of mysticism is that it is divorced from common pedestrian morality. The mysticism of Christianity enjoins the punctilious discharge of plain duties. “He that keepeth His commandments abideth in Him, and He in him.”

II. The Christian life should be one of steadfast persistence. One of the synonyms with which our translators have represented this word of which I am speaking is “continue.” You will find that the same double representation which I have spoken of is kept up with regard to other matters belonging to the Christian life. For instance, we sometimes read of “God’s word,” “Christ’s sayings,” or “the truth”—as John puts it—“abiding in us”; and as frequently we read of our “abiding” in these—the words of God, the teaching of Christ, the truth. In the one ease something is represented as permanently establishing itself in my nature and operating there. In the other case I am represented as holding fast by and perseveringly attending to something which I possess. Ah! I am afraid that there are few things which the average Christian man of this generation more needs than the exhortation to steadfast continuance in the course which he says he has adopted. Most of us have our Christianity by fits and starts. It is spasmodic and interrupted. We grow as the vegetable world grows, in the favourable months only, and there are long intervals in which there is no progress. A Christian life should be one of steadfast, unbroken persistence. Oh! but you say, “that is an ideal that nobody can get to.” Well, I am not going to quarrel with anybody as to whether such an ideal is possible or not. It seems to me a woful waste of time to be fighting about possible limits when we are so far short of the limits that are known.

III. The Christian life may be one of abiding blessedness. Our Lord in that same discourse in which He spoke about abiding in us and we in Him, used the word very frequently in a great variety of aspects, and amongst them He said, “These things have I spoken unto you, that My joy may abide in you.” And in other places we read about “abiding in the light,” or having eternal life abiding in us. And in all these various places of the use of this expression there lies the one thought that it is possible for us to make, here and now, our lives one long series of conscious enjoyment of the highest blessings. And even if there be a circumference of sorrow, joy and peace may be the centre, and not be truly broken by the incursions of calamities. There are springs of fresh water that dart up from the depths of the salt sea and spread themselves over its waves. It is possible in the inmost chamber to be still whilst the storm is raging without. It is our own fault if ever external things have power over us enough to shake our inmost and central blessedness. “As sorrowful yet always rejoicing.”

IV. Lastly, the Christian life will turn out to be the one permanent life. So say the words which I have taken as a text. “He that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.” That implies not so much dwelling or persistence or continuousness during our earthly career as, rather, the absolute and unlimited permanence of the obedient life. It will endure when all things else, “the world, and the lust thereof,” have slid away into obscurity and have ceased to be. Now of course it is true that Christian men, temples of Christ, are subject to the same law of mutation and decay as all created things are. But still, whilst on the one hand Christian men share in the common lot, and on the other hand non-Christian men endure forever in a very solemn and dreadful sense, the word of my text reveals a great truth. The lives that run parallel with God’s will last, and when everything that has been against that will, or negligent of it, is summed up and comes to nought, these lives continue. The life that is in conformity with the will of God lasts in another sense, inasmuch as it persists through all changes, even the supreme change that is wrought by death, in the same direction, and is substantially the same. If we grasp the throne of God we shall be co-eternal with the throne that we grasp. We cannot die, nor our work pass and be utterly abolished as long as He lives. Some trees that, like sturdy Scotch firs, have strong trunks and obstinate branches and unfading foliage, looking as if they would defy any blast or decay, run their roots along the surface, and down they go before the storm. Others, far more slender in appearance, strike theirs deep down, and they stand whatever winds blow. So strike your roots into God and Christ. “He that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.” (A. Maclaren, D. D.)

The moral only permanent:—The first affirmation of this sentence is common enough and obvious enough. And yet perhaps it might be questioned whether any of us truly and profoundly believe it. Ask us whether we believe that the world passes away, and pointing to these lapsing years we unhesitatingly say Yes, but encounter us twelve hours after the new year is born in Cheapside or on ’Change, and you will see no diminution of our eager pursuit, no relaxation of our eager grasp of it. Not only does the world pass away, but “the lust thereof”—the very thoughts and passions with which we desire it. I know no more affecting affirmation concerning death than one that is made in one of the Psalms, “In that very day his thoughts perish.” The man as we knew him and could recognise him has perished, his palpable body is no longer conscious of thought and passion. So far as the world is concerned, and so far as we look at him, his thoughts have perished. He is only dust—the eye, the hand, the tongue, and, above all, the mysterious brain, have forgotten their functions. And more than this, the thoughts of the man are perished in fact as well as in seeming, for although we believe the thinking, loving man to live in the unseen world, active from the very necessity of their nature, yet how few of the particular thoughts and desires that a man entertains here does he retain after he dies! How many of them perish! too vain, too foolish, too sinful to be retained in the light and under the conditions of another world. How few of our conscious thoughts and affections can we even now reasonably hope to retain! They are possible for this life of ignorance and sin, but possible for no other. They, and before a man dies “the lust of the world” may perish out of him. Difficult as it is to cure a man of an undue love of the world, disappointment and suffering may do it, and disgust may succeed to desire. Possession may bring a hatred and disgust surpassing our love and desire, and thus even before the world itself passes away the “lust” of it may. But this is true of things only in part, true only as to their outward seeming, true only of their material and external element. There is an element of everything that a moral being touches and is related to that is unchanging and eternal; that, namely, which expresses or addresses itself to his moral feeling. The material Element of this world’s things passes away, the moral abides for ever. This is, I think, what is meant by the second member of this sentence. And there is a moral element in everything. Everything that conies to us comes with a moral lesson and influence from God—a teaching of duty or a test of temper: and everything that goes from us carries with it a record of our moral principles and tempers. There is nothing so material and so trivial as not to be a possible means of grace to us. Let us be careful not to err, therefore, in our estimates of the transitoriness of things. Just as we do not all die because the material body dies, so we do not all pass away because the material externals of things do; there is a kind of moral soul of the world as well as a material body. Our pure thoughts, our loving affections, our holy actions, our penitence and prayer and communion with God, our service of God, our self-denial and self-consecration, all enabled by the things of the world around us, these are the elements of the things of the world that will live and abide for ever.

I. Take, first, the general history of the year, the public deeds that have been done, the national and social movements that have been effected, the sum total of what has been contributed to the world’s history, wisdom, and goodness. We need attempt no enumeration of these; it is enough to say of them that all that is merely material and external in them has passed away, only that which is moral abides. There is no moral influence, no moral life in the mere record of an event upon the page of history; it may lie there a dead fact, without a living pulse, without a particle of quickening power. Only so far as moral principles were exercised in it, only so far as it was an example of virtue or a beacon of vice, an illustration of obedience or an instance of sin, has it power to appeal to and quicken us. How, then, shall we estimate the history of the past year? We will brush away its surface of mere phenomena, and look into the world’s moral life and try to understand what the year has added to the world’s holiness or sin, how far Christian civilisation has been extended and Christian piety increased. Is the world purer and more elevated? It has an additional record of sin, what additional record has it of virtue, obedience, and faith?

II. Take next your own individual history through the year. Now, whatever may have befallen you, whatever sorrows or joys, pains or pleasures, the only permanent result of the year is its sum of moral actions and experiences. Of how little value now apart from it are your toils for the perishing body, your care for the physical wants of your mortal condition, your ploughing the earth, your barter of merchandise, your hoarding of money, your toil as an orator, scholar, or statesman! So far as you have done these things without spiritual feeling and reference, how little they all appear now. And as with our possessions, so with our self-culture, both of mind and of heart. How much of what a man acquires is mere properly, never entering into the essence of his moral life. Suppose that you have been a student during the year, acquiring knowledge of history, science, philosophy, well, how much of what you have acquired is mere knowledge, the mere chattel of the man? How little of it has been incorporated with your moral life! And all that has not shall pass away, save as mere memory. “Whether it be knowledge, it shall fail; whether they be prophecies, they shall cease”; only Divine charity, only that which is inwrought moral feeling, shall abide. Or suppose that you are a religious man, cultivating a religious character, and seeking to “make your calling and election sure.” You have read your Bible, you have uttered prayers, you have helped in Christian labour. Well, as mere acts these have all passed away, congregations have broken up, duties have been finished. What, then, remains? Only the moral element that there was in all these things, only the inward religious feeling that prompted them or that they expressed. And it abides in two ways. First, all the moral element and influence of your religious acts produces an effect upon others—upon those who are the objects of your act, and upon others who behold it. Not merely does it relieve poverty or pain—that is only the material form and effect that will perish when pain shall end; but it exhibits a moral principle or feeling, and men are morally moved by it—moved to moral admiration and imitation. And then upon yourself the moral influence of your act is very mighty. Every exercise of virtue or a vice acts inwardly far more powerfully than it acts outwardly; it strengthens and expands your moral principle, it enlarges and deepens your brotherly sympathies. (H. Allon, D. D.)1

1 Joseph S. Exell, The Biblical Illustrator: I. John (London: James Nisbet & Co., n.d.), 122–143.

[Stop loving]—Or Don’t love

Notes For Verse 16

[for fleshly gratification]—Lit. for the flesh

[desire for possessions]—Lit. of the eyes1

1 International Standard Version Notes (WORDsearch, 1998), 1 Jn 2:15–16.

Warnings Against Unfaithfulness (2:15–17) “In the world, but not of it”—this is a phrase commonly used to characterize the Christian’s relationship to the world. And yet many and varied are the opinions about what constitutes “worldliness.” Many religious groups and denominations forbid, either explicitly or implicitly, certain behaviors. In some circles smoking is forbidden; some groups look down on drinking alcoholic beverages, dancing, rock music or attending movies. And yet in other groups, cultures or countries, other strictures may be in place, while those just listed are not. A Christian from an Eastern European country once told me that in his circles attending public sporting events was frowned upon. Some stricter groups have avoided the use of modern machinery and automobiles.

The common thread in avoiding “worldliness” is the desire to conform one’s life to the will of God and not to the dictates of the world. Obviously this is a laudable goal. And although the present passage does not give us rules and regulations, it does make plain the incompatibility of love for the world and love for God. But the conception of worldliness in this epistle goes far deeper than the idea of outlawing some behaviors that non-Christians tolerate. We are called to an active devotion to God that shapes all that we are and do. Barclay captures the essence of the passage when he entitles it “Rivals for the Human Heart” (1976:55). The world is not simply a passive entity, but a rival for the allegiance of every person.

Do Not Love the World (2:15)* But what exactly is the world that the Christian disciple is commanded not to love? John 3:16 asserts that God “loved the world.” Are God’s children to do less? Too often Christians live as though they were of the world, but not in it. They have adopted the good things of culture and society, but refuse to involve themselves to create positive change. They take credit for the good, but shift the blame for the bad. John does not mean that Christians are to shun involvement in secular or political affairs, or that they are not to care about and for that which we call “the world.” What, then, does the command do not love the world really mean?

We are helped by noting that in Johannine thought world (kosmos) is used in a variety of ways. First, world can refer, positively, to that which God created (Jn 1:9–10) or a realm where one exists (8:23; 9:5; 10:36; 11:27). Second, it also may refer to the people who inhabit the world (Jn 1:10; 3:16–17; 4:42; 6:51; 7:4; 8:12, 26; 9:5; 12:19, 47). God’s love is directed toward them, but their response to that love is mixed (3:17–21; 9:39). Third, world is used more negatively and characteristically to designate those who reject or ignore God (or Jesus), those who live without recognizing the claims of God upon them. We find this negative usage of world often (Jn 1:10; 3:17; 8:23; 9:39; 12:31; 14:17, 19, 22; 15:18–19). That this world is in the power of the evil one (12:31; 14:30; 16:11) and hence opposed to God is particularly emphasized in 1 John (4:4; 5:19). Nevertheless, God still loves the world and sent the Son to destroy the works of the devil (3:8, 16). The following diagram illustrates the neg ative usage of world in this passage:

(A) The world

(B) with its values

(a) The one who obeys

(b) the will of God

Those who are “the world” stand over against those who obey. What makes the world “worldly” is its persistent rejection of the claims of God in favor of its own values and desires. In this passage, world and anything in this world designate a complex web of values, decisions and directions in life chosen without consideration for knowing and doing the will of God. When the Elder writes do not love the world he in essence calls people to make a choice for God’s way of doing things and not for the world’s ways.

But how does this square with the statement of John 3:16 that God loved the world? In that well-known verse God’s love is demonstrated by the sending of the Son, an act intended to “save the world.” God saves people who are bound by the world and its values by freeing them from their captivity. Quite simply, loving the world does not mean accepting it as it is, but remaking it into what it was created by God to be: people living in the realm of life and light.

The command do not love the world demands that we reject those ways of life which do not lead us to God or to the practice of truth, justice, righteousness and love. While this sounds easy enough in theory, it is not easy in practice. For it entails the recognition and condemnation of sin and unrighteousness. Here we can too easily fall prey to arrogant judgmentalism on the one hand or, on the other hand, to the subtle tug to let sinful behaviors pass unnoticed or unnamed in our efforts to love and accept people as they are. And yet acceptance and love of others never means that we must—or may—approve of a way of life that is inimical to God’s way of light. Certainly Jesus knew his ministry to be one that exposed sin (Jn 16:8–10). Yet a ministry of exposing the unrighteousness of the world’s ways does not stand in contradiction to a ministry of love. For precisely by exposing sin, lies and hatred, we can become channels of God’s truth, light and love, so that we enable others to live in that truth as well. But let us remember the epistle’s admonitions to confess our own sins, and so let judgment begin at home.

The Essence of Worldliness (2:16–17)* “Worldliness” cannot then be neatly packaged into certain behaviors that the devout believer avoids. And yet John continues with two verses that sound rather like a dire warning about the nature of worldliness. Indeed, the NIV’s vivid translation—that the sinner exhibits cravings, lust and pride—leaves little doubt that these impulses are to be resisted. But what are these impulses that characterize the “world” but should not characterize those who are “in but not of” the world?

First comes the phrase the cravings of sinful man. The word cravings (epithymia) is the same word translated as lust in the next phrase. Craving may be neutral in its connotations, meaning simply longing or desire, and often in the New Testament it has this sense. The NIV translates the Greek “flesh” (sarkos) as sinful man. But flesh can be positive in the Johannine literature. Both the Gospel (1:14; 6:51–55; compare 17:2) and epistle (1 Jn 4:2) unashamedly state that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh. “Flesh” means the human realm, which, in itself, is not evil or negative. But insofar as it stands apart from God, it must be reborn through the power of the spirit (Jn 6:63), or it remains lifeless and dead (Jn 3:6). Just as a body without breath cannot live, so flesh without Spirit cannot live eternally.

Hence the cravings of sinful man are “desires that come from the flesh,” or “human striving.” This means desire that is shaped by the world unaware of and untouched by God, all those desires and plans that are shaped entirely by our impulses and not by the Spirit of God. The criticism of the “desire of the flesh” rests not on the fact that such desires come from sin—for “flesh” need not have that meaning—but on the fact that they do not come from the Spirit. Had John given some examples relevant to today, he surely would have included this culture’s pervasive materialism, workaholic ethic, sexual laxity and driving desires for success and prosperity. Any attitude or action that makes the individual—and not God—the center and measure of the universe smacks of worldliness. “Worldliness” is serving many gods, be they personal whims, ambitions or strivings.

Just as flesh is the source of the craving in the previous phrase, so here human eyes are the source of the lust in the next phrase. We might translate lust of his eyes as “desire that comes from what the eyes see.” These desires do not come from the insight that God gives, but are shaped by the world in its ignorance of or opposition to God. They may include greed, materialism and envy, for later the Elder warns those who do not aid their brothers and sisters in need (3:16). Those held by the grip of the world lust for what they see, and not for what the Spirit gives them eyes to see as good.

The third phrase in this trio is boasting of what he has and does. The pride spoken of is self-reliance, self-sufficiency. Either people trust in themselves, or they derive their values, assurance and life from God. It is exactly this attitude of self-sufficiency, seeing things in our own light and not by the light of God, that the Elder terms “worldliness.”

Those who live this way experience a futile existence, dedicated to things that are short-lived and offer little lasting satisfaction, for the world and its desires pass away. John means that God’s light, already shining (2:8), has overcome the power that animates the world of darkness (2:12–14). Those who put their trust in earthly possessions commit their energies and selves to a sphere whose end has already been assured. They strive to live by a power that has been drained of its source of energy and is now running on empty.

This passage, then, is a manifestation of the Johannine dualism. One loves either God or the world. This theme echoes throughout Scripture. The first commandment is “You shall have no other gods before me.” Joshua commanded the children of Israel to “choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve.… As for me and my household, we will serve the Lord” (24:15). Jesus warned, “No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money” (Mt 6:24). And now the author of 1 John, like his master Jesus, reminds people that there can be only one allegiance, one loyalty, which shapes all that we are and do. There is no way to play both ends against the middle. The commands of this passage are to be heard both as an invitation to serve God and, for those who have heard and responded to such an invitation, as an exhortation to continue to make that response daily.

1 Marianne Meye Thompson, 1–3 John, The IVP New Testament Commentary Series (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1992), 1 Jn 2:15–18.

2:15 Stop loving this evil world and all that it offers you, for when you love the world, you show that you do not have the love of the Father in you. Believers must love God (2:5) and love their brothers and sisters in Christ (2:10), but they must not love this evil world. John was writing to those in the church who had remained true to their faith. They had withstood false teaching and had remained unified together with other believers. But John warned against a secret spiritual danger that could still threaten them—loving this evil world. The “world,” as used here, does not refer to God’s creation that God declared good and that reveals his glory (see Psalms 8; 24:1). Nor does it refer to the “world” that God “so loved that he gave his only Son” to die for it (John 3:16). Instead, the term “world” here refers to the realm of Satan’s influence, the system made up of those who hate God and his will. Believers should love the people of the world enough to share God’s message with them, but they should not love the morally corrupt system in place in the world. Satan controls this evil world. His world opposes God and his followers and tempts those followers away from God and into sin (see James 4:4).

GOD VS. THE EVIL WORLD

John warned believers not lo love this world and its selfish pleasures. Christians stand in a war zone. The battle takes place here on earth as the spiritual forces of God battle against those of Satan. While God allows Satan to rule over the earth through the minds of those in rebellion against God, Satan’s kingdom will one day be destroyed. Christians live in this world but are not of it. Satan hates Christians’ detachment and attempts to make life as difficult as possible for Christ’s followers. To give in to the senseless lust for possessions and power, to spend money on selfish desires and foolish upgrades in cars, clothes, homes, and equipment while ignoring the needs of others is to lose the cosmic war to Satan. So, Christian, know that Satan wars against you, and remember that you represent the winning side.

Reference

Verse (quoted from nrsv)

Matthew 6:24

“ ‘No one can serve two masters: for a slave will either hate the one and love the other, or be devoted to the one and despise the other.You cannot serve God and wealth.’ ”

John 12:31

“ ‘Now is the judgment of this world; now the ruler of this world will be driven out.’ ”

John 14:30

“ ‘I will no longer talk much with you, for the ruler of world is coming. He has no power over me.’ ”

John 15:18

“ ‘If the world hates you, be aware that it hated me before it hated you.’ ”

Ephesians 6:11–12

“Put on the whole armor of God, so that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For our struggle is not against enemies of blood and flesh, but against the rulers, against the authorities, aganst the cosmic powers of this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.”

James 4:4

“Adulterers! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore whoever wish to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God

1 John 2:16

“For all that is in the world—the desire of the flesh, the desire of the eyes, the pride in riches—comes not from the Father but from the world.”

1 John 3:1

“See what love the Father has given us, that we should be called children of God: and that is what we are. The reason the world does not know us is that it did not know him.”

1 John 4:4

“Little children, you are from God, and have conquered them; for the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world.”

1 John 5:19

“We know that we are God’s children, and that the whole world lies under the power of the evil one.”

How do people “love” the world? They do so by greedily and selfishly loving all that it offers them, such as riches, power, and self-indulgence. People cannot love both God and the world—such “loves” are mutually exclusive. The word for “love” here does not mean the self-sacrificing love that believers are to have for God and others; instead, it means taking pleasure in something, in this case, taking pleasure in what is opposed to God. John wanted to show his readers that to attempt to love both God and the world would be as impossible as trying to combine light and darkness (1:5). Therefore, when you love the world, you show that you do not have the love of the Father in you. God and the sinful world are such opposites that it is impossible to love both at once (see chart on the previous page).

These words do not mean that believers are to remove themselves from all contact with the sinful world (that would be virtually impossible), nor are they to stoically refrain from anything pleasurable. They do mean that when contact with the sinful world and its worldly pleasures specifically disagrees with God’s Word, then Christians are to turn away from “the world” in order to obey God.

2:16 For all that is in the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—is not of the Father but is of the world. John warned his readers against loving the world and all that it offers (2:15) because all that is in the world … is not of the Father. Jesus made clear this tension when he said, “No one can serve two masters” (Matthew 6:24 nlt). “World” refers here not to the creation—for that was most certainly “of the Father,” because the Bible records that God created everything. The “world” here, as in 2:15, is the present evil system that is ruled by Satan and opposed to God. This “world” has rebelled and fallen into sin. Nothing in this world system loves the Father or finds its source in him; “all” refers to Satan’s domain.

Taking “all that is in the world,” John made three basic categories. These three categories are subjective, for they speak of attitudes of the heart. Believers may look perfectly clean and serene on the outside but harbor any or all of these attitudes inside. John feared that this might happen, so he was warning the believers to restrain such desires.

1. The lust of the flesh. Jesus spoke of how adultery begins not with the act, but with the desire—with looking at another person with lust in one’s heart (Matthew 5:28). These words picture any kind of desire but especially the craze for sex. No doubt the people of ancient Ephesus understood this—the pagan religions of their city glorified sex. The world today has many similarities. Sex in all of its immoral and even grotesque forms becomes portrayed through movies, on television, in print, or on the computer. These appeal to the sinful nature. While this category seems to refer mostly to sexual lust, any sort of selfish or greedy cravings simply to satisfy one’s physical desires in rebellion against God could also be considered “lust of the flesh.” This would include anything purely physical, exploitive, and self-centered.

2. The lust of the eyes. Sins of craving and accumulating possessions (bowing to the god of materialism) could be placed in this category. While sex may also be included here, people’s “eyes” can lust after many things—Eve wanted the fruit that was “pleasing to the eye” (Genesis 3:6 niv), Achan saw the beautiful robe from Babylon and the silver and gold (Joshua 7:21), and David saw a beautiful woman bathing and wanted her (2 Samuel 11:2–3). People would have to be blind not to see anything, but believers must not become obsessed with what they see.

3. The pride of life. Some versions translate this as “pride in possessions.” It refers to both the inward attitude and the outward boasting because of an obsession with one’s status or possessions. The word “pride” may carry a note of exaggeration here; this person brags in order to impress people, but the bragging may stretch the truth.

WORLDLINESS

John’s key message was that Christians should avoid sinful desires. Today, Christians have the same struggle. Some Christians define worldliness by a certain set of overt behaviors. Refrain from this list of questionable activities, the reasoning goes, and you avoid worldliness. Note, however, that John’s description of what it means to “love the world” targets attitudes. “Cravings,” “lusts,” “pride”—these terms describe internal heart attitudes that can easily go undetected. One may appear to be free of worldly activities and yet be filled with sinful desires. For example, it’s possible to avoid dirty videos or books and still harbor illicit sexual desires. A person can live simply, even while greedily desiring possessions. A person can feign humility and still secretly clamor for recognition and honor. The lesson? Don’t buy into simplistic views of worldliness. It is a deep-seated condition. With God’s help, renounce worldliness and keep your sinful cravings under his control.

TEMPTATIONS

Temptation of Eve (Genesis 3:4–6)

Temptation of Christ (Matthew 4:1–11; Luke 4:1–13)

Temptation of Christians Today

Lust of the flesh

The desire to fulfill pleasures, physical desires

The fruit looked delicious and would be good to eat.

Turn the stones into bread

Take what is easier or more pleasurable—rather than God’s will

Lust of the eyes

The constant craving for more

The fruit was a pleasure to look at.

Gain all the kingdoms of the world, as far as the eye can see

Respondimpulsively, without restraint or self-control

The pride of life

The desire for power or possessions

The fruit was desirable for gaining wisdom, Eve wanted to “be like God.”

Throw yourself down and angels will rescue you, for God will not allow you to be hurt

Accumulate things rather than seek to serve others

All three categories show selfishness and greed. People who focus on possessions, want whatever they see, and boast about what they have show that they are of the world and not of God. Yet these sins, so subtle as to begin almost unnoticed within the heart, become the temptations that lead to the sin’s outworkings in people’s lives. And believers are not immune. John warned his readers to “stop loving this evil world” (2:15). We must not have divided or halfhearted loyalty to God.

By contrast, God values self-control, a spirit of generosity, and a commitment to humble service. Believers can give the impression of avoiding worldly pleasures while still harboring worldly attitudes in their hearts. However, they can do as Jesus did—love sinners and spend time with them while maintaining a commitment to the values of God’s kingdom.

2:17 And the world and its desire are passing away, but those who do the will of God live forever. The people who live in rebellion to God with their transient, unfulfilling desires (2:16) are focusing on a world that is already passing away. The workaholic will die unfulfilled. The greedy politician will die in despair. The pleasure-mad partygoers will find their lives ruined by drugs or alcohol. Indulgence never satisfies; it only whets the appetite for more. Christians, however, understand that the world will not last forever and that no one lives on this planet forever. Because they are believers, however, they know that those who do the will of God live forever. How can this be? “Those who do the will of God” refers to believers who will remain forever united with God. It is foolish to hang on to the world and whatever fulfillment it offers because this world is passing away. But to turn away from the sinful world and hold on to God means to hold on to the eternal. Those who do so will “live forever” with him. Every person will die and then must forever let go of the possessions and pleasures of this world. Those who trust in God have already begun a life everlasting.

LET IT GO

When the desire for possessions and sinful pleasures feels so intense, we probably doubt that these objects of desire will all one day pass away. It may be even more difficult to believe that the person who does the will of God will live forever. But this was John’s conviction based on the facts of Jesus’ life, death, resurrection, and promises. Knowing that this evil world will end can give you the courage to deny yourself temporary pleasures in this world in order to enjoy what God has promised us for eternity.

1 Bruce B. Barton and Grant R. Osborne, 1, 2 & 3 John, Life Application Bible Commentary (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 1998), 42–47.

15. Love not the world. The term world seems to be used in the Scriptures in three senses: (1.) As denoting the physical universe; the world as it appears to the eve; the world considered as the work of God, as a material creation. (2.) The world as applied to the people that reside in it—‘the world of mankind.’ (3.) As the dwellers on the earth are by nature without religion, and act under a set of maxims, aims, and principles that have reference only to this life, the term comes to be used with reference to that community; that is, to the objects which they peculiarly seek, and the principles by which they are actuated. Considered with reference to the first sense of the word, it is not improper to love the world as the work of God, and as illustrating his perfections; for we may suppose that God loves his own works, and it is not wrong that we should find pleasure in their contemplation. Considered with reference to the second sense of the word, it is not wrong to love the people of the world with a love of benevolence, and to have attachment to our kindred and friends who constitute a part of it, though they are not Christians. It is only with reference to the word as used in the third sense that the command here can be understood to be applicable, or that the love of the world is forbidden; with reference to the objects sought, the maxims that prevail, the principles that reign in that community that lives for this world as contradistinguished from the world to come. The meaning is, that we are not to fix our affections on worldly objects—on what the world can furnish—as our portion, with the spirit with which they do who live only for this world, regardless of the life to come. We are not to make this world the object of our chief affection; we are not to be influenced by the maxims and feelings which prevail among those who do. Comp. Notes, Rom. 12:2, and James 4:4. See also Matt. 16:26; Luke 9:25; 1 Cor. 1:20; 3:19; Gal. 4:3; Col. 2:8.

Neither the things that are in the world. Referred to in the next verse as ‘the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life.’ This explanation shows what John meant by ‘the things that are in the world.’ He does not say that we are in no sense to love anything that is in the material world; that we are to feel no interest in flowers, and streams, and forests, and fountains; that we are to have no admiration for what God has done as the Creator of all things; that we are to cherish no love for any of the inhabitants of the world, our friends and kindred; or that we are to pursue none of the objects of this life in making provision for our families; but that we are not to love the things which are sought merely to pamper the appetite, to please the eye, or to promote pride in living. These are the objects sought by the people of the world; these are not the objects to be sought by the Christian.

If any man love the world, &c. If, in this sense, a man loves the world, it shows that he has no true religion; that is, if characteristically he loves the world as his portion, and lives for that; if it is the ruling principle of his life to gain and enjoy that, it shows that his heart has never been renewed, and that he has no part with the children of God. See Notes, James 4:4; Matt. 6:24.

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

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

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

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

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

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

17. And the world passeth away. Everything properly constituting this world where religion is excluded. The reference here does not seem to be so much to the material world, as to the scenes of show and vanity which make up the world. These things are passing away like the shifting scenes of the stage. See Notes, 1 Cor. 7:31.

And the lust thereof. All that is here so much the object of desire. These things are like a pageant, which only amuses the eye for a moment, and then disappears for ever.

But he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever. This cannot mean that he will never die; but it means that he has built his happiness on a basis which is secure, and which can never pass away. Comp. Notes, Matt. 7:24–27.1

1 Albert Barnes, Notes on the New Testament: James to Jude, ed. Robert Frew (London: Blackie & Son, 1884–1885), 299–301.

B. In light of the world’s allurements (2:15–17)

The writer was not dissatisfied with the spiritual state of his readers. Much less did he question or doubt their salvation, as some expositors of this epistle imply. On the contrary, his readers may even be viewed as having matured in the faith. John wrote precisely because their present state was so good. But he wished to warn them about dangers which always exist, no matter how far one has advanced in his Christian walk.

2:15. He turned now to a warning. Do not love the world or anything in the world. The “world” (kosmos), thought of here as an entity hostile to God (cf. 4:4), is always a seductive influence which Christians should continually resist (cf. John 15:18–19; James 4:4. In other NT verses “world” [kosmos] means people, e.g., John 3:16–17.) The world competes for the love of Christians and one cannot both love it and the Father at the same time. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. As James also had told his Christian readers, “Friendship with the world is hatred toward God” (James 4:4).

2:16. The reason love for the world is incompatible with love for God is that everything in the world … comes not from the Father but from the world. The world thus conceived is a system of values and goals from which God is excluded. In describing “everything in the world,” John specified its contents under three well-known phrases that effectively highlight the world’s false outlook. Men of the world live for the cravings of sinful man. “Cravings” translates epithymia, which is used twice in this verse and once in the next verse. The NIV translates it differently each time: “cravings,” “lust,” “desires.” In the New Testament the word usually, though not always, connotes desires that are sinful. The expression “sinful man” translates the Greek sarx (lit., “flesh”). The phrase refers particularly to illicit bodily appetites. The expression the lust (epithymia) of his eyes points to man’s covetous and acquisitive nature. The boasting of what he has and does paraphrases the Greek hē alazoneia tou biou (lit., “the pretension of human life”), which signifies a proud and ostentatious way of life. (Alazoneia is used only here in the NT.) Christians ought to have nothing to do with such worldly perspectives as these.

2:17. After all, the world and its desires (epithymia) are temporary and pass away, but the man who does the will of God lives forever. The word “lives” renders the characteristic Johannine word menō (cf. 1:6). It suggests, as almost always in this epistle, the “abiding life” of fellowship with God. But here is obviously the additional thought that the life lived in God’s fellowship, rejecting the sinful things of this passing world, is a life that has no real ending. A person whose character and personality are shaped by obedience to God will not be affected by the passing away of the world and its vain desires. It is a Johannine way of saying, “Only one life, ’twill soon be past; only what’s done for Christ will last.”1

1 John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck, Dallas Theological Seminary, The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures, vol. 2 (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985), 890–891.

Do Not Love the World (2:15–17)

John warns the church not to pursue the world/worldly things, things that are in contradiction to God’s will. Believers should not grasp at worldly things because they are not permanent. In contrast, the will of God is permanent.

2:15 Those who love the world do not love the Father.

2:16 John identifies three things that are from the world, not from the Father: the desires of the flesh (thoughts, will, actions), the desires of the eyes (anything seen), and the boasting of life (possessions). This worldly person only wants to satisfy themselves.

2:17 Everything worldly is passing away; thus the church needs to abide in God’s will, which is permanent.1

1 Douglas Mangum, ed., Lexham Context Commentary: New Testament, Lexham Context Commentary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2020), 1 Jn 2:15–17.

2:15, 16 We are plainly warned not to love the world or the things that are in the world, for the simple reason that love for the world is not compatible with love for the Father. All that the world has to offer may be described as the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life. The lust of the flesh refers to such sensual bodily appetites as proceed from within our evil nature. The lust of the eyes applies to such evil desires as may arise from what we see. The pride of life is an unholy ambition for self-display and self-glory. These three elements of worldliness are illustrated in the sin of Eve. The tree was good for food; that is the lust of the flesh. The tree was pleasant to the eyes; that is the lust of the eyes. It was a tree to be desired to make one wise; this describes the pride of life.

As the devil is opposed to Christ, and the flesh is hostile to the Spirit, so the world is antagonistic to the Father. Appetite, avarice, and ambition are not of the Father, but of the world. That is, they do not proceed from the Father, but find their source in the world. Worldliness is the love for passing things. The human heart can never find satisfaction with things.

2:17 The world is passing away, and the lust of it. When a bank is breaking, smart people do not deposit in it. When the foundation is tottering, intelligent builders do not proceed. Concentrating on this world is like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. So wise people do not live for a world that is passing away. But he who does the will of God abides forever. It is the will of God that delivers us from the temptation of passing things. This, incidentally, was the life verse of D. L. Moody, the great evangelist, and is inscribed on his tombstone: “He who does the will of God abides forever.”1

1 William MacDonald, Believer’s Bible Commentary: Old and New Testaments, ed. Arthur Farstad (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1995), 2313–2314.

15. Love not the world—that lieth in the wicked one (ch. 5:19), whom ye young men have overcome. Having once for all, through faith, overcome the world (ch. 4:4; 5:4), keep your conquest by not loving “the world” in its state as fallen from God. “God loved (with compassion) the world.” We should feel the same love for the fallen world; but we are not to love the world with congeniality and sympathy in its alienation from God. We cannot have this love for the God-estranged world, and yet have also “the love of the Father” in us. neither [mēde]—‘nor yet.’ A man might deny in general that he loved the world, whilst keenly following the things in it—its riches, honours, or pleasures; this clause prevents him escaping conviction. any man. Therefore the warning, though primarily addressed to the young, applies to all. love of—i.e., towards “the Father.” The two, God and the (sinful) world, are so opposed, that both cannot be congenially loved at once. 16. all that is in the world—can be classed under one or other of the three, lust of the flesh—i. e., which has its seat in our lower animal nature. Satan tried this temptation first on Christ (Luke 4:3). Youth is especially liable to fleshly lusts, lust of the eyes—the avenue through which outward things of the world, riches, pomp, and beauty, inflame us. Satan tried this temptation on Christ when he showed Him the kingdoms of the world in a moment. By lust of the eyes David (2 Sam. 11:2) and Achan fell (Josh. 7:21). Cf. Ps. 119:37; Job’s resolve, 31:1; Matt. 5:28. The only good of riches to the possessor is beholding them with the eyes. Cf. Luke 14:18, “I must go and see it.” pride of life [alazoneia]—arrogant assumption: vainglorious display. Pride was that whereby Satan fell, and forms the link between the two foes, the world (answering to the lust of the eyes) and the devil (the lust of the flesh is the third foe). Satan tried this temptation against Christ on the temple-pinnacle, that, in spiritual presumption, on the ground of His Fathers care, He should cast Himself down. The same three foes appear in the three classes of soil on which the Divine seed falls: The wayside hearers, the devil; the thorns, the world; the rocky under-soil, the flesh. The world’s anti-trinity, the “lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life,” similarly is presented in Satan’s temptation of Eve: ‘When she saw that the tree was good for food, pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise’ (one manifestation of “the pride of life,” desire to know above what God has revealed, Col. 2:8; pride of unsanctified knowledge). of—does not spring from “the Father” (as the “little children,” v. 13). He who is born of God alone turns to God; he who is of the world turns to the world; the sources of love to God and love to the world are irreconcilably distinct. 17. the world—with all who are of the world worldly. passeth away [paragetai]—‘is passing away’ even now. the lust thereof—in its threefold manifestation (v. 16). he that doeth the will of God—not his own fleshly will, or that of the world, but that of God (vv. 3–6), especially as to love. abideth for ever—‘even as God abideth for ever’ (with whom the godly is one, cf. Ps. 55:19): a true comment, which Cyprian and Lucifer added to the text without support of Greek MSS. In contrast to the three passing lusts of the world, the doer of God’s will has three abiding goods, “riches, honour, and life” (Prov. 22:4).11 David Brown, A. R. Fausset, and Robert Jamieson, A Commentary, Critical, Experimental, and Practical, on the Old and New Testaments: Acts–Revelation, vol. VI (London; Glasgow: William Collins, Sons, & Company, Limited, n.d.), 633–634.

6. What’s wrong with the world?

1 John 2:15–17

If we are going to walk in the light with the God who is perfect holiness, we cannot sit loosely to sin in our own lives. We have already begun to realize that being a Christian calls for a thorough-going dedication to the will of God. We must actively enter into all that Jesus has made available to us through his death. We shall show the reality of our faith by obedience to God’s will in every part of our lives. This in turn will strengthen and develop the reality of fellowship with him. Now John makes this same point in a different context, as he shows us that if we are going to love God, we cannot also love the world. The two are mutually exclusive as objects of our love.

We must begin by asking what John means by the world. After all the same Greek word (kosmos) is used by John in his gospel, where he tells us that ‘God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life’ (Jn. 3:16). Are we not to be like God in demonstrating that sort of compassion? Yet later in this letter we shall find John telling us that ‘the whole world is under the control of the evil one’ (5:19). It is no wonder that Christians have had very differing attitudes towards the world. Sometimes in the history of the church the emphasis has been upon withdrawal from contact with the world, while at other times the church has been so enmeshed in the world that it has been difficult to see how Christians differed in their lifestyle from the secular society around them.

The fact is that the word kosmos has different shades of meaning in Scripture. Sometimes it stands for the natural world which God has created—planet Earth. This is much the same meaning as in Psalm 24:1, ‘The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it, the world, and all who live in it,’ although the word kosmos is not actually used here in the Septuagint. The natural world, created and sustained by God, expresses his character in its beauty and splendour. In this creation, mankind has a special responsibility to fulfil the divine mandate to ‘rule over all the earth, and over all the creatures’ (Gn. 1:26). So the ‘world’ comes to mean the whole human race, who are both the apex of the created order and, at the same time, God’s vice-regents. This is the world that God loves enough to send his Son to rescue (Jn. 3:16).

But there is another meaning of the world in the New Testament. Sometimes the world is seen as an organized system of human civilization and activity which is opposed to God and alienated from him. It represents everything that prevents man from loving, and therefore obeying, his creator. This meaning of kosmos has much the same content as John’s term ‘darkness’ in chapter 1. The contrast between light and darkness could hardly be more stark. For John this is developed in a series of contrasts, such as truth and falsehood, love and hate, love of the Father and love of the world. That is why verse 15 is such a direct command: Do not love the world. James reminds us that ‘friendship with the world is hatred towards God’ (Jas. 4:4). Our contemporary danger is that we tend to water down this radical demand. We think that we can love the world a little bit. After all, ‘What’s wrong with it?’ The world glitters and sparkles and draws us towards it; and many Christians, as well as those who are seeking Christ, have discovered that the alternative can look so unattractive, stodgy, and old-fashioned. Too often the community of Christians can repel those who are genuinely open to Christ because it does not adequately reflect his vitality and love. No wonder people ask, ‘If I do become a committed Christian, isn’t that going to be very restrictive and inhibiting?’ The church can look like a black and white photograph from a bygone age in comparison with the world’s multicolour video presentation. And that problem is not new in the twentieth century. John wants us to look to Christ and see that he is the one whom we are to be like, for only in him can we find our real freedom. It will help us to understand this if we can grasp what is involved in ‘loving the world’.

1. The world—a deceptive attraction

In verse 16 John defines more clearly for us what he means by the things that are in the world. It is obvious that he is not thinking about ‘things’ in themselves, such as money or possessions, which are morally neutral. Rather he is talking about our personal attitudes towards these things. The ‘worldly’ characteristics of which the verse speaks are in fact reactions going on inside us, as we contemplate the environment outside. That is very true to Scripture’s teaching concerning the fundamental roots of mankind’s problems. You could put a human being in the most perfect, favourable and natural environment and he will spoil and defile it. The reason is not because of deficiencies in the environment but because of what is going on inside him. As the Lord Jesus put it, ‘What comes out of a man is what makes him “unclean.” For from within, out of men’s hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and make a man unclean’ (Mk. 7:20–23) Small wonder that Mark Twain said that man is the only animal with the capacity to blush, and the only one that needs to! It is important that we grasp this perspective, since Christians have often been content to define ‘worldliness’ as consisting primarily in the things that people do or the places they visit. But John is concerned to show us that the world affects us much more deeply than that. The motives and attitudes of our minds and wills are what ultimately dictate our actions. Our affections are set either on this world or on God. It is impossible to love them both.

A striking biblical illustration of this is the account in Genesis 3 of the stages by which Adam and Eve fell from their original innocence into sin. Into a perfect environment the tempter came with his insinuating questions, which were really an attack upon the character of God. ‘Did God really say, “You must not eat from any tree in the garden?” ’ (verse 1). Did God really mean it? ‘You will not surely die’ (verse 4). Do you really have to believe it? ‘For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened’ (verse 5). Each of these questions contains a suggestion that God is not to be trusted. His word cannot be depended on. He may change his mind. He’s a spoilsport, whose only interest is to frustrate and inhibit you. So the original temptation was to break out of the straitjacket, to start ‘living’.

And that is how the world still attracts us. It is a deceptive attraction, because if we insist on living independently of the God who made us, we shall find ourselves unable to fulfil the chief role for which we were created—that of knowing God personally. You may imagine that your goldfish swimming around in its bowl is tired of the straitjacket of its environment. You may even feel you should liberate it to the wider world of the living-room carpet! But that sort of freedom is freedom only to die. In the same way, man alienated from God is dead to those spiritual realities without which he cannot be completely human. But the devil will not let us believe that. Instead he uses the natural appetites, which God has created, in order to ensnare mankind. ‘When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it’ (verse 6).

There were three stages by which Eve was brought to succumb. The fruit satisfied her appetite for good food. She liked the look of it. She wanted it to make her a more fulfilled person, to boost her ego. It was as she and Adam disobeyed God that the human race fell into sin. So, in exactly the same way, John highlights three elements in the temptation of the world which the devil still uses to lure us away from the liberty of loving God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength. This is how the deceptive attraction still works on us.

First, John mentions the cravings of sinful man—all that panders to our appetites. Of course the physical appetites themselves are not evil; indeed, they are God-given and essential for the continuance of human life. God has not given us these things to taunt and trap us. The problem is that our fallen sinful nature so often demands a level of satisfaction which involves breaking God’s laws or running to an uncontrolled excess. John is concerned that we should realize that we cannot love the Father and live that way. The body is not evil, any more than the natural world is. That mistake was made by some early Christians, and many others have followed them in it. But what the old versions call ‘the flesh’, the corrupt nature of man, can act as a tyrant over the body and degrade it. The person controlled by his cravings for self-indulgence is not free; he is, in fact, the devil’s prisoner.

Think, for example, of the alcoholic or the drug addict. That craving that is now out of control started somewhere. It had its beginnings in an extra drink, or an experiment with one or two pills. The person now imprisoned never intended to be wrecked by it, but the craving took him over, until he was no longer in control. In this way, a human life is gradually destroyed. Similarly, those who reject God’s instructions regarding his good gift of sex within lifelong marriage imagine that they have set themselves free. They never intend to arrive at a place where meaningful relationships become impossible, where the mechanics of sex take over from any real depth of personal commitment, where love seems to be an empty, mocking illusion. It was all intended to be so natural, liberating and beautiful; but the appetite becomes a tiger, and once God’s laws are flouted, it begins to maul us till we are destroyed.

What we need to realize is that the world (and behind it the devil) cannot produce what it offers. Its attractions are fundamentally deceptive. That is why we all need to be warned of the heartbreak and misery that lie on the other side of every act of rebellion against God. It is like drinking salt water. Far from bringing satisfaction, the unquenchable thirst is in fact increased, and that is no way for a child of God to live. So the Christian has to learn to say ‘No’ to the world’s temptations.

Secondly, John mentions the lust of (the) eyes. Here John directs our attention to the chief bridge between the ‘flesh’ and the outside world. He lived, as we do, in a society where debauchery and violence were often regarded as entertainment. The world is characterized by the desire to see things for the sake of sinful pleasure. In our society with its increased technological capabilities this now reaches alarming proportions, as pornography begins to invade the homes and lives of many children through the widespread use of video. Clearly this is no way for a Christian to live. You cannot love God and the world. But that is only one example. Surely John is also referring to the covetous eyes that say, ‘I see it, I want it, I’ll have it.’ Here is the sin on which the advertising media prey and grow fat. And as Christians living in a wealthy consumer society we need constantly to be judging our own reaction to the covetousness which is characteristic of the world and which so often infects our own attitudes.

Thirdly, John speaks of man’s boasting of what he has and does. This phrase has at its heart the idea of the illusory glamour of the world, with its concentration on material possessions that decay and empty human glory. Again, we need to be radical in our self-criticism. It is true that God gives us all things richly to enjoy; but they are his gifts, and we are to use them as stewards responsible to him for the way we use our master’s resources. We dare not boast about them. Yet we Christians are often curiously blind to this form of worldliness. Concern about possessions, status, our image, or perhaps that equally deadly form of pride that apes humility—all these are forms of the pretentiousness of human life apart from God. In such a situation, people are eager to impress, always wanting to be ‘one-up’. They never let pass a chance in a conversation to make a point that exalts themselves and puts the hearers a little bit lower down the ladder. But that is no way for a Christian to live. It is characteristic of the world, and the world cannot satisfy. Its attractions deceive. This is why we have to be careful of where our daily behaviour is leading us. Too often, when facing temptation, we ask, ‘What’s wrong with it?’ As Christians we really ought to be asking, ‘Is there anything right in it?’ (see also 1 Cor. 6:12; 10:23).

This leads us to John’s other great constraint which he voices in verse 17a. Not only do the world’s attractions fail to satisfy, but they cannot last. All of these desires feed on their own fulfilment, but ultimately none of them will remain. So why should those who are heirs of the eternal world concentrate their interests and ambitions on something that is so fleeting and unreliable? We need to realize the brittleness of this world. Even before death, people who have lived this way are often convinced of the emptiness and uselessness of their lives, and sometimes profoundly frightened. A millionaire who may have lived for money can take nothing of it beyond the grave. The social climber will never be high enough up the ladder. The good-time girl ends up as a spent alcoholic. The workaholic is made redundant, or forced to retire early. Why live for these things, when they cannot last? We should remember the ‘ultimate statistic’: one out of one dies.

So John challenges us to make Christian decisions about the way we are living today. If we love the world, we cannot love the Father. If we ally ourselves with this world, we live for what cannot last, and condemn ourselves to be identified with its decay and ultimate judgment. Such choices are part of our human responsibility. John challenges us to ask whose friend we really are: the world’s, or God’s?

2. A distinct alternative

But the man who does the will of God lives for ever (verse 17b). Clearly, for John, doing the will of God is loving the Father. The antithesis is made very plain. The world attracts and ensnares so many people. They love it and follow its ways, fundamentally because they love themselves and want to indulge themselves. But over against that stands the God who is a loving, heavenly Father, and with him those who show their love for him by their obedience to his will. The world and those who live for it will pass away. The Father and his obedient children will live for ever. All that Satan can offer is desires which will never be satisfied. God has a perfect will that will never be thwarted. The followers of the world share the condemnation and death of its system. The children of God share his eternal life. The challenge that we each face is whether the guiding principle of our life is doing and getting what we want, or obeying God’s will and following his purposes. That is the difference between heaven and hell.

But we need also to remember that none of us will get to heaven by trying to do God’s will, as though by our own unaided efforts we were able to love God sufficiently to be worthy of being received into his presence. John’s Gospel again puts us right on this, when Jesus himself declares, ‘The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent’ (Jn. 6:29). His desire is that no-one should be destroyed, but that all should repent and believe the good news of salvation in Christ. God sent his Son into our world to demonstrate his love for us by overcoming that world through his perfect life of obedience to the Father’s will, and by taking our sin and guilt upon himself as he offered up that life to be the atoning sacrifice for our sins. We need not drift on the world’s tide towards God’s judgment. To do so is to love this world too much. Rightly to understand God’s love for this world involves surrendering every part of our own lives to Jesus Christ as Lord. Only such a thorough-going commitment can adequately express the love we owe him for all that he has done for us.1

1 David Jackman, The Message of John’s Letters: Living in the Love of God, The Bible Speaks Today (Leicester, England; Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 59–66.

■ 15–17* A parenetical section follows, which has perhaps been inserted by the redactor.16 As the sequel to vss. 12–14*, it shows in direct exhortation how what the readers have and are, described in vss. 12–14*, is to be put to the test. If the theme of vss. 12–14* may be designated as the superiority of the believers over the world, then vss. 15–17* tell how this superiority is to be verified. The parenesis is a warning against the κόσμος (“world”), and it could have been occasioned by the fact that the the one who wrote it understood the πονηρός (“evil one”) of vss. 13f* as the seductive power of the “world.”17

What is the meaning of the term “world” that lies behind the exhortation μὴ ἀγαπᾶτε τὸν κόσμον μηδὲ τὰ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ (“Do not love the world or the things in the world”)? That it is not the world as a creation of God, and that it is also not the world of men, is self-evident. It is the κόσμος οὗτος (“this world”) of 4:17*; Jn 12:31*; 16:11*; 18:36*; 1 Cor 3:19*; 5:10*; 7:31*; Eph 2:2*, in the sense of the sphere which is distinguished and separated from God, but not in the sense of an active opposition to God and the believers, as in 3:13*; Jn 7:7*; 15:18f*, 24*; 17:14*, but rather in the sense of its nothingness, as v 17* shows.18

Τὰ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ (“the things in the world”) are all transitory things that awaken ἐπιθυμία (“lust”) and ἀλαζονεία (“pride,” v 16*), and thus mislead man and bind him to transitoriness. They are seductive; thus the exhortation μὴ ἀγαπᾶτε (“do not love”). The antithesis to ἀγαπᾶν τὸν κόσμον (“love the world”) is expressed as: ἐάν τις ἀγαπᾷ τὸν κόσμον οὐκ ἔστιν ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ πατρὸς ἐν αὐτῷ (“If any one loves the world, the love of the father is not in him”). Since “love of the father” stands in contrast to “love of the world,” the genitive “of the father” (τοῦ πατρός) is readily taken as an objective genitive. The fact that, according to 4:20*, love cannot be immediately directed to God need not be taken as contrary evidence. For, just as 5:2f* speaks of a love indirectly oriented toward God, consisting of keeping the commandments, so, too, could “love of the father” be understood here as love indirectly oriented toward God, consisting of keeping clear of the “world.” Nevertheless, the thought of keeping clear of the “world” is a sign that the one addicted to the “world” has closed himself to the love of God directed toward him. For to love God and to be loved by him are a unity: the former is grounded in the latter. In that case, “of the father” would be a subjective genitive (“the father’s love”), as is “of God” in v 5*: “in this one God’s love is perfected.”21

■ 16* Verse 16*, which provides the basis for v 15*, indicates what is brought to mind by the phrase “the things in the world.”22 Above all, it is the ἐπιθυμία τῆς σαρκός (“the lust of the flesh”), the lust peculiar to the flesh. “Flesh” is apparently not understood here in the sense otherwise usual in 1 John and John, viz., as the merely negative aspect of the worldly-human (as in 4:2*; 2Jn 7*, or even Jn 1:13f*; 3:6*), but rather with positive force as a power hostile to God—as often in Paul, for whom “flesh” signifies not only the earthly-human, but also functions as the origin of sin. Whether and how ἐπιθυμία τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν (“lust of the eyes”) differs from ἐπιθυμία τῆς σαρκός (“lust of the flesh”) can scarcely be determined. It can refer especially to sexual lust, but can also mean everything that entices the eyes. Ἀλαζονεία τοῦ βίου (“pride of life”) is ostentation, boasting, to which worldly goods entice.25

The antagonism of man, who makes himself dependent upon the world rather than upon God, is thereby described. This dependence is finally expressed by the characterization that all of this is οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τοῦ πατρός, ἀλλὰ ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου ἐστίν (“is not of the father, but is of the world”). This εἶναι ἐκ (“to be of”) designates not only the origin, but also what is determined by it, and therefore the being of him to whom it is applicable.

■ 17* What “is of the world” (εἶναι ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου) falls under the judgment of nothingness, v 17*: καὶ ὁ κόσμος παράγεται καὶ ἡ ἐπιθυμία αὐτοῦ (“And the world is passing away and the lust of it”). Παράγεται (“passing away”) does not have the same sense as in v 8*. It does not mean that the “world” is (now) passing away (as in 1 Cor 7:31*), but that, as “world,” it is transitory.28 In contrast to this, “he who does the will of God abides forever” (ὁ δὲ ποιῶν τὸ θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ μένει εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα). It is strange that the traditional formulation, “he who does the will of God,” appears here instead of “he who loves God,” which is to be expected after v 15*. Here μένειν (“abide”) does not mean “to remain true” (as in vss. 6*, 10*, 14*), but abiding in the sense of enduring, of imperishability, as in 3:15*.301

1 Rudolf Karl Bultmann, The Johannine Epistles a Commentary on the Johannine Epistles, Hermeneia—a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1973), 32–34.

■ 15–16* Any division of these verses from those preceding would be artificial. They continue the parenesis, now in the form of direct admonition. The address to the community as a whole and the orientation to fundamental principles remain the same. The victory over the evil one (v. 14c*) is the same thing as victory over the world (4:4–5*). Both the devil18 and the world are powers inimical to God that are overcome in faith (5:4–5*). Under these circumstances, the injunction not to love the world or the things in it (μὴ ἀγαπᾶτε τὸν κόσμον μηδὲ τὰ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ) expresses a necessary consequence that must be accepted by believers. If “love of God” (ἀγάπη τοῦ θεοῦ) is God’s care for human beings and the love of human beings for God, and if it implies the coming into existence of a community with ontological characteristics, then love of the world (ἀγαπᾶν τὸν κόσμον) describes the orientation of human beings toward the world and at the same time a natural relationship between the world and the human. Because the world is defined by the evil one, the worldly way of being excludes community with the Father (v. 15b*). This is especially apparent in human beings’ unethical behavior. Anyone who lives “in the world” (ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ) and is, at the same time, “of the world” (ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου), is ruled by that which belongs to the world: ἐπιθυμία, the state of being dominated by physical urges, no matter whether these are produced by σάρξ, the human body with its desires, or through the eyes, when ἐπιθυμία is initiated by visual stimuli. Also in the realm of “the world” is ἀλαζονεία τοῦ βίου, “the pride in riches.” In addition, such behavior is subject to condemnation because in this situation human beings are not open to God. Rather, they interpret themselves in terms of the world: they make the world absolute and acknowledge it as the final arbiter, beyond which nothing else has any validity.

■ 17* In this verse, the contrast is given a content by way of explanation, while at the same time a rationale is offered for what has preceded.25 Domination by physical urges is, like the world itself, transitory. In saying this, the author is not interested in proposing a philosophical thesis, motivated by the notion of creation or something on that order. Instead, this is a conclusion drawn from empirical experience that worldly existence is ephemeral. It follows, then, from the alternative “from the world” (ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου) or “from the Father” (ἐκ τοῦ πατρός), that whoever belongs to God also has a share in God’s existence and eternal life. This is illustrated in the doing of the “will of God” (θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ), which means the works of love (v. 10*). Love for the brothers and sisters effects a sharing in eternal life. No matter how much the concepts are used in formulaic fashion in this context, one should not dispute that the author is concerned primarily with historical, rather than ontological, fact. The transitoriness of the world is to be understood in light of the end of the world, when the “abiding” of faith will also be revealed. The apocalyptic horizon, which 1 John does not reject (cf. 2:8*, 28* and frequently elsewhere), also motivates the maintaining of a critical distance from the world. Nevertheless, the focus of the argument rests on the immediately necessary separation between God and the world, and hence on the eschatological decisions that must be made in the community today, so that it may follow the way of love. It is no accident that this statement stands at the end of a parenetical section. While the warning in v. 17* is indirect, it is still heavily emphasized.1

1 Georg Strecker and Harold W. Attridge, The Johannine Letters: A Commentary on 1, 2, and 3 John, Hermeneia—a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1996), 58–60.

15. ὁ κόσμος is not merely “an ethical conception” in the Johannine system, “mankind fallen away from God.” Such an interpretation leaves no intelligible sense to the phrase τὰ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ. It is the whole system, considered in itself, apart from its Maker, though in many cases the context shows that its meaning is narrowed down to “humanity.” In the view of the writer, no doubt man is its most important part, the centre of the whole. But here it is used in its wider sense. The various interpretations which have been given of the phrase can be found in Huther and elsewhere. The majority of them are in reality paraphrases of particular instances of its use. As contrasted with ὁ κόσμος, τὰ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ are the individual objects which excite admiration or love. In the next verse they are spoken of collectively. Comp. Ja. 1:27, 4:4.

ουκ εστιν] post πατρος P Aug.: post αυτω 31.

του πατρος א‎ B K L P al. pler. cat. vg. sah. cop. syrutr arm. Or. Dam. Thphyl. Oec. Aug.] του θεου A C 3. 13. 43. 65. 58lect dscr harl. aethutr: του θεου και πατρος 15. 18. 26. 36 boh-cod. (uid.).

16. The attempt to find in the terms of this verse a complete catalogue of sins, or even of “worldly” sins, is unsatisfactory. The three illustrations of “all that is in the world” are not meant to be exhaustive. The parallelism to the mediaeval uoluptas, auaritia, superbia is by no means exact. We may compare the sentence quoted by Wettstein from Stobaeus, φιληδονία μὲν ἐν ταῖς ἀπολαύσεσι ταῖς διὰ σώματος, πλεονεξία δὲ ἐν τῷ κερδαίνειν, φιλοδοξία δὲ ἐν τῷ καθυπερέχειν τῶν ἴσων τε καὶ ὁμοίων: but it is an illustration of the natural tendency to threefold division rather than an exact parallel. Still less successful is the attempt to find instances of the three classes in the Temptation of our Lord. The “desire of the simplest support of natural life” is hardly an ἐπιθυμία τῆς σαρκός. The first temptation turned on the wish, or the suggestion, to use supernatural powers to gratify a natural want. The “offer of the kingdoms of the civilized world” is not very closely connected with the “lust of the eyes.” Nor again is the “call to claim an open manifestation of God’s protecting power” an obvious instance of the use of gifts for personal ostentation. All such endeavours to find an ideal completeness in the ad hoc statements of a letter, written to particular people to meet their special needs, are misleading.

The opposition in this verse is not strictly accurate. “The things that are in the world” suggest objects, whether material or not, which call out desires or boasting rather than the feelings of desire or pride themselves. But it is quite in keeping with the author’s style.

τῆς σαρκός] σάρξ denotes human nature as corrupted by sin. Cf. Gal. 5:17 (ἡ γὰρ σὰρξ ἐπιθυμεῖ κατὰ τοῦ πνεύματος, τὸ δὲ πνεῦμα κατὰ τῆς σαρκός). The genitive is subjective, the desire which the flesh feels, in that which appeals to the man as gratifying the flesh. There is no need to narrow down the meaning any further to special forms of desire. There is really nothing in the Epistle to suggest that the grosser forms of immorality were either practised or condoned by the false teachers.

ἡ ἐπιθυμία τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν] The desire for all that appeals to the man as gratifying his sense of vision, a special form of the more general desire already described. Comp. πνεῦμα ὁράσεως, μεθʼ ἧς γίνεται ἐπιθυμία (Testament of Reuben ii. 4).

ἀλαζονεία] Cf. Ja. 4:16, νῦν δὲ καυχᾶσθε ἐν ταῖς ἀλαζονίαις ὑμῶν· πᾶσα καύχησις τοιαύτη πονηρά ἐστιν, and Dr. Mayor’s note, who quotes Arist. Eth. Nic. iv. 7. 2, δοκεῖ ὁ ἀλάζων προσποιητικὸς τῶν ἐνδόξων εἶναι καὶ μὴ ὑπαρχόντων καὶ μειζόνων ἢ ὑπάρχει. Comp. Testament of Dan i. 6; Joseph xvii. 3.

The substantive is found in Ro. 1:30; 2 Ti. 3:2. Love of display by means of external possessions would seem to be what is chiefly intended here. Βίος is always life in its external aspect, or the means of supporting life. Cf. 3:17, ὃς ἂν ἔχῃ τὸν βίον τοῦ κόσμου: Lk. 8:14, 15:12.

ἐκ τοῦ πατρός] All such desires and feelings are not part of that endowment of humanity which has come from the Father. They are a perversion of man’s true nature as God made him. They have their origin in the finite order in so far as it has become estranged from God.

τω] om. Ia 200f. δ457 (83) Ib 365–398*.

η 1°] εστιν Ic 114 (335).

και 2°] om. Ia 382 (231) Απρ1.

η 3°] om. Ia 264 (233).

ουκ εστιν] post πατρος Ia δ180 (1319).

17. All such objects of desire must in the end prove unsatisfactory, because of their transitory character. Permanent value attaches only to such things as correspond to God’s plan for the world and for men. He that fulfils God’s destiny for himself “abideth for ever.” “In the mind of God, values are facts, and indestructible facts. Whatever has value in God’s sight is safe for evermore; time and change cannot touch it.”

“All that is, at all,

Lasts ever, past recall;

Earth changes, but thy soul and God stand sure:

What entered into thee

That was, is, and shall be.”

αυτου] om. A 5. 13. 27. 29. 66** armzoh Or.

του θεου] αυτου Ia 367 (308) O36.

εις τον αιωνα] + quomodo Deus manet in aeternum tol. Cyp. Lcif. Aug.: + sicut et ipse manet in aeternum Cyp. Aug.: + quemadmodum ille qui est in aeternum sah. These glosses, which are not uncommon, especially in Latin authorities, have a special interest in view of the textual phenonema of ch. 51

1 Alan England Brooke, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Johannine Epistles, International Critical Commentary (New York: C. Scribner’s Sons, 1912), 47–49.

Ver. 16. Because all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. The connection of this verse with the one preceding by ὅτι=because, compels us to emphasize πᾶν; for, because there is nothing in the world, the κόσμος, which is of the Father, the love of the world is utterly incompatible with the love of the Father.—Πᾶν τὸ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ is evidently not identical with τὰ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ (v. 15); the Singular denotes the transition from the particular to the unit: what is in the world is conceived as a whole, a totality comprehending the particular; hence the reference is not to objects only, as all those maintain who make it identical with τά ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ (although Ebrard’s exposition correctly adverts to particular forms of demeanour, and Düsterdieck speaks of a “transformation of the conception of the objects of the love of the world into the conception of subjective love itself and its essential modes of representation”); still less to persons (“omnes mundi dilectores non habent nisi concupiscentiam” Bede); but as Huther excellently puts it: “All that which constitutes the substance, i.e. the essence of the κόσμος, its inward life, which animates it.” The apposition indicates the nature of πᾶν τὸ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ, and shows how we are to take, and what is the true import of these words. The apposition has obviously respect to life-manifestations in the world of man; the whole, the sum and substance, the totality of those life-manifestations in the God-forsaken world of man, is not of God, but without, and opposed to God. In dealing with the difficulty connected with the exposition of the apposition: ἡ ἐπιθυμία τῆς σαρκὸς καὶ ἡ ἐπιθυμία τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν καὶ ἡ ἀλαζονεία τοῦ βίου, we have to remember that all the three clauses must be taken as coördinated, and that the Genitive must be construed alike in all three cases. The three ideas are placed in juxtaposition by καί. Hence Düsterdieck errs in making ἡ ἐπιθυμία τῆς σαρκὸς the principal idea governing ἐπιθυμία τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν and ἀλοζονεία τοῦ βίου. This is confirmed by the explanation of the separate ideas. In ἐπιθυμία τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν we have evidently the Genitive of the subject; it cannot mean: lust after the eyes. We have therefore three times the Genitive of the subject. In ἐπιθυμια τῆς σαρκός the Genitive of the subject is analogous to the idea: ἡ σὰρξ ἐπιθυμεῖ (Gal. 5:17), and to the grammatical usage of the N. T., where, with the exception of 2 Pet. 2:10, the Genitive connected with ἐπιθυμία always denotes the subject; but σάρξ denotes here what it signifies elsewhere, e.g. in Eph. 2. 3 (ἐπιθυμίαι τῆς σαρκὸς.) 1 Pet. 2:11 (αἱ σαρκικαὶ ἐπιθυμίαι), the desire, the lust of the flesh, as suggested by the antithesis of πνεύματι ἄγεσθαι, ἐν πνεύματι περιπατεῖν. Limitations like those of Augustine (“desiderium earum rerum quæ pertinent ad carnem, sicut cibus et concubitus et cætera hujusmodi”), Grotius, Baumgarten-Crusius, Sander and Besser, who agree with him, or those of Brückner, who suggests “carnal lust in the strict sense,” Bengel (“ea quibus pascuntur sensus qui appellantur fruitivi: gustus et tactus,) Gerlach (“every kind of the lust of enjoyment”) and Ebrard (“sexual enjoyments”)—are not in agreement with the context and more or less arbitrary. Only the limitation required by the coördinated ἐπιθυμία τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν is justifiable; but even this is an ἐπιθυμία, and as such equal to the former, yet not τῆς σαρκὸς, but τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν. This ἐπιθυμία must not be subordinated to the former (as is done by Lücke, de Wette and Düsterdieck), but it is coördinated with it. Nor must the Genitive be taken at once subjectively and objectively: “the lust of the eyes, and at the same time that, wherein as the sensuous-worldly, the eyes delight themselves” (Brückner). The lust of the eyes has respect to seeing, consequently the lust to see, and to see that which is the object of such lust. Hence Spener explains correctly: “all sinful lust which seeks for enjoyment in the very seeing,” and so does Huther: “the desire of seeing that which is unseemly, and the sinful gratification afforded by seeing it.” Hence it must not be restricted to “omnis curiositas in spectaculis, in theatris” (Augustine, Neander); nor is it sufficient to say with Calvin: “tam libidinosos aspectus comprehendit, quam vanitatem, quæ in pompis et inani splendors vagatur.” Nor may it be referred with Bengel to “ea, quibus tenentur sensus investigativi, oculus sive visus, auditus et olfactus.” Nor must extraneous ideas be added thereto, so as to make it denote a desire of possession excited by sight (Rickli), or straightforth πλεονεξία (Luther, Socinus, Grotius, Lorinus, Wolf, Baumgarten-Crusius, Gerlach, al.), or even “the whole sphere of the desires of selfishness, envy, covetousness, hatred and revenge” (Ebrard). Thus the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes are arbitrarily distinguished from each other or rather confounded, since the former is taken as sensuality and the latter as covetousness, or vice versa. The eyes, instruments of the senses, are preëminently the ministering members of the life of the soul and the spirit: here is flesh, become transparent, whereby surrounding objects and manifestations produce impressions on the life of the soul, and the soul requires insight of them. As the Scripture draws a distinction between grass and the flower of grass, and understands thereby the flesh and the glory of the flesh (1 Pet. 1:24: σὰρξ ὡς χόρτος and πᾶσα δόξα αὐτῆς ὡς ἄνθος χόρτου), and thus points beyond the nearest sphere of carnal life to the life-sphere of the soul, so we may distinguish the ἐπιθυμία τῆς σαρκός from the ἐπιθυμία τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν in such manner that the former denotes absolute, purely sensuous lust, and the latter lust which through the instrumentality of the soul, points to the spiritual sphere of life. It is noteworthy that as Peter subjoins the words (v. 25) “τὸ δὲ ῥῆμα τοῦ θεοῦ μένει εῖς τὸν αἰῶνα,” so John has almost the identical addition: “ὁ δἐ ποιῶν τὸ θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ μένει εἰς αἰῶνα.” Hence the former includes all the desires of possession and enjoyment, of covetousness and sensuality, of vulgar or refined form, while the latter embraces the desire which longs for, seeks and finds gratification in social intercourse and the manifestations of social joys, in works of art down to the rude outbreaks of festal joy.—To this is now added as a third καὶ ἡ ἀλαζονεία τοῦ βίου. While ἐπιθυμία refers twice to acquisition, ἀλαζονεία has respect to spending. The noun occurs, besides this place, in the N. T. only at Jas. 4:16: ἐν ταῖς ἀλαζονείαις ὑμῶν, the adjective in Rom. 1:30, after, and in 2 Tim. 3:2, before ὑπερήφανος. In classical Greek it signifies arrogance and vaunting, with the secondary idea of untruthfulness and boasting about one’s rank or wealth. In James it evidently denotes the outbreaks of that arrogance which overlooks the vanity and nothingness of earthly happiness, and boastingly confides in it. The ἀλαζών is the vain braggart at whom and with whom one may perhaps smile; the ὑπερήφανος is the haughty man, who is irritable and injurious; the one recognizable in the national character of the French, the other in that of the English. The Genitive τοῦ βίου, of the life, with reference to sustenance and necessaries, as is evident from ch. 3:17; Mark 12:44; Luke 8:14, 43; 15:12, 30; 21:4; 2 Tim. 2:4, designating occasionally personal property (living), indicates the side on which this braggart arrogance does and is wont to appear, as well where there is little or great abundance as where it is merely coveted and want is concealed; braggart arrogance is wont to appear in connection with bodily sustenance and necessaries. Augustine: “Jactare se vult in honoribus, magnus sibi videtur, sive de divitiis, sive de aliqua potentia.” Bengel: “Ut velit quam plurimus esse in victu, cultu, apparatu, suppellectili, ædificiis, prædiis, famulitio, clientibus, jumentis, muneribus, etc., Rev. 18:12. Chrysostomus appellat τὸν τῦφον τὸν βιωτικὸν et τὴν φαντασίαν τοῦ βίου.” Examples occur in Gen. 11:2–4; 1 Chron. 22:1, sqq.; Eccles. 2:1, sqq.; Ezek. 28:12–19; Dan. 4:27; Rev. 17:4–6; 18, 4–7. So Lücke, Sander, Besser and Huther; Neander, Gerlach and Düsterdieck may be included in this category. Hence it is not correct to restrict the meaning to ambition, superbia, ambitio (Cyrillus, Socinus, al.).—We should hold with Bengel that: “Non coincidunt cum his tribus tria vitia cardinalia, voluptas, avaritia, superbia: sed tamen in his continentur.” The hypothesis that this trinity contains, a complete indication of all the forms in which evil is apt to manifest itself, has become traditional, and goes so far that Bede following Augustine said: “Per hæc tria tantum cupiditas humana tentatur; per hæc tria Adam tentatus est et victus; per hæc tentatus est Christus et vicit.” A Lapide actually discovered in them the correlatives of the three Persons of the Holy Trinity answering to the three primariæ virtutes, continentia, caritas, humilitas [which according to Huther are closely connected with the three monastic vows of chastity, poverty and obedience.—M.]. The majority of practical expositors have followed this track with various modifications, even Pascal (Pensées, 28, 55) says: “libido sentiendi, sciendi, dominandi.” Lücke very rightly opposed this interpretation and maintained that the point in question did not relate to cardinal vices, but to the chief forms (Brückner; “leading Masses”) of worldly-mindedness. These, as Bengel observes, sustain an intimate relation to one another: “Etiam ii, qui arrogantiam vitæ non amant, tamen concupiscentiam oculorum sectari possunt, et qui hanc superarunt, tamen concupiscentiam carnis persæpe retinent: hæc enimprofundissima et communissima, apud minores, medioximos et potentes: apud eos etiam, qui abnegationem sui colere videntur; et rursum, nisi vincatur, ab ea facile progreditur homo ad concupiscentiam oculorum, ubi materiam habet; et ab hac ad superbiam vitæ, ubi facultatem habet; tertioque includitur secundum, secundo primum.” Thus ambition is ἐπιθυμία τῆς σαρκός only in so far as it wants to cast others in the shade, it is ἐπιθυμία τῶν ὀφθαλ μῶν as far as it aims at recognition and marks of recognition, and it is ἀλαζονεία τοῦ βίου as far as it is indulged in the consciousness of position and wealth, and in every form there are degrees of intensiveness and coarseness. The same holds good of avarice, voluptuousness and the love of pleasure. We have here by no means a complete catalogue of the biasses and forms of manifestation of evil. Unlovingness specified above (vv. 2–11) and mendacity mentioned below (vv. 18–20) although connected with this [trichotomy M.], are not contained in or denoted by it. Hence Luther, followed by Sander, rightly observes: “These three particulars are not of the Father: 1. Hatred of the brethren. 2. The three idols of the world. 3. False and corrupt doctrine.—The terms ἐκ τοῦ πατρός, ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου εἶναι denote origin and indicate similarity, congruity and connection. This is the profound truth that nothing is esteemed with God except His own Image; whatever is to have respect to Him, to belong to Him, to be, and able to be united with Him, must come from Him; ch. 2:29; 3:7 sqq.; 4:2 sqq.; 7 sqq.; 5:1 sqq.; Jno. 8:44. So Düsterdieck, Huther, and Ebrard in opposition to de Wette [Paulus and Baumgarten-Crusius—M. ], who deny the reference to origin and restrict the application of the terms to congruity and similarity. The antithesis, intensified by the repetition of ἐστί “is not of the Father, but is of the world” marks with peculiar pointedness the world as the source of ungodliness. The world will not tolerate any thing that does not derive its being from it or belongs to it. We see therefore how God and the world are just here opposed to each other, irreconciled and irreconcilable; both are inflexible and neither can yield the place to the other. [Düsterdieck: “Through our whole Epistle runs the view which is also manifest in the Gospel of St. John, that only the mind which springs from God is directed to God. He who is born of God, loves God, knows God, does God’s will. God Himself, who first loved us, viz. in Christ His incarnate Son, begot in us that love which of moral necessity returns again to the Father, and of like necessity embraces our brethren also. This love is hated by the world, because it springs not from the world. It depends not on the world, any more than that perverted love which springs from the world and is directed towards the world, the lust of the flesh, etc., can be directed to the Father or to God’s children. So that John grasps in reality down to the very foundations of the moral life, when he reminds his readers of the essentially distinct origin of the love of the world, and the love of God. The inmost kernel of the matter is hereby laid bare, and with it a glimpse is given of the whole process of the love of the world and the love of God, even to the end; and this end is now set forth expressly with extraordinary power.”—M.]. But

The second reason: v. 17.

And the world passeth away and the lust thereof; but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.—The world can only be taken here in the same sense as in the preceding verses, viz.: the world of man fallen away from and opposing God, which is a power, and as a power awes many, but does and has great things. But what is true of the σκοτία, v. 8, applies also to it: παράγεται, it passeth away, it is passing away and disappearing; the sense must not be limited to the transitory world, to be destroyed in the judgment (Bede: “mundus transibit, quum in die judicii per ignem in meliorem mutabitur figuram, ut sit cœlum novum et terra nova”), nor must the term be so construed as to express the consciousness of the approaching advent of Christ and the judgment of the κόσμος connected with it (Luther, with reference to vv. 8;18: ἐσχάτη ὥρα). It is, in effect, the uninterruptedly peculiar nature and destiny of the world (Oecumenius: “τὰ κοσμικὰ ἐπιθυμήματα οὐκ ἔχει τὸ μένον τε καὶ ἑατὼς, τὰ δὲ κατὰ τὸ θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ διακρῆ καὶ διαιωνίζοντα (Düsterdieck: “because of its alienation from God, doomed to passing away, to death”). The antithesis μένει requires and confirms this view. Although Düsterdieck distinguishes his view, according to which he finds here more permanently valid axiomatic truths concerning the course of the love of God or the love of the world, from that of Oecumenius, who gives prominence to the properties of the love of the world and of the obedience to the commandments of God, the two views ought really to be combined thus: it fares with the world according to its nature, and the nature of the world agrees with its passing away. And as it passes away, so also passes away its lust, the lust which inheres in it, emanates from it, and governs it. Hence αὐτοῦ is the Genitive of the subject, as maintained by most commentators; it cannot mean lust after it or in it, as if αὐτοῦ were the Genitive of the object (Lücke, Neander, Sander, Besser, al.). Of course, the lust of the world refers also to the world and the things and manifestations in it, and not to God and the riches of His Kingdom. If the whole, the world, belonging to death, passes away, then also its parts, the life that is in it, its separate manifestations and exhibitions of life in individuals, must pass away. This makes one thoroughly loathe the love of the world—the ἀγαπᾷν τὸν κόσμον. Who wants to seize and hold as the object of his love that which is perishable, doomed to death and perpetual defeat? The clause ὁ δὲ ποιῶν τὸ θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ supplies not only an antithesis, but affirms that the ἐπιθυμία τοῦ κόσμου does not the will of God, that the ἀγάπη τοῦ πατρός shows and verifies itself in the ποιεῖν τὸ θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ, even as unfolded in vv. 3, sqq., that the child does not trifle with the will of the Father, for the Father is God. To such applies the μένει εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, the antithesis of παράγεται, he abides therefore unto, into eternity, sharing and assured of the imperishable and beatific life: redeemed from θάνατος, from the σκοτία, he gains φῶς, ζωὴ αἰώνιος. [Huther: “The destiny of the κόσμος is θάνατος, that of the children of God ζωὴ αἰώνιος.”—M.]. This antithesis points to the fact that the παράγεται of the world will sooner or later have run its course, and that the world will have ceased to exist. Most singular and arbitrary is the opinion of Ebrard, who says that “αἰὼν is the æon which will gloriously begin with the visible establishment of Christ’s Kingdom on earth,” and that consequently ὁ ποιῶν–εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα signifies that “he that does the will of God will abide until then, until the Kingdom of Christ is established, and be suffered to witness the victory of Christ’s Kingdom.” The addition, “quomodo et deus manet in æternum,” found in several Latin translations, but not in Jerome’s, is rather remarkable.

Doctrinal and Ethical

1. The gift of the forgiveness of sins (v. 12), which is, at the same time, the gift of adoption, [of being made the child of God—M.], v. 13c, establishes a relationship which must verify itself in corresponding conduct, in the way of sanctification. God has taken the initiative, but man must seize it and hold fast, keep and verify it in striving after more profound knowledge, and in struggling for the peace of victory. On the gift of the forgiveness of our sins, and on that of our adoption with the Father, rest the more intimate knowledge of Christ, the victorious fight against Satan, and the enjoyment of the fruits of victory. In the fellowship with the Father and the Son are given us life, light, forgiveness, truth, wisdom, and understanding, and victory over the world and the devil. The victory of Christ (John 16:33) is the presupposition of all true victories, and His victory must continue in ours. John grounds the duties of Church members on the high privileges and immunities of the Christian state, and makes gratitude the principle of morality.

2. The peace-work of profound meditation and mature knowledge in men can only take place and prove successful if preceded by the struggles and triumphs of young men [i.e., the man must have passed through the discipline of the young man.—M.]. Great purity and integrity are indispensable to the clear perception and more thorough knowledge of the glory of Christ, of His Person, His Word, and His work. True knowledge presupposes life in fellowship with the Person known; it is a living reality and not a mere dogmatical formula (concerning the Person of Christ). Nothing but fighting against Satan will facilitate our knowledge of the eternal glory of Christ.

3. The κόσμος is diametrically opposed to God, and the heart of man cannot combine the love of the world and the love of the Father; the latter cannot thrive because of the former, or the former must be overcome, and disappearing, yield the place to the latter in the course of its growth and development. Where the life of [emanating from—M.] God is extant there may still be the world, but its power must be broken, it must wane more and more, and its still surviving remainder must recede before increasing and waxing knowledge and joy. Worldly life and godly life are not only two different biasses, but two opposite inclinations, incompatible and destroying each other.

4. It is not in point of space that we must flee from the world, but it is with reference to ethical principles that we must shun it, without loving it, turned away from it, to prevent our dying and perishing in and with it; some one thing may so effectually lay hold of one or another as to sweep him along with the fearful destruction of the whole κόσμος.

5. The definite superiority of the divine to the worldly may be gathered from the transitoriness of the world. Here is “afforded a vista through the whole process of the world’s history, as well as of the love of God, right on to the end” (Düsterdieck), and at the same time an insight into the biography of individuals.

6. He that has separated himself from God, has estranged himself from Him, falls into the power of death; the world contains death in the love of itself. None but those who love the Father have the life; yet none love the Father but those who have and with true fidelity keep His word. But there exists no eternal kingdom of evil, the principially dualistic predisposition to evil, but only a condition which has become so, from which any and every man may and shall be redeemed, who does not offer any resistance.

Homiletical and Practical

The gift of the forgiveness of sins sets us the task of fighting against the destroyer, and acquiring the knowledge of the Saviour. The gift of the forgiveness of sins is sonship with God and the knowledge of the Father. Holy Scripture directs us first to the knowledge of sin, then to fight against and overcome the wicked one, and lastly to acquire the knowledge of the God-man. Holy Scripture addresses first children—that is to say, the children of God; the word of God is the word of the Father to His children; the word of God calls all, whom it addresses, children, because He is the Father of all. Young men and fathers cannot go beyond this child-ship [I retain this Germanism in this place in order to render the thought more perspicuous; neither the word sonship nor adoption conveys the precise shade of thought.—M.]. No age of life can or may desire to surpass the stage of childhood before God. The life-truth of the Gospel is only one, emanating from one Spirit, resting on one foundation, consisting in one Spirit, but like the sun, shedding its illuminating and vitalizing beams in all directions: away with all false individualizing and all dry moralizing! He that loves not the world in God as the object of redemption to its salvation, loves it only without God to his own perdition. The world, which thou lovest, reacts more on thee than thou art able to influence it; thou wilt sooner become worldly through it, than it will become Christian through thee. Shun not the world, but love it not; be not afraid of it, but be afraid of thy love of it.

Bodmer:—John the Apostle survived twelve Roman emperors: Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero, Galba, Otho, Vitellius, Vespasianus, Titus, Domitianus and Nerva; great expectations and hopes were entertained of each one of these lords of the world, but all failed in the case of the best of them: instead of healing, they inflicted wounds, and many came to a miserable end.

Gerson:—Amor habet vim uniendi, si terram amas, terrenus es; si deum, divinus.

Spener:—Every age should diligently cultivate the virtue becoming it before others, which is especially done by each particular age applying its natural gifts to the growth of life (understanding in the case of the old, strength in the case of young men, simplicity in the case of children).—Those who have overcome Satan as young men, may afterwards truly and fully know Christ as fathers, while those who have served him do not easily attain such knowledge, which is a kind of reward of grace.—The word of God does not only come to us, but abides also in us, and consequently is not a dead or passing sound—That which does not abide forever is not worthy of our love; for God has created, appointed and called us unto eternal things.

Starke:—Preachers should particularly urge obedience to the commandments of God, and renunciation of the love of the world on the plea of the grace of God in the forgiveness of sins, as a more powerful incentive than considerations founded on the Law.—Although you have conquered the devil once, he will return and assault you with sevenfold strength to rob you of your crown. Therefore, ye warriors of Jesus, grow not secure, but think that your task is not done with one well-fought battle.—O the deluded souls that fancy that it is the privilege of their rank to use the world at their pleasure, to lead a worldly and carnal life, and to be good Christians for all! They will terribly deceive themselves, for the mere name is not sufficient.—Christians, would you love the Father, you must content yourselves with the necessaries of the body, bridle your eyes, and lead a life of simplicity.—The world and its lusts pass swiftly away, like an arrow cuts through the air, like smoke blows away, like a river flows along, like a bird flies past, like a sound dies away. What folly to set one’s hope and pleasure on such changeable and transitory things!—It is well, but not enough to know the will of God, we must do it in the strength of God, with all diligence, at all times, in all things, if we would abide forever.—It is a great mercy of God that He accepts our poor, imperfect doing, provided it be done with a childlike heart, as the doing of His will—None can do the will of God without denying his own will, for the will of God and corruptible self-will are utterly opposed to each other.

Heubner:—Fathers are spiritual adults, matured Christians; they have known Christ, the Son of God, from personal experience, made proof of His power, or He has been fully formed in them (Eph. 4:13; 1 Thess. 2:7, 11; Heb. 5:14). The image of Christ has a feeble and tender beginning in childhood; it continues growing in youth, but does not attain perfect clearness with open face until manhood. No warrior can go beyond this: Christ and His knowledge excel all perfection. We have here the case of souls that long since have acquired forgiveness and cleansing from their sins, overcome the wicked one, stood severe trials and hard conflicts, in victory have been planted in the likeness of Christ’s death, and made experience of the power of His resurrection. As fathers they possess spiritual generative powers. They are the mellow old wine. They are called τέλειοι, they are the nearest friends of the Lord, His intimates, that have a better understanding of His counsel: but, although thus highly raised by God, they never divest themselves of their childlike disposition. The sense of redemption in Christ, true poverty of spirit, voluntary and constant self-denial and strong love are their characteristics. But they still stand in need of instruction and caution (an old Christian had been victorious in the fight for thirty-nine years, but was overcome in the fortieth year.) They must fight senectute contra senectutem. They have more works than words. They are engaged in ceaseless intercessions for all the people of God, and gather riches for the children (2 Cor. 12:14). But they must he very careful not to usurp an authority and power, in virtue of which they require others blindly and unconditionally to follow and agree with them; the moment they fall into this snare they cease to be fathers, and become the destroyers of the Christlike spirit in the children.—Young men are those who are still engaged in active warfare, and have to fear most the assaults of the flesh, the world and the devil; they ought to have begun to taste the better delights [of religion] and should overcome Satan. Hence they are always prepared for the battle. He that has become a true child of God must not care for the age of youth. Can any one, by anxious care, add one cubit unto his stature [age]? He that preserves that which he has, to him shall be given more; the process of growth is imperceptible (Mark 4:28). They ought to have the spirit of power and vigilance; as valiant soldiers they must always be at their post, warring against the enemy. Their dangers are rashness, undue ardor, temerity and negligence. They must have work to do, they must destroy Babylon, but abstain from all things, and fight faithfully unto death. They must not be discouraged in the first ardor of their zeal, for that first ardor may lose its intensity. Their strength will be in proportion to their allowing their strength quietly to strike root; even Christ walked in silence and retirement during His youth, and John was in the wilderness. They must learn to enter into the mystery of godliness, abstain from their doing in order that God may work in them, that thus they may resist the πονηρός, the spoiler, who comes from without and forces his way into them, and would fain seize the youthful warriors. Hence they need circumspection and weapons (Eph. 6).—Children are beginners in Christianity who have already tasted the paternal love of God, who receive from the Father more tokens of love, as it were, more caressing. But they must be truly born of God, have a new mind, the Spirit of adoption whereby they cry Abba, Father. Their general characteristics are these: a childlike disposition, lowliness, obedience, sincerity, joyfulness. Their childlike failings are: credulity, carelessness, rashness, inconstancy, or even wandering from the simplicity in Christ. They are strongly attached to the sweet taste of grace. They require oversight, guidance, nursing, care, keeping; they require milk until they are able to take stronger food and grow. (Here we may refer to the choral divisions among the unitas fratrum: children, older boys, single brethren, single sisters, the chorus of married people, widowers and widows, to the incipientes, proficientes and profecti of the Moravians, and to the analogies of paganism, Plato de legg. II., where the chorus of boys, of young men to the age of thirty, of men to the age of sixty, used fascinatingly to implant the true and the good into the minds of the people in songs, and Plutarch lacon. instit. according to which, among the Spartans, old men used to sing: “Once we were vigorous youths;” men, “We are so; if thou desirest it, try;” and the boys, “Some day we shall even be better”).—Love is the noblest power in man, which he ought not to waste on unworthy objects, but he ought to love God only.—The world is set before men to try them, whether they will lay hold of it or of heavenly things.—The objects of our desires, as far as they are creatures, are not evil in themselves (1 Tim. 4:4; 1 Cor. 10:26), but the passionate desire of them is evil, and of the evil spirit. The excusatio of worldlings is: “it is natural, it is innocent.” That is to lay the responsibility of sin on God.—Worldly-mindedness and religion are incompatible. There are, indeed, many degrees of this worldly-mindedness and fondness of worldly pleasures, but this much is certain: 1. Those in whom this fondness is strong and supreme, to whom non-gratification causes anger and a blank, are without the divine life. 2. Every worldly pleasure, though indifferent of itself, becomes sin if it leads astray from God, and has to be enjoyed without God. 3. In proportion to the growth of religion is the decrease of a mind and taste for worldly lusts, and vice versa.—It is disgraceful in clergymen [Germ. Geistliche, a technical term for clergymen, of which the English divines is the nearest approximation, or we may also say “spiritual and secular,” but, of course, without any reference to the Roman Catholic use of these terms—M.], who ought to be the opposite of the worldly, to exhibit worldliness in the bias of their mind and conversation.—What comes of the transitoriness of the world and of the things which lust desires? What harm does it do to the worldly? 1. Even in respect of this earthly life it is painful and humiliating to take pleasure in enjoyments which are wholly idle and transient, and leave behind them nothing that is refreshing or ennobling, but, perhaps, something that will fill the mind with gloom, paralyze and deject the spirit—a melancholy blank. 2. This holds good still more in respect of the life to come. The objects will cease, but not the desire, which will then lack the instruments and means of its gratification. Painful condition. Such a soul will then behold itself in its miserable emptiness and vileness. Therefore consider the transitoriness and consequences of every sinful lust. (Oriental saying: The treasures of the world are so constituted that they will deprive thee of life, if thou gatherest them).—

Neander:—It is not part of the nature of the love of God that we must retire from the world and worldly things, but rather that we should use them according to the purpose which God has assigned to all men, to His glory.

Besser:—The forgiveness of sins is the bread on which the great and the small, Apostles and malefactors, the wise and the illiterate, kings and beggars (kings as beggars, and beggars as kings), live in the kingdom of God, even as the fourth and fifth petitions of the Lord’s Prayer are significantly joined together by and.

Johann Bugenhagen’s motto was: “Si Christum bene scis, satis est, si cetera nescis: si Christum nescis, nil est, si cetera discis.”

Leo the Great:—There are two kinds of love from which proceeds every lust according to its kind: man, who cannot exist without love, loves either God or the world.

Spener.—This either—or is an established thing which will never yield the place to an as well—as. To contribute one cent to ungodliness is as much as to give up to it the whole. St. Bernard calls pride the arch-artificer of fraud, and the true fountain of vice, the tinder of sin, the rust of virtues, the moth of holiness, the beguiler of hearts, that turns medicine into poison, and cordials into stupefying draughts. A soul has nothing in eternity but what it has gathered in time.

Nitzsch:—The principal question of the divine word addressed to fathers: Do you know Him that is from the beginning? Let us consider: 1. Why this question is peculiarly suited to the aged? The excellency and glory of old age is experience, its natural avocation to gather and to have gathered it, its supreme requirement, to have wisdom by and in experience. How much more important is it to have seen and felt a thing, to have shared its suffering, than merely to have heard of it! 2. Which knowledge does it speak of? The First and the Last has been revealed in the centre of history, He by whom and for whom all things consist; time has become conscious of eternity. Humanity has been raised from profound misery to high glory. This knowledge compensates the eye for every unavoidable want of light, supplies the solution of many riddles, finds the kernel of many experiences, marks the holy line of human effort, cherishes the sweet hope of beholding [God], and thinks well done that which God doeth. 3. The great monition and the glorious consolation contained therein. Many things improve by age, but not the fundamental error, erring from God. Self-will and unbelief do not break spontaneously by mere events; the secret will of the natural man grows to a fearful height and resoluteness; rather die in sins than present oneself blind and naked, miserable and poor before the only Mediator, the Conqueror on the cross. Do you still know Him, do you know Him again? Be overcome and ye shall conquer; His knowledge rejuvenates you like eagles, makes you wise, and crowns all knowledge and experience with faith in the eternal words. The monition of the divine word to young men that they have overcome the wicked one. Regard it—1, as a congratulation on their participation in the victory of Christ, but also as a threefold test-inquiry of the reality of their Christianity. After the victory of Christ, the time of the mere doubtful struggle between the death and life of mankind, the time of invincible sin, of the immeasurable progress of corruption, belongs to the remote past. If you fear already, or are still afraid in this world, be of good courage and know that you enter into a reconciled world, and stand in eternal peace, and partake of a happiness and liberty that have not to be fought for and devised, but may be seized and enjoyed in true faith. But here you have to inquire after faith in this word,—since the tendency prevails not to believe that which was believed by the fathers; many, all believe to indemnify themselves for childlike faith with the conceits of the unvanished beauty of the world, of the power of the mind of man and of the innocence and goodness of the heart of man,—to inquire after the knowledge of this truth, after the decision and conversion of the heart, whether that will reigns supreme which says, How should I do this great evil and sin against my God? whether you are consciously or unconsciously under the jurisdiction of the prince of this world, and unfitted for the true work of your calling. … 2. As a call to resistance, and at the same time as a promise of assistance. This bears on your bravery, your honour, your independence, ye that are in such hurry to be men. There are many adversaries from without that reappear again and again; fight the invisible battles in your souls. It is good for a man to have worn the yoke in his youth, but how much better this yoke; thus you will gain a clear and pure view of your future, thus you spend the time of your transitory youth for the purpose of securing eternal youth, thus you care to-day for to-morrow and ever, even unto the judgment; all things are yours.

Hast thou broken with the world? 1. Art thou perhaps still wholly entangled in its lust? 2. Art thou convinced that it is impossible to love God and the world at the same time? 3. Dost thou daily fight victoriously against the lust of the world tempting thee?

What is the Christian’s relation to the world? 1. He knows that its lust, without any exception, is sin (v. 16), and such sin as is incompatible with the Christian profession (v. 15), and on this very account 2. He shuns and flies it (v.15).

Consider how little the love of the world comports with sincere conversion towards God. 1. The latter imposes renunciation of the world and its lust as a necessary condition. 2. It affords strength for overcoming the world. 3. And is itself a continued combat with the temptations of the world.

The infamy of a Christian being the slave of worldly lust. 1. He thereby enters the service of worldly vanity, 2. becomes the enemy of God, and 3. will perish with the world (L. in “Gesetz und Zeugniss” for 1860).—

[Ezekiel Hopkins:—v. 15. “For these things (Pleasures, Riches, Honours), though they make a fair and gaudy show, yet it is all but show and appearance. As bubbles, blown into the air, will represent great variety of orient and glittering colours, not, as some suppose, that there are any such really there, but only they appear so to us, through a false reflection of light cast upon them: so truly this world, this earth on which we live, is nothing else but a great bubble blown up by the breath of God in the midst of the air, where it now hangs. It sparkles with ten thousand glories: not that they are so in themselves, but only they seem so to us through the false light by which we look upon them. If we come to grasp it, it breaks and leaves nothing but wind and disappointment in our hands: as histories report of the fruits that grow near the Dead sea, where once Sodom and Gomorrah stood, they appear very fair and beautiful to the eye, but if they be crushed, turn straight to smoke and ashes.”

There is nothing in the world vain in respect of its natural being or of God the Creator—but all the vanity that is in worldly things, is only in respect of the sin and folly of man. [Augustine: “Utendum est hoc mundo, non fruendum; ut invisibilia Dei, per ea quæ facta sunt, intelligantur; hoc est, ut de temporalibus æterna capiantur.”—M.].

The vanity of the world appears in:

1. That all its glory and splendour depend merely on opinion and fancy.

2. In its deceitfulness and treachery. It is not only vanity, but a lying vanity.

3. As all things in the world are lying vanities, so are they all vexatious. “Uncertain comforts but most certain crosses.”

4. A little cross will embitter great comforts—another mark of the vanity of the world.

5. The longer we enjoy any worldly thing, the more flat and insipid doth it grow.

6. All the pleasure of the world is nothing else but a tedious repetition of the same things.

7. The world can stand us in no stead, when we have the greatest need of support and comfort.

8. All things in the world are vain, because they are unsuitable.

The soul is spiritual and immortal, worldly things are material and perishable.

Its wants are spiritual—but the world supplies only material wants.

9. The vanity of the world appears in its inconstancy and fickleness and—

10. In that it is altogether unsatisfactory.—M.].

[Barrow:—The world is an enemy, an irreconcilable enemy to our salvation. The World, that is, the wicked principles, the bad customs, the naughty conversation and example which commonly prevail here among men; alluring to evil and deterring from good; the cares also, the riches, the pleasures, the glories of the world, which possess or distract the minds, satiate and cloy the desires, employ all the affections and endeavours, take up the time of men; all in the world which fasteneth our hearts to earth, and to those low transitory things; or which sink them down toward hell and which detain them from soaring toward heaven.

The world passeth away and the desire (ἐπιθυμία) thereof; whatever seemeth most lovely and desirable in the world is very flitting; however, our desire and our enjoyment thereof must suddenly cease. Imagine a man, therefore, possessed of all worldly goods, armed with power, flourishing in credit, flowing with plenty, swimming in all delight (such as were sometime Priamus, Polycrates, Crœsus, Pompey) yet since he is withal supposed a man, and mortal, subject both to fortune and death, none of those things can he reasonably confide or much satisfy himself in; they may be violently divorced from him by fortune, they must naturally be loosed from him by death; the closest union here cannot last longer than till death us depart; wherefore no man upon such account can truly call, or, if he consider well, heartily esteem himself happy; a man cannot hence receive profit or content from any labour he taketh under the sun. (Eccles. 1:3 sqq.)—M.].

[On ἀλαζονεία τοῦ βίου v. 16. “It was a pertinent discourse of Cineas, dissuading Pyrrhus from undertaking a war against the Romans. Sir, saith he, when you have conquered them, what will you do next? Then Sicily is near at hand, and easy to master.—And what when you have subdued Sicily? Then we will pass over to Africa and take Carthage, which cannot long withstand us.—When these are conquered, what will be your next attempt?—Then we will fall in upon Greece and Macedon and recover what we have lost there.—Well, when all are subdued, what fruit do you expect from all your victories? Then we will sit down and enjoy ourselves. Sir, replied Cineas, may we not do it now? Have you not already a kingdom of your own? and he that cannot enjoy himself with a kingdom, cannot with the world.” Plutarch in Vita Pyrrhi.—M.].

[Pyle (v. 12–14):—The cautions I here give you ought to be equally regarded by all degrees of Christian professors. The new converts and younger Christians are to consider themselves as newly put into a state of salvation, the pardon of sin, and the favour of God, through Jesus Christ; and to endeavour to confirm themselves in it by the careful practice of true Christian virtue. Such as are come to more maturity in their profession and are in the strength and vigour of their age, have a great advantage, and ought to employ the utmost of that vigour in resisting the strongest temptations of the devil, and perfecting their conquest over him and all his wicked instruments. And the aged Christians cannot but have so dear a knowledge of God, and the revelation of His will by Jesus Christ, during the long season from their first conversion, that it would be utterly inexcusable for them to be wanting in their essential duties or be drawn from them by the false teachers.—M.].

[Ver. 12. Simeon, C., The different growth and privileges of God’s children. Works xx. 393.

Vv. 13. 14. Marshall, N., Peculiar temptations attending every stage of life, with the special advantages and counter-motives that are found in each, considered particularly with regard to old age.

The temptations that most endanger our first stage of life, with the duties most incumbent upon us in that early period, and the motives to discharge them.

Peculiar temptations treated in reference to such as are in the bloom and vigour of life. Sermons, iv. 433, 459, 485.

Ver. 15. Fuller, Thos., An ill match well broken off. Joseph’s party-coloured coat.

Vv. 15–17. Bossuet, Traité de la Concupiscence. Œuvres, xiv. 26.—M.].1

1 John Peter Lange et al., A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: 1, 2, 3 John (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2008), 64–71.

Verses 12–17

This new command of holy love, with the incentives thereto, may possibly be directed to the several ranks of disciples that are here accosted. The several graduates in the Christian university, the catholic church, must be sure to preserve the bond of sacred love. Or, there being an important dehortation and dissuasion to follow, without the observance of which vital religion in the love of God and love of the brethren cannot subsist, the apostle may justly seem to preface it with a solemn address to the several forms or orders in the school of Christ: let the infants or minors, the adults, the seniors (or the adepti, the teleioi, the most perfect), in the Christian institution, know that they must not love this world; and so,

I. We have the address itself made to the various forms and ranks in the church of Christ. All Christians are not of the same standing and stature; there are babes in Christ, there are grown men, and old disciples. As these have their peculiar states, so they have their peculiar duties; but there are precepts and a correspondent obedience common to them all, as particularly mutual love and contempt of the world. We see also that wise pastors will judiciously distribute the word of life, and give to the several members of Christ’s family their several suitable portions: I write unto you children, fathers, and young men. In this distribution the apostle addresses,

1. The lowest in the Christian school: I write unto you, little children, v. 12. There are novices in religion, babes in Christ, those who are learning the rudiments of Christian godliness. The apostle may seem to encourage them by applying to them first; and it may be useful to the greater proficients to hear what is said to their juniors; elements are to be repeated; first principles are the foundation of all. He addresses the children in Christianity upon two accounts:—(1.) Because their sins were forgiven them for his name’s sake, v. 12. The youngest sincere disciple is pardoned; the communion of saints is attended with the forgiveness of sins. Sins are forgiven either for God’s name’s sake, for the praise of his glory (his glorious perfections displayed in forgiveness), or for Christ’s name’s sake, upon his score, and upon the account of the redemption that is in him; and those that are forgiven of God are strongly obliged to relinquish this world, which so interferes with the love of God. (2.) Because of their knowledge of God: I write unto you, little children, because you have known the Father, v. 13. Children are wont to know none so soon as their father. Children in Christianity must and do know God. They shall all know me, from the least to the greatest, Heb. 8:11. Children in Christ should know that God is their Father; it is their wisdom. We say, It is a wise child that knows his father. These children cannot but know theirs; they can well be assured by whose power they are regenerated and by whose grace they are adopted. Those that know the Father may well be withdrawn from the love of this world. Then the apostle, proceeds,

2. To those of the highest station and stature, to the seniors in Christianity, to whom he gives an honourable appellation: I write unto you, fathers (v. 13, 14), unto you, Mnasons, you old disciples, Acts 21:16. The apostle immediately passes from the bottom to the top of the school, from the lowest form to the highest, that those in the middle may hear both lessons, may remember what they have learned and perceive what they must come to: I write unto you, fathers. Those that are of longest standing in Christ’s school have need of further advice and instruction; the oldest disciple must go to heaven (the university above) with his book, his Bible, in his hand; fathers must be written to, and preached to; none are too old to learn. He writes to them upon the account of their knowledge: I write unto you, fathers, because you have known him that is from the beginning, v. 13, 14. Old men have knowledge and experience, and expect deference. The apostle is ready to own the knowledge of old Christians, and to congratulate them thereupon. They know the Lord Christ, particularly him that was from the beginning; as ch. 1:1. As Christ is Alpha and Omega, so he must be the beginning and end of our Christian knowledge. I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, Phil. 3:8. Those who know him that was from the beginning, before this world was made, may well be induced thereby to relinquish this world. Then,

3. To the middle age of Christians, to those who are in their bloom and flower: I write unto you, young men, v. 13, 14. There are the adult in Christ Jesus, those that have arrived at the strength of spirit and sound sense and can discern between good and evil. The apostle applies to them upon these accounts:—(1.) Upon the account of their martial exploits. Dexterous soldiers they are in the camp of Christ: Because you have overcome the wicked one, v. 13. There is a wicked one that is continually warring against souls, and particularly against the disciples: but those that are well taught in Christ’s school can handle their arms and vanquish the evil one; and those that can vanquish him may be called to vanquish the world too, which is so great an instrument for the devil. (2.) Upon the account of their strength, discovered in this their achievement: Because you are strong, and you have overcome the wicked one, v. 14. Young men are wont to glory in their strength; it will be the glory of youthful persons to be strong in Christ and in his grace; it will be their glory, and it will try their strength, to overcome the devil; if they be not too hard for the devil, he will be too hard for them. Let vigorous Christians show their strength in conquering the world; and the same strength must be exerted in overcoming the world as is employed in overcoming the devil. (3.) Because of their acquaintance with the word of God: And the word of God abideth in you, v. 14. The word of God must abide in the adult disciples; it is the nutriment and supply of strength to them; it is the weapon by which they overcome the wicked one; the sword of the Spirit, whereby they quench his fiery darts: and those in whom the word of God dwells are well furnished for the conquest of the world.

II. We have the dehortation or dissuasion thus prefaced and introduced, a caution fundamental to vital practical religion: “Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world, v. 15. Be crucified to the world, be mortified to the things, to the affairs and enticements, of it.” The several degrees of Christians should unite in this, in being dead to the world. Were they thus united, they would soon unite upon other accounts: their love should be reserved for God; throw it not away upon the world. Now here we see the reasons of this dissuasion and caution. They are several, and had need to be so; it is hard to dispute or dissuade disciples themselves from the love of the world. These reasons are taken,

1. From the inconsistency of this love with the love of God: If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him, v. 15. The heart of man is narrow, and cannot contain both loves. The world draws down the heart from God; and so the more the love of the world prevails the more the love of God dwindles and decays.

2. From the prohibition of worldly love or lust; it is not ordained of God: It is not of the Father, but is of the world, v. 16. This love or lust is not appointed of God (he calls us from it), but it intrudes itself from the world; the world is a usurper of our affection. Now here we have the due consideration and notion of the world, according to which it is to be crucified and renounced. The world, physically considered, is good, and is to be admired as the work of God and a glass in which his perfections shine; but it is to be considered in its relation to us now in our corrupted state, and as it works upon our weakness and instigates and inflames our vile affections. There is great affinity and alliance between this world and the flesh, and this world intrudes and encroaches upon the flesh, and thereby makes a party against God. The things of the world therefore are distinguished into three classes, according to the three predominant inclinations of depraved nature; as, (1.) There is the lust of the flesh. The flesh here, being distinguished from the eyes and the life, imports the body. The lust of the flesh is, subjectively, the humour and appetite of indulging fleshly pleasures; and, objectively, all those things that excite and inflame the pleasures of the flesh. This lust is usually called luxury. (2.) There is the lust of the eyes. The eyes are delighted with treasures; riches and rich possessions are craved by an extravagant eye; this is the lust of covetousness. 3. There is the pride of life. A vain mind craves all the grandeur, equipage, and pomp of a vain-glorious life; this is ambition, and thirst after honour and applause. This is, in part, the disease of the ear; it must be flattered with admiration and praise. The objects of these appetites must be abandoned and renounced; as they engage and engross the affection and desire, they are not of the Father, but of the world, v. 16. The Father disallows them, and the world should keep them to itself. The lust or appetite to these things must be mortified and subdued; and so the indulging of it is not appointed by the Father, but is insinuated by the ensnaring world.

3. From the vain and vanishing state of earthly things and the enjoyment of them. And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof, v. 17. The things of the world are fading and dying apace. The lust itself and the pleasure of it wither and decay; desire itself will ere long fail and cease, Eccl. 12:5. And what has become of all the pomp and pleasure of all those who now lie mouldering in the grave?

4. From the immortality of the divine lover, the lover of God: But he that doeth the will of God, which must be the character of the lover of God, in opposition to this lover of the world, abideth for ever, v. 17. The object of his love in opposition to the world that passeth away, abideth for ever; his sacred passion or affection, in opposition to the lust that passeth away, abideth for ever; love shall never fail; and he himself is an heir of immortality and endless life, and shall in time be translated thither.

From the whole of these verses we should observe the purity and spirituality of the apostolical doctrine. The animal life must be subjected to the divine; the body with its affections should be swayed by religion, or the victorious love of God.1

1 Matthew Henry, Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible: Complete and Unabridged in One Volume (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1994), 2445–2446.

WALK IN LOVE

Overview

When John called us to fellowship, he called us to “know” Jesus. Paul uttered the same call: “I want to know Christ and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in His sufferings, becoming like Him in His death, and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead” (Phil. 3:10). Knowing Jesus opens the door to a present experience of resurrection power.

But how can we tell if we “know” Him?

Part of our problem is that we can be confused by different meanings of the word “know.” For instance:

• “I know that” means I have information.

• “I know all about bass” may be a claim that I can catch them.

• “I know Henry” may express friendship, acquaintance, or simply ability to identify a person in a crowd.

• “I know Plato” probably is a claim to understand his philosophy.

• “I know what you mean,” can even be an expression of sympathy.

What then does it mean to “know” Jesus? The Dictionary of New Testament Theology (Zondervan) points out that the Greek word used here, ginosko, means basically “grasping the full reality and nature of an object under consideration. It is thus distinguished from mere opinion, which may grasp the object half-correctly, inadequately, or even falsely.”

How important then, John’s promise, ‘We know that we … know Him” (1 John 2:3).

Commentary

Inner Evidence of Relationship: 1 John 2:3–17

John wrote to people who knew about Jesus, but who were not sure that they knew Him. We know about Jesus, but our grasp of truth may be incomplete, or we may have been misled by a false system of doctrine. How can we be sure that in spite of gaps in our understanding, we have a close personal relationship with the Lord?

John launched into an explanation of how we can be sure, not theoretically but experientially, that we know Jesus. He wants us to be free from nagging doubts and fears.

We respond to His commands (1 John 2:3–6). Jesus said, “My sheep listen to My voice; I know them, and they follow Me” (John 10:27). Those who belong to Jesus are responsive to His voice.

It’s important not to misunderstand here. John does not suggest that relationship with God is established by obedience; rather, that relationship is demonstrated by obedience.

Sometimes people claim to know God but are unresponsive to His Word and His way of life. Such a person may possess accurate information about God and may be able to debate finer points of theology. Such a person may have memorized much of the Bible and regularly be in church. But unresponsiveness to God’s voice shows the claim, “I know Him,” to be false. Relationship is demonstrated by walking “as Jesus did” (1 John 2:6).

The central command (1 John 2:7–11). This idea of responsiveness can be distorted into a legalism in which the list of do’s and don’ts grows longer. We try to measure our relationship with God as we do the temperature—by degrees.

To avoid this error, John quickly noted a central command from which all else flows. That command has been known and revealed through both the Testaments, but has been given fresh meaning in Jesus’ coming. Jesus calls us to “love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another” (John 13:34). John said that the one who hates his brother cannot be walking in the light (1 John 2:11).

If you or I wonder if we’re really responsive to Jesus’ voice, we don’t have to measure ourselves against a list of things we do or don’t do to please Him. All we have to do is look within to see if we are reaching out, to care for our fellow Christians.

The listeners (1 John 2:12–14). John seemed to have more confidence in the people he wrote to than they did themselves. He didn’t question their relationship with Jesus. He was sure that they did know Him and that they could live in fellowship with God.

John had reasons for his confidence:

• These little children had made an initial commitment to Jesus, and their sins had been forgiven.

• These fathers had lived in relationship with a God who had demonstrated Himself to be stable and trustworthy from the beginning of the universe.

• These young men had been challenged in their faith by the evil one, and God’s strength and His Word in them had enabled them to overcome the threat.

These people could take the test John suggested. They could examine themselves and discover that they were responsive to Jesus’ voice; they had begun to love. These inner drawings toward Jesus help us to be sure that we do know Him.

Divided hearts (1 John 2:15–17). John helps us look within to discover evidence of the reality of our relationship with Jesus. Now John warned that in order to love and respond to God, we must stop acting from the motives that reflect the world’s value system.

Again John gave a common word a distinctive moral slant. Kosmos (“world”) in Greek can mean the universe itself, the planet on which we live, or mankind. In a moral sense, however, “world” refers to the created universe and to mankind as fallen. This world, John says later (5:19) “is under the control of the evil one.” The values and the attitudes that characterize the world—“cravings of sinful man, the lust of his eyes and the boasting of what he has” (2:16) do not come from God.

A Christian cannot live with a divided heart, responding one moment out of love for God and at the next turning to the world for pleasure. If we want to demonstrate (to ourselves, as well as to God) that we know Him, we need to make a clear-cut commitment to do the will of God rather than respond to the world’s passions.

♥ Link to Life: Youth / Adult

Copy “know” entries from several dictionaries to distribute to the group. Have teams list as many kinds of “knowing” as they can find or think of, and how might each be measured.

Then ask each team to read 1 John 2:3–17. What kind of “knowing” seems important to John? How can that kind of knowing be measured?

What can we do to enrich our “knowledge” of God?

Warning Against Antichrist: 1 John 2:18–27

John helps us see inner, subjective evidence that we know Jesus. You and you alone know if you are responsive to God’s voice. A new Christian might be responsive, but as yet show little change in lifestyle. And you and you alone know if you are beginning to love. If you find the stirrings of obedience and love within yourself, then you can have confidence that you know Jesus.

But what are the objective criteria? How about those who claim to be Christians, and even to be teachers, but who are instead antichrists? How can we recognize false teachers and false prophets?

John gave several principles to guide us. First, they “went out from us” (v. 19). The false teacher comes into a local fellowship, begins to teach his lies and, when he cannot influence the whole group to follow him, takes the little band he has deceived and starts his own sect or movement. Watch out for those who would divide and separate Christ’s people. They go out because “they did not really belong to us” (v. 19).

Second, they deny Jesus is the Christ. Rejecting the Son, they reject the Father also. Jude and Peter as well have stressed that the false teacher sooner or later distorts the Bible’s teaching on who Jesus is.

Finally, there is a subjective element in discerning false teachers. God the Holy Spirit has taken up residence in every true Christian. Our resident Teacher is a sound interpreter of the written Word and of the teachings of men. “You do not need anyone to teach you,” John boldly declared (v. 27); the Holy Spirit will “guide you into all truth” (John 16:13).

This whole passage is a great corrective for our own day. Are we afraid to fellowship with those who have differences from us, yet are brothers and sisters in Christ? Are we worried when small groups of believers get together in homes to pray and study the Bible, afraid that they may go astray without the pastor there to answer every question and correct every misunderstanding? If so, we have fallen far short of a biblical confidence in the Holy Spirit’s ability to teach and guard His own.

So, there are objective criteria by which to test relationships with Christ. There is also the prompting and loving guidance given by that Person who has taken up permanent residence in our lives.

The Sin Question: 1 John 2:28–3:10

The emphasis on looking within to find a subjective basis for confidence that we know Jesus does raise a serious question. Paul insisted that leaders be chosen whose lives demonstrated holiness. Jude identified false teachers by their actions. Why then did John seem to retreat from a clear-cut call for active holiness? Why did he first assure us of forgiveness when we fall, and then go on to reassure us that we can be sure we know Jesus by looking within to sense responsiveness and love? Doesn’t what we do matter anymore?

John was writing to ordinary people like you and me who became Christians, looked forward to a new kind of life, then perhaps were crushed to discover that everything wasn’t different after all. The promised freedom from old habits and sins didn’t come.

Experiences like these are common, because the Christian life involves growth. We are born again into a new world through faith in Christ.

Yet the old kosmos that we knew so well has patterned our personalities. The gift of new life does not include spiritual amnesia, or wipe away old thought patterns, emotions, and responses. All these are still there; still deeply ingrained. The old will be replaced, but gradually—through growth and grace.

It is the “gradually” that so troubles us. We want to be rid of the old immediately. We want to be all new, now. When we stumble and fall and then fall again, it’s only natural to wonder if we’ve made a mistake about our relationship with God. Perhaps we are not born again. Perhaps our failures and stumbling into sin indicate that we only thought we believed!

John wrote to release us from this torment. If you want to be sure you know Jesus, first look within. If you are responsive, even in a stumbling way—if you find love in your heart—you can be confident.

But what about our failures and sins? “Dear children,” John wrote, “continue in Him” (2:28).

How comforting! Take your place as a child. Don’t expect to be mature yet. But do continue in Him. Do keep on growing. And as you mature, you will come to the place of victory over sins.

John said several important things about sin in this short passage:

• Through faith we are now God’s children. When Jesus appears we will be completely like Him. As we keep His promise of transformation in view, and fix our desire on the goal of perfection, we will grow in purity here and now (3:1–3).

• There is no compromise with the sinfulness of sin. Violating God’s standard of righteousness is sin. There is no sin in God. No one living in Him keeps on sinning (vv. 4–6).

• Objectively we can say that one whose life is committed to habitual sin is “of the devil” rather than of God. No one “born of God will continue in sin” (vv. 7–10).

Reading these verses we become aware that John was talking about the pattern of a person’s life. He was not talking about isolated acts of sin, but about the direction of one’s journey. The question is not, “Does he sin?” but, “Does he make sin a habit?” When God’s life takes root in the human personality, that “seed remains in him” (v. 9), the life of God within struggles against sin, and the Spirit nudges us in a new direction.

So, over time, there is objective evidence of a righteous life to match the inner witness of love and responsiveness to God. Over time. Not necessarily immediately. But the objective evidence will come.

John promised, “No one who is born of God will continue to sin” (v. 9). It is not possible for sin to keep us in bondage, because the life of God within us will overcome the evil.1

1 Lawrence O. Richards, The Teacher’s Commentary (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1987), 1052–1054.

as pleasures, riches, honours, so that his affections be more upon these then upon God, the charity of the Father (or of God) is not in him. Wi.

Ver. 16–17. All that is in the world, is the concupiscence of the flesh, under which is comprehended all that pleaseth the senses, or the concupiscence of the eyes; i.e. a longing after such things which enter by the eyes, as of riches in gold and silver, in apparel, in houses and palaces, train and equipage, &c. curiosity as to vain arts and sciences; or, the pride of life, as to honours, dignities, and preferment's. But the world passeth away, and all these things that belong to it.—He that doth the will of God, abideth for ever, with God in heaven. Wi.1

1 George Leo Haydock, Haydock’s Catholic Bible Commentary (New York: Edward Dunigan and Brother, 1859), 1 Jn 2:15–17.

15–17 Because his readers have experienced the positive results of faith (vv. 12–14) and therefore have an alternative to this world’s order of things, Yochanan can tell them, Do not love the world or the things of the world (compare Yn 17:14–19).

The three main kinds of temptations were present already in the Garden of Eden, as is clear from Genesis 3:6: “When the woman saw that the tree was good for food” (the desires of the old nature or “flesh,” Ro 7:5N), “and that it was a delight to the eyes” (the desires of the eyes), “and a tree to be desired to make one wise” (the pretensions of life), “she took of the fruit and ate.” Satan later used the same temptations with Yeshua, but he resisted them (Mt 4:1–11&NN, MJ 4:14–16&N). Yochanan’s readers and we are to do the same. 1

1 David H. Stern, Jewish New Testament Commentary : A Companion Volume to the Jewish New Testament, electronic ed. (Clarksville: Jewish New Testament Publications, 1996), 1 Jn 2:15.

Verses 15–17

The things of the world may be desired and possessed for the uses and purposes which God intended, and they are to be used by his grace, and to his glory; but believers must not seek or value them for those purposes to which sin abuses them. The world draws the heart from God; and the more the love of the world prevails, the more the love of God decays. The things of the world are classed according to the three ruling inclinations of depraved nature. 1. The lust of the flesh, of the body: wrong desires of the heart, the appetite of indulging all things that excite and inflame sensual pleasures. 2. The lust of the eyes: the eyes are delighted with riches and rich possessions; this is the lust of covetousness. 3. The pride of life: a vain man craves the grandeur and pomp of a vain-glorious life; this includes thirst after honour and applause. The things of the world quickly fade and die away; desire itself will ere long fail and cease, but holy affection is not like the lust that passes away. The love of God shall never fail. Many vain efforts have been made to evade the force of this passage by limitations, distinctions, or exceptions. Many have tried to show how far we may be carnally-minded, and love the world; but the plain meaning of these verses cannot easily be mistaken. Unless this victory over the world is begun in the heart, a man has no root in himself, but will fall away, or at most remain an unfruitful professor. Yet these vanities are so alluring to the corruption in our hearts, that without constant watching and prayer, we cannot escape the world, or obtain victory over the god and prince of it. 1

1 Matthew Henry and Thomas Scott, Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, 1997), 1 Jn 2:15.

2:15 Do not love the world. Although John often repeats the importance of love and that God is love (4:7, 8), he also reveals that God hates a certain type of love: love of the world (Jn 15:18–20). In this text, John expresses a particular form of the fourth test (i.e., the test of love). Positively, the Christian loves God and fellow Christians. Negatively, an absence of love for the world must habitually characterize the love life of those to be considered genuinely born again. “Love” here signifies affection and devotion. God, not the world, must have the first place in the Christian’s life (Mt 10:37–39; Php 3:20). the world. This is not a reference to the physical, material world but the invisible spiritual system of evil dominated by Satan (see notes on 2Co 10:3–5) and all that it offers in opposition to God, His Word, and His people (cf. 5:19; Jn 12:31; 1Co 1:21; 2Co 4:4; Jas 4:4; 2Pe 1:4). the love of the Father is not in him. Either one is a genuine Christian marked by love and obedience to God, or one is a non-Christian in rebellion against God, i.e., in love with and enslaved by the satanically controlled world system (Eph 2:1–3; Col 1:13; Jas 4:4). No middle ground between these two alternatives exists for someone claiming to be born again. The false teachers had no such singular love, but were devoted to the world’s philosophy and wisdom, thereby revealing their love for the world and their unsaved state (cf. Mt 6:24; Lk 16:13; 1Ti 6:20; 2Pe 2:12–22).

2:16 all that is in the world. Cf. Jas 4:4. While the world’s philosophies and ideologies and much that it offers may appear attractive and appealing, that is deception. Its true and pervasive nature is evil, harmful, ruinous, and satanic. Its deadly theories are raised up against the knowledge of God and hold the souls of men captive (2Co 10:3–5). lust. John uses the term negatively here for a strong desire for evil things. flesh. The term refers to the sin nature of man; the rebellious self dominated by sin and in opposition to God (Ro 7:15–25; 8:2–8; Gal 5:19–21). Satan uses the evil world system to incite the flesh. eyes. Satan uses the eyes as a strategic avenue to incite wrong desires (Jos 7:20, 21; 2Sa 11:2; Mt 5:27–29). Satan’s temptation of Eve involved being attracted to something beautiful in appearance, but the result was spiritual death (Ge 3:6 “a delight to the eyes”). pride of life. The phrase has the idea of arrogance over one’s circumstances, which produced haughtiness or exaggeration, parading what one possessed to impress other people (Jas 4:16). not from the Father. The world is the enemy of the Christian because it is in rebellion and opposition against God and controlled by Satan (5:19; Eph 2:2; 2Co 4:4; 10:3–5). The 3 openings presented, if allowing access to sin, result in tragedy. Not only must the Christian reject the world for what it is but also for what it does.

2:17 The world is passing away. The Christian also must not love the satanic world system because of its temporary nature. It is in the continual process of disintegration, headed for destruction (Ro 8:18–22). the one who does the will of God lives forever. In contrast to the temporary world, God’s will is permanent and unchangeable. Those who follow God’s will abide as His people forever. While God offers eternal life to His children, the present age is doomed (cf. 1Co 7:31; 2Co 4:18).1

1 John F. MacArthur Jr., The MacArthur Study Bible: New American Standard Bible. (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2006), 1 Jn 2:15–17.

Exhortation (vv. 15–27) is needed since experience (vv. 12–14) is not perfect. Doctrine gives place to ethical demands. Note the three contrasts (love of the world/Father; from the world/Father; world passes away/Christian abides forever). Love may be both withheld (vv. 9–11) and misplaced (2 John 10). The Christian must not love (the first direct command in the letter [2:24, 27, 28; 3:7; 4:1 (two times); 5:21]) the evil system opposed to God and consisting of worldly things. This is selfish love (contrast John 3:16) having as its goal participation in the world of evil. Two reasons support the command. First, love for the Father (or, the Father’s love) and love for the world are mutually exclusive (vv. 15–16; Matt. 6:24; Luke 16:13; James 4:13–15).

The things in the world are threefold (v. 16). Lust of the flesh is sinful desire or cravings arising from fallen human nature. Lust of the eyes is sinful desire that is triggered by the things a person sees. The pride of life is arrogance, a boastfulness produced by a false estimate of external circumstances and possessions (cf. 3:17; Luke 12:15). It also may be defined as boasting about externals, or may include both ideas: “pride in one’s life style.” Note the trilogy of the world, the flesh, and the devil. The second reason (v. 17) not to love the world is that it and lust for (or, belonging to) it are transitory (vv. 8–9), whereas the Christian abides forever (1 Cor. 7:31; 2 Cor. 4:18; 2 Pet. 3:7–13; Rev. 21). As the Father and Son are eternal, so is the life of each one in Christ (John 8:35; 12:34–36; 15:4, 16).1

1 James B. De Young, “1-3 John,” in Evangelical Commentary on the Bible, vol. 3, Baker Reference Library (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1995), 1181.

1 John 2:15 (a)

Love not the world . . .

The Greek use of the word “world” is clear: It doesn’t refer to people, but rather to the philosophy and mentality of the world system.

1 John 2:15 (b), 16

…neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

If the San Francisco 49’ers approached their game next week with only three plays in their playbook—a sweep around the left, a run up the middle, and a screen pass to the right—and the opposing team knew they had only three plays, I guarantee they wouldn’t win.

From the beginning of time, Satan has had only three plays: the lust of the eyes, the lust of the flesh, and the pride of life.…

In Genesis 3:6, we read that Eve saw that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was good for food (the lust of the flesh), pleasant to the eyes (the lust of the eyes), and would make one wise (the pride of life).

In Matthew 4, we read that Satan tried to tempt Jesus to turn stones into bread (the lust of the flesh), to look at the kingdoms that could be His (the lust of the eyes), and to prove Himself to the people by jumping from a pinnacle (the pride of life).

To this day, every temptation, every attack from the Enemy and every worldly seduction falls into one of these three categories because Satan has no other plays. Therefore, to counter the lust of the flesh, do what Paul did when he said, “I don’t allow my body to have mastery over me” (see 1 Corinthians 9:27). To counter the lust of the eyes, do what David did when he said, “I will set no wicked thing before my eyes” (see Psalm 101:3). To counter the pride of life, do what Jesus did when He humbled Himself and made Himself of no reputation (Philippians 2:7).

1 John 2:17

And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.

All that is in the world is based upon the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life. But it’s all going to pass away.1

1 Jon Courson, Jon Courson’s Application Commentary (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2003), 1620.

15–17: WORLDLY WAYWARDNESS The person pursuing a lifestyle of loving the world does not know God or the Father’s love. The trinity of evil—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—are the basis of this passing world. They are to be contrasted with God’s will which lasts for ever and blesses the Christian who seeks to do it now. The world and its things are to be rejected. Love for and obedience to God are to be embraced.11 Gerard Chrispin, The Bible Panorama: Enjoying the Whole Bible with a Chapter-by-Chapter Guide (Leominster, UK: Day One Publications, 2005), 551.

15 ἀγαπᾶτε impv -πάω. τὰ ἐν τ. κόσμῳ the things of the world, here esp. as distractions from the service of God, ὁ κ. at times denoting the kingdom of sin actively hostile to God, at others, secular society estranged from and ignoring the kingdom of God. ἀγαπᾷ subj. ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ πατρός generalized gen. signifying the whole complex relation between ἀγάπη and πατήρ: in Jn man’s love for the Father is grounded in the love with which he first loved us §36.

16 ἐπι-θυμία desire, appos. to πᾶν. σαρκός gen. subjective, ἐπιθυμία σ. sensual appetite. ἐπιθ. τ. ὀφθαλμῶν the lustful eye (JB). ἀλαζονεία ostentation; fostered by material things. βίος daily life; means of subsistence, worldly goods. οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ does not come from.

17 παρ-άγεται v. 8. αὐτοῦ of / for it, obj. gen. ποιῶν ptc ποιέω, pres. den. habitually. εἰς τ. αἰῶνα for ever.1

1 Max Zerwick and Mary Grosvenor, A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testament (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1974), 728.

Notes for 2:16

37 tn The genitive βίου (biou) is difficult to translate: (1) Many understand it as objective, so that βίος (bios, “material life”) becomes the object of one’s ἀλαζονεία (alazoneia; “pride” or “boastfulness”). Various interpretations along these lines refer to boasting about one’s wealth, showing off one’s possessions, boasting of one’s social status or lifestyle. (2) It is also possible to understand the genitive as subjective, however, in which case the βίος itself produces the ἀλαζονεία. In this case, the material security of one’s life and possessions produces a boastful overconfidence. This understanding better fits the context here: The focus is on people who operate purely on a human level and have no spiritual dimension to their existence. This is the person who loves the world, whose affections are all centered on the world, who has no love for God or spiritual things (“the love of the Father is not in him,” 2:15).

sn The arrogance produced by material possessions. The person who thinks he has enough wealth and property to protect himself and insure his security has no need for God (or anything outside himself).

Notes for 2:17

38 tn See note on the translation of the Greek verb μένω (menō) in 2:6. The translation “remain” is used for μένω (menō) here because the context contrasts the transience of the world and its desires with the permanence of the person who does God’s will.1

1 Biblical Studies Press, The NET Bible First Edition Notes (Biblical Studies Press, 2006), 1 Jn 2:15–17.

2:15 (Do) not lovea the worldb nor the (things) inc the world.

LEXICON—a. pres. act. impera. of ἀγαπάω (LN 25.104) (BAGD 2. p. 5): ‘to love’ [AB, BAGD, HNTC, LN, Lns, WBC; all versions except NAB, REB], ‘to have love for’ [NAB], ‘to set one’s heart on’ [REB], ‘to take pleasure in’ [LN]. It means to have a high esteem for something [BAGD].

b. κόσμος (LN 41.38; 1.39) (BAGD 6. p. 446): ‘world’ [AB, BAGD, HNTC, LN, Lns; all versions]. The phrase ‘the things in the world’ is translated ‘worldly things’ [WBC].

c. ἐν with dative object (LN 89.5): ‘in’ [AB, HNTC, Lns; all versions except NAB, TEV], not explicit [WBC]. This preposition is also translated ‘to afford’ [NAB], ‘to belong to’ [TEV].

QUESTION—How is this verse related to its context?

The author turns from describing the church to describing the world and the church’s attitude towards it [TNTC, Ws]. He appeals to the readers on the basis of their Christian standing just affirmed in verses 2:12–14 [ICC, Ws]. It is yet another test for walking in the light [EBC, ICC, WBC] and gives another difference between believers and the false teachers [EBC].

QUESTION—What does the use of the present tense of the verb indicate?

1. The present imperative with the negative μή implies that they are already engaged in loving the world [Brd, NTC]: stop loving the world. This either implies that to some extent all of the believers love the world [Brd] or that only some of the believers love the world [NTC].

2. The present imperative forbids a course of action but without any implication as to whether or not they are now loving the world [ Lns]: do not be in the state of loving the world.

QUESTION—What is meant by τὸν κόσμον ‘the world’?

The ‘world’ is the system of all that is opposed to God [Brd, EBC, Lns, TH, TNTC]. It is human society controlled by evil [Alf, NIC, WBC, Ws]. It is fallen mankind and all that it lives for [My]. It includes all unregenerate people and their attitudes [Brd]. It is all human concerns apart from God [Herm]. It is dominated by Satan [Brd, EBC, Lns, My, TH, TNTC]. Another view takes the world to be all that God made. Although not evil in itself, it is transitory and not the supreme end for Christians [EGT].

QUESTION—What is meant by loving the world?

The ‘love’ mentioned here is selfish desire [Alf, TNTC] and avarice [Alf]. It is an attitude of esteeming the world to be of utmost value [Brd]. It is the attraction to what a person thinks he will enjoy [NIC]. It means striving after or coveting things [TH]. It means depending or relying on the world [EGT, Herm].

QUESTION—What is meant by τὰ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ ‘the things in the world’?

It is whatever the world offers [TH]. It refers to the objects that are desired by people [ICC]. Some take it to be all the material things that are transient, even good things [EGT]. Others take it to be just those objects that are desired by ungodly people [Alf]. They are the individual things, pleasures, and honors in the world that are hostile to God [ Lns, My].

Ifa anyone loves the world, the loveb of-the father is not inc him;

LEXICON—a. ἐάν (LN 89.67): ‘if’ [AB, HNTC, Lns, WBC; all versions except REB], not explicit [REB]. This introduces a hypothetical statement to support the preceding prohibition [Brd]. It gives the first reason why one should not love the world [EBC].

b. ἀγάπη: ‘love’. This noun is also translated by a verb: ‘to love’ [REB, TEV]. See this word at 2:5.

c. ἐν with dative object (LN 89.119): ‘in’ [AB, HNTC, Lns, WBC; all versions except REB, TEV], not explicit [REB, TEV].

QUESTION—How are the two nouns related in the genitive construction ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ πατρός ‘the love of the Father’?

1. It means a person’s love for the Father [Alf, Brd, EBC, My, NIC, NTC, TNTC, Ws; NRSV, REB, TEV, TNT]: if anyone loves the world, then he does not love the Father. By stating that this love is not ‘in him’, he means that it is not a continuing principle [Brd]. The two loves are incompatible [NIC, TNTC].

2. It means the Father’s love for the person [HNTC, Lns; NAB]: if anyone loves the world, then the Father does not love him. Such a person prevents the Father from loving him and coming into his heart to dwell [ Lns].

3. It means both the Father’s love for the person and the person’s love for the Father [TH, WBC]: if anyone loves the world, then he does not love the Father and the Father does not love him. Love for the world works against love for the Father, a love that both answers and derives from the Father’s love for him [WBC]. Other commentators mention this connection and do not decide on the first two possibilities [EGT, Herm].

2:16 becausea all (that is) inb the world,c

LEXICON—a. ὅτι (LN 89.33): ‘because’ [LN, Lns; NJB], ‘for’ [AB, HNTC, WBC; all versions except NJB, REB, TEV], ‘since’ [LN], not explicit [REB, TEV].

b. ἐν with dative object (LN 89.5): ‘in’ [AB, HNTC, Lns, WBC; all versions except NAB, TEV]. This preposition is also translated by a verb: ‘to belong to’ [TEV], ‘(that the world) affords’ [NAB].

c. κόσμος: ‘world’. See this word at 2:15.

QUESTION—What relationship is indicated by ὅτι ‘because’?

1. It indicates the grounds for saying that love for God and love for the world and the things in it are incompatible [Alf, Brd, Herm, Lns, My, NIC, TH, WBC].

2. It indicates the grounds for saying that God’s love for him is not in him [ Lns].

the desirea of-the fleshb

LEXICON—a. ἐπιθυμία (LN 25.20) (BAGD 3. p. 293): ‘desire’ [AB, BAGD, HNTC, LN, WBC; NRSV], ‘lust’ [LN, Lns; KJV, NASB, TNT], ‘allurements’ [NAB], ‘cravings’ [NIV], ‘all that panders to’ [REB], ‘disordered desires’ [NJB], ‘what is desired’ [TEV].

b. σάρξ (LN 26.7) (BAGD 7. p. 744): ‘flesh’ [BAGD, HNTC, Lns; KJV, NASB, NRSV], ‘appetites’ [REB], ‘human nature’ [AB], ‘sinful man’ [NIV], ‘sinful self’ [TEV]. This noun is also translated as an adjective: ‘sinful’ [WBC], ‘carnal’ [NAB], ‘bodily’ [NJB], ‘the world’s (lusts)’ [TNT].

QUESTION—How are this and the following two clauses connected with ‘the things of the world’ in the preceding clause?

They are examples of what is meant by ‘all that is in the world’ [AB, Alf, Brd, Herm, ICC, Lns, My, NIC, NTC, TH, TNTC, WBC]. They explain that what is meant is attitudes and not material things [Brd]. They represent the three kinds of temptations [EGT, NIC, Ws].

QUESTION—How are the two nouns related in the genitive construction ἡ ἐπιθυμία τῆς σαρκός ‘the desire of the flesh’?

The desires are caused by the flesh [AB, Alf, Brd, EGT, ICC, Lns, My, NCBC, NIC, TH, TNTC, WBC, Ws]. These are the desires which appeal to a person to gratify his human nature as corrupted by sin [ICC, Lns]. Although ‘desire’ is a morally neutral word [NIC, TH, WBC], in this context, the desires are evil and sinful [Brd, Lns, NCBC, NIC, NTC, TH, WBC]. ‘Flesh’ means the unrenewed human nature [AB, Alf, NCBC], which is fallen [TNTC, WBC], depraved [ Lns], sinful [NTC, TNTC], and corrupted [My]. It is the sinful tendency in human nature [Brd], a disposition of hostility toward God [NIC, WBC].

and the desirea of-the eyesb

LEXICON—a. ἐπιθυμία (LN 25.20) (BAGD 3. p. 293): ‘desire’ [BAGD, HNTC, LN; NRSV], ‘lust’ [ Lns; KJV, NASB, NIV], ‘hungry for all they see’ [AB], ‘craving for’ [WBC], ‘desire for something forbidden’ [BAGD], ‘enticements’ [NAB], ‘covetousness’ [TNT], ‘disordered desire’ [NJB], ‘all that entices’ [REB], ‘what people want’ [TEV].

b. ὀφθαλμός (LN 8.23, 24.16) (BAGD 1. p. 599): ‘eye’ [AB, BAGD, HNTC, LN, Lns; all versions except TEV, TNT], ‘what is seen’ [WBC], ‘what people see’ [TEV], not explicit [TNT].

QUESTION—How are the two nouns related in the genitive construction ἡ ἐπιθυμία τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν ‘the desire of the eyes’?

The desire is caused by what people see [AB, Alf, EBC, Herm, HNTC, Lns, NCBC, NIC, NTC, TH, TNTC, WBC; TEV, TNT]. They desire what they see. The basic attitude is greed [EBC, HNTC, NIC] and lust [HNTC]. A person’s sinful desires are aroused chiefly by what he sees [TH], whether objects or people are viewed [NCBC]. Some think that it is a desire that is satisfied by looking at some object [Brd, ICC, My]. This is the type of desire that takes pleasure in viewing sinful things [My].

QUESTION—What is the relationship between ἐπιθυμία τῆς σαρκός ‘lust/ desire of the flesh’ and ἐπιθυμία τῆς ὀφθαλμῶν ‘lust/desire of the eyes’?

1. The desire of the flesh is all wrong desire and is a generic term that includes the more specific desire of the eyes [ICC, NIC, WBC]. The sinful desires of the flesh are further defined by describing two possible aspects of it [WBC]. The desires of the sinful nature are stimulated by what the eyes see and expresses itself in outward show [NIC].

2. The desire of the flesh refers to the temptations within one’s grasp to enjoy, while the desire of the eyes is generic and includes all you can imagine as well [ Lns].

3. They are separate evils. They are two types of temptations. The desire of the flesh is speaking of internally inspired temptation from our human nature and the desire of the eyes is the external temptations from things and people [AB, My, NCBC, TNTC, Ws].

and the pridea of-life,b

LEXICON—a. ἀλαζονεία (LN 88.219) (BAGD p. 34): ‘pride’ [HNTC, WBC; KJV, NJB, NRSV], ‘boastful pride’ [NASB], ‘pretentious pride’ [LN], ‘boasting’ [NIV], ‘boastful haughtiness’ [LN], ‘empty pride’ [TNT], ‘pretensions’ [BAGD, Lns], ‘arrogance’ [BAGD; REB], ‘false arrogance’ [LN], ‘inflated self-assurance’ [AB], ‘empty show’ [NAB], ‘everything that people are proud of’ [TEV].

b. βίος (LN 57.18) (BAGD 3. p. 142): ‘life’ [KJV, NAB, NASB], ‘life style’ [WBC], ‘possessions’ [HNTC, LN; NJB, TNT], ‘worldly possessions’ [LN], ‘riches’ [NRSV], ‘wealth’ [REB], ‘means of subsistence’ [BAGD], ‘livelihood’ [LN], ‘property’ [BAGD, LN], ‘material life’ [AB], ‘course of life’ [ Lns], ‘what he has and does’ [NIV], ‘(everything) in this world’ [TEV].

QUESTION—How are the two nouns related in the genitive construction ἡ ἀλαζονεία τοῦ βίου ‘the pride of life’?

The object of one’s pride is life [Alf, Brd, EBC, HNTC, ICC, Lns, NCBC, NIC, NTC, TNTC, WBC]. Some commentators take ‘life’ to mean what sustains life: one’s livelihood, wealth, and possessions [AB, Brd, HNTC, ICC, LN, NCBC, NIC, TH; NJB, NRSV, REB, TNT]. Others take it to mean one’s life style and social status [ Lns, WBC]. Others think that it means both the means of life, such as possessions and income, and the manner of life, such as one’s self, status, and deeds [Alf, EBC, NTC, TNTC]. Pride is derived from one’s life [AB, Herm, My, NCBC, TH]. It is an arrogance that comes from having possessions or power [NCBC].

isa not fromb the father, butc is from the world.

LEXICON—a. pres. act. indic. of εἰμί (LN 13.1): ‘to be’ [HNTC, Lns; KJV, NASB, NJB], ‘to derive’ [WBC], ‘to come’ [NAB, NIV, NRSV, TEV, TNT], ‘to spring’ [REB], ‘to belong to’ [AB].

b. ἐκ with genitive object (LN 89.3) (BAGD 3.b p. 235): ‘from’ [HNTC, LN, WBC; all versions except KJV], ‘origin’ [BAGD], ‘of’ [KJV], ‘out of’ [ Lns], not explicit [AB].

c. ἀλλά (LN 89.125): ‘but’ [HNTC, Lns, WBC; all versions except NAB, TEV], ‘all that’ [AB], not explicit [NAB, TEV].

QUESTION—What relationship is indicated by ἐκ ‘from’?

1. It refers to the source of something [Alf, BAGD, Brd, ICC, Lns, NTC, WBC]: God doesn’t cause these, the world does. These desires are not what God endowed humanity with [ICC].

2. It is showing close identification with [AB, My, TH]: these things aren’t godly, but worldly. Anything in the ‘world’ belongs to the world, not to God [AB].

2:17 And the worlda is-passing-awayb and the desirec of-it;

LEXICON—a. κόσμος: ‘world’. See this word at 2:15, 2:16.

b. pres. pass. indic. of παράγω (LN 13.93) (BAGD 1.b. p. 613): ‘to pass away’ [AB, BAGD, LN, Lns, WBC; all versions], ‘to disappear’ [BAGD], ‘to be transient’ [HNTC]. See this word at 2:8.

c. ἐπιθυμία (LN 25.20) (BAGD 3. p. 293): ‘desire’ [AB, BAGD, HNTC, LN, WBC; NIV, NRSV], ‘lust’ [LN, Lns; KJV, NASB], ‘seductions’ [NAB], ‘allurement’ [REB], ‘disordered desire’ [NJB], ‘everything that people desire’ [TEV], ‘all (the world) offers to satisfy men’s desires’ [TNT].

QUESTION—How is this verse related to its context?

It is the second grounds for giving the exhortation ‘do not love the world’ (2:15) [EBC, My, NIC, TH, TNTC, WBC, Ws]: do not love the world because (1) love for the world and love for God are mutually exclusive and (2) the world is coming to an end.

QUESTION—What is meant by the passing away of the world?

The present tense indicates that it is now in the process of passing away [Alf, Brd, Lns, TH, TNTC, WBC; NAB, NASB, NJB, NRSV, REB] and this continuous process will eventually be completed [TH, WBC]. One commentator takes the view that this is middle voice instead of passive, with the reflexive meaning that the world’s attitudes and practices cause its own destruction [Brd]. This ‘world’ is not the created world as such, but the external system of worldly things and desires [AB, WBC, Ws]. It includes ungodly men [Alf]. It is described in 2:8 as the passing away of the darkness [AB, Brd, My, NCBC, NIC, TNTC, WBC]. It is in the process of being purified [EBC]. It is also possible that there is a reference to the created world which is even now in the process of coming to an end [AB, My, WBC]. A few commentators think that instead of meaning that the world is now in the process of passing away, the expression means that the world is transitory in nature [Herm, HNTC, ICC].

QUESTION—How are the event noun and pronoun related in the genitive construction ἡ ἐπιθυμία αὐτοῦ ‘the desire of it’?

1. ‘It’ refers to the agent of the desire [AB, Alf, Brd, EGT, HNTC, ICC, My, TH]. It means that what the world lusts after will pass away [TH]. It means that the sinful desires which belong to the world system will pass away [AB, WBC, Ws]. It means that the desires aroused by the world will pass away [ICC, TH, Ws]. It is also true that these desires are directed toward the things in the world [WBC, Ws].

2. ‘It’ refers to the goal of the desire [Br, Lns, NIC; TEV]: all the worldly things that people lust for will pass away. When the world passes away, so will the desire for it [Br]. Those who lust for the world will find that all they take pleasure in will be gone, leaving them in endless remorse [ Lns]. It is possible that ‘desire’ is a metonymy standing for the person who desires the things in the world. Such a desire will cause the person to pass away along with the world1

1 John Anderson, An Exegetical Summary of 1, 2, and 3 John, 2nd ed. (Dallas, TX: SIL International, 2008), 63–68.

2:15

In his sermon on this verse, entitled “An Ill Match Wel Broken Off,” Fuller said:

“As that must needs be a deformed face, wherein there is a transposition of the colours, the blewnesse of the vines being set in the lips, the rednesse which should be in the cheeks, in the nose; so, alas! most mishapen is our soule, since Adams fall, whereby our affections are so inverted, Ioy stands where Griefe should, Griefe in the place of Ioy. Wee are bold where wee should feare, feare where we should be bold; love what wee should hate, hate what wee should love.” depravity

Fuller, Thomas: The Collected Sermons of Thomas Fuller, D.D. 1631–1659 1: P185

Peter of Blois (died in 1200) said:

“The world is a treacherous lover, and deceives the souls for which it lies in wait.”

Neale, J. M.: Mediaeval Preachers and Mediaeval Preaching. A Series of Extracts, Translated from the Sermons of the Middle Ages, Chronologically Arranged: With Notes and an Introduction: P197

Sometimes Christians have gone overboard in their concerns over worldliness, as the history of the churches in Bath, Maine, illustrate: “The Old Brick, where Baptists worshiped, took in a stove in 1820, and the Methodist meetinghouse, where the Wesley Church now stands, commenced warming up in November 1822. At first there was much opposition to placing stoves in churches. It has been stated that Mr. Ellingwood once related that when a stove was first put up in the North Church, and when there was no fire in it, a Mrs. Blasland who was in the church arose and went out, declaring that she could not stand the heat.” worldliness

Reed, Parker McCobb: History of Bath and Environs, Sagadahoc County, Maine. 1607–1894. With Illustrations: P471

Vincent quoted Philo who wrote: “It is impossible for love to the world to coexist with love to God, as it is impossible for light and darkness to coexist.”

Vincent, Marvin R.: Word Studies in the New Testament 1: P530

2:16

Boasting of what he has and does has traditionally been rendered “pride of life.” Manton commented: “ ‘Pride of life’ is last mentioned, 1 John 2:16, because it is last mortified; it groweth with the decrease of other sins, and thriveth by their decay.” pride

Manton, Thomas: The Complete Works of Thomas Manton 4: P272

In a April 25, 1852, sermon on this text, Robertson said:

“Worldliness then consists in three things: Attachment to the outward—attachment to the transitory—attachment to the unreal: in opposition to love for the inward, the eternal, the true: and the one of these affections is necessarily expelled by the other.” worldliness

Robertson, Frederick W: Sermons Preached at Brighton: P337

“It is to be remembered that this threefold form has likewise a threefold manifestation—the ‘lust of the flesh’ has a sensual form; the ‘lust of the eyes,’ an earthly form; the ‘pride of life,’ a devilish form. Lust makes a man sensual; avarice makes him earthly; pride makes him like the devil.”

Thomas Aquinas: The Homilies of St. Thomas Aquinas: On the Epistles and Gospels for the Sundays of the Christian Year to Which Are Appended the Feast-Day Homilies: P211

1 Paul V. Harrison, Classical Study Bible, n.d., 1 Jn 2:15–16.

The love of the world is here declared to be irreconcilable with the love of the Father. “If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him” (ver 15). And the declaration applies to “the things that are in the world,” comprehending “all that is in the world.” These are represented under three categories or heads, “the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life” (ver. 16). They are afterwards reduced to one, “the lust of the world” (ver. 17); but in the meantime we have to consider them as three. And, in that view, the sixteenth verse is to be regarded, not as giving the reason for the command in the fifteenth, but rather as explanatory of its nature; bringing out the contrast between the two incompatible objects of love, the Father on the one hand, and on the other hand the world, whatever form its lust may take.

Plainly the world is here represented as an order of things very thoroughly complete in itself; self-contained and self-developing. “All that is in the world” is “of the world.” No foreign elements are suffered to intrude; or if they do, the world speedily accommodates and assimilates them to itself. For the world,—what is it? Fallen human nature acting itself out in the human family; moulding and fashioning the framework of human society in accordance with its own tendencies. It is fallen human nature making the ongoings of human thought, feeling, and action its own. It is the reign or kingdom of “the carnal mind,” which is “enmity against God, and is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.” Wherever that mind prevails, there is the world.

“The things that are in the world” correspond in character to the world itself. The love therefore of any of them is equivalent to the love of the world.

I may seem to be, and may suppose that I am, separated from the world. I may have renounced companionship with that visible outstanding circle, in regard to which, as a whole, it may be too plainly seen that it does not admit the true light to shine in it, but is still in the darkness which that light chases away. For there is a circle which may be thus collectively identified. There is a tolerably well-defined mode of life which a spiritual man cannot but recognise as worldly; and there are a set of people who so manifestly conform themselves to that mode of life, and that alone, as to make it impossible for the most tolerant Christian charity to characterise them otherwise than as worldly persons. Let that then be the world, broadly considered. Now I have withdrawn myself from that world; I have no sympathy with its general tone and spirit; I am attached to another order of things. So far, I think I may say that I do not love the world. In its corporate capacity, as it were, it has lost its hold over me.

But “the things that are in the world,” viewed separately and in detail, may have attractions for me still. I may love them, or some of them, or one of them. If so, it is the same thing to me as if I loved the world itself in the mass. The love of what is in the world, is really the love of the world. Hence the necessity for breaking up the general notion of “the world” into its contents, “the things that are in the world.”

The things that are in the world which may attract love, as distinct objects of desire, even when the world as a whole seems to be discarded, are too manifold to be enumerated. But they may be classified; if not according to their own properties or qualities; at any rate, according to the inward dispositions to which they appeal. The apostle thus classifies them under three heads. “All that is in the world” is distributed into “the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life.” To these three harpies of the soul the world ministers.

First, there is “the lust of the flesh.” The genitive or possessive here—“of the flesh”—denotes, not the object of the desire, but its nature. It is lust of desire of a carnal sort; such as the flesh prompts or occasions. It is the appetite of sense out of order, or in excess. It is not, of course, the appetite of sense itself; that is of God, as the provision for its satisfaction is also of God. The appetite for which food is God’s appointed ordinance, and the appetite for which marriage is God’s appointed ordinance,—the general needs and cravings of the body which the laws of nature and the gifts of providence so fully meet,—the higher tastes which fair forms and sweet sounds delight,—the eye for beauty and the ear or the soul for music;—these are not, any of them, the lust of the flesh. But they all, every one of them, may become the lust of the flesh. And in the world they do become the lust of the flesh. It is the world’s aim to pervert them into the lust of the flesh, and to pander to them in that character, either grossly or with refinement. All its arrangements, its giddy sports and anxious toils, tend in that direction. Sensuality, or that modification of it now spoken of as sensuousness, enters largely into the world’s fascinating cup. And it may be detached plausibly from what is avowedly and confessedly the world; it may be covertly loved, while the world, as such, is apparently hated. Gluttony, drunkenness, uncleanness; the rage for physical or æsthetical excitement which the ball, the theatre, the gaming-table, if not worse excesses, must appease;—these forms or modifications of the lust of the flesh may not be for us the most insidious. It may creep into our affections disguised almost as an angel of light. A certain fondness for the good things of this life, an unwillingness to forego them, a pleasant feeling of fulness in the enjoyment of them, a growing impatience of any interruption of that enjoyment,—how soon may such a way of tasting even the lawful gratifications of sense grow into selfishness and sin! And then how readily does the imagination admit ideas and fancies the reverse of pure! Through how many channels, the news of the day, the gems of literature, the choicest trophies of the fine arts, poesy, sculpture, song, may unholy desire be kindled! I may be out of the world; but this that is in the world, “the lust of the flesh,” may not be out of me.

There is, secondly, “the lust of the eyes.” This must be distinct from the lust of the flesh. It cannot therefore be that “looking on a woman to lust after her,” which the Lord holds to be the commission of adultery in the heart; or that “looking upon the wine-cup when it is red,” against which Solomon warns us. The lust of the eyes is something different. It is lust or desire having its proper seat in the region of contemplation, or of onlooking. It is not merely that the flesh lusts through the eyes, or that the eyes minister to the lust of the flesh. The eyes themselves have their own lust. It is lust that can be satisfied with mere sight; which the lust of the flesh never is, nor can be. It is a feeling of such a sort that a bare look or gaze may please or may offend it. For example, I cannot stand the sight of more good in my neighbour’s possession than in my own. I would be relieved if I saw him worse off than I am. That is to a great extent the instinct of corrupt humanity; it is the way of the world. And it is one of the world’s ways that, even when I renounce the world, I am still apt to follow, or that is apt to follow me. I may be one in whom the world’s sensual or sensuous delights no longer stimulate the lust of the flesh. But my eyes are pained when I see the giddy crowd so happy and secure. My bosom swells and my blood boils when I am forced to look on villany triumphant and vice caressed. It may be all righteous zeal and virtuous wrath; a pure desire to witness wrong redressed and justice done. But, alas! as I yield to it, I find it fast assuming a worse character. I would not myself be partaker of the sinful happiness I see the world enjoying; but I grudge the world’s enjoyment of it. “I was envious,” says David (Ps. 73), “at the foolish, when I saw the prosperity of the wicked.” That was his temptation; it was his infirmity; it formed the sad burden of more than one of his most plaintive Psalms. It was the love of the world in one of its most stealthy and dangerous forms, winning its way into his heart, and supplanting there, for a time, the love of God.

Once more, thirdly, there is “the pride of life.” Self-indulgence, or “the lust of the flesh,” and envious grudging, or “the lust of the eyes,” might seem to exhaust “all that is in the world.” The whole substance of “the world and the things of the world” is reducible to these two heads, or may be regarded in these two lights: what I long to possess and enjoy myself, and what I cannot calmly bear to see possessed and enjoyed by another. These two views of it exhaust the whole of what is substantial in the world. But the show, the shadow, the semblance, as well as the substance, is something to the world’s vanity, or to my vanity with reference to the world. Nay, it is much; the world’s manifold conventionalisms, for they are indeed manifold, prove it to be much. What pains are taken in the world to save appearances and keep up a seemly and goodly state! It is a business all but reduced to system. Its means and appliances are ceremony and feigned civility. Life is to be ostensibly, nay even ostentatiously, all right. All is to be in good taste and in good style; correct, creditable, commendable. It is the world’s pride to have it so. What is otherwise must be somehow toned down or shaded off; concealed or coloured. Falsehood may be necessary; a false code of honour; false notions of duty, as between man and man, or between man and woman; false liberality and spurious delicacy. Still the world does contrive, by means of all that, to get up and keep up a proud life of its own; a life grand and graceful; having its decencies and respectabilities; yes, and its charities, courtesies, and chivalries too; all very imposing in themselves, and altogether contributing to make the world’s life very imposing as a whole.

That I take to be the “pride of life” in the world. In one aspect, it is undoubtedly mean enough. It sets in motion a game of diplomacy and a race of emulation most destructive of all the truer and finer instincts even of unrenewed humanity. It debauches conscience, and is fatal to high aims. It puts the men and women of the world on a poor struggle to out-manœuvre and outshine one another, to outdo one another, for the most part, in mere externals; while, with all manner of politeness, they affect to give one another credit for what they all know to be little better than shams. Nevertheless, the general effect, I repeat, is imposing. The world’s “pride of life” is something to be proud of after all.

Now of this “pride of life” it is by no means easy even for those who do not love the world to keep themselves altogether clear. It is, as it were, their last worldly weakness. The lust of the flesh may be mortified, crucified, nailed to the cross of Christ; the lust of the eyes may be overcome by the mighty power of love, the love which “envieth not;” and yet the pride of life may cleave to me. It is so difficult to have done with the world’s seemings, and to come out simply as what I am.

Need I suggest how many sad instances of religious inconsistency and worldly conformity spring from this source? I may acquit you of sensuality or sensuousness, and of selfish jealousy; you are free, as to both of these instruments of the world’s power. But what of its opinion? Have you learned to defy it, or to be independent of it? Can you dispense with the world’s approval and brave its frown? Do you not sometimes find yourselves more afraid or ashamed of a breach of worldly etiquette,—some apparent descent from the customary platform of worldly respectability,—than of such a concession to the world’s forms and fashions as may compromise your integrity in the sight of God, and your right to acquit yourselves of guile? The opinion of the world! What the world will think or say! Ah! that pitiful consideration may often sway or embarrass you when you have no selfish longing or envious grudge to gratify. To a large extent, it is identical with that “fear of man which bringeth a snare.” It puts you at the mercy of the idle thoughts and idle words of any onlooker who may presume to judge you. You cannot acquit yourselves altogether of the love of the world so long as you have in your hearts that liking for the world’s good report, or that sensitiveness to the world’s censure, which “the pride of life” implies.

And now, for practical use, let three remarks be made.

1. Of “all that is in the world” it is said that “it is not of the Father, but of the world.” This may be true of things good in themselves, the best things even, when they come to be things “in the world.” They may be of the Father originally, in their true and proper nature; but the world appropriates them and makes them its own; and so they cease to be of the Father, and are now simply of the world. The choicest blessings of home, the holiest ordinances of religion, the very gospel itself, may thus come, when once “in the world,” to be “of the world.” Be not then deceived. Much that meets your eye, as you look on the world and the world’s ways, may seem fair and excellent; graces most attractive, devotions most comely and fervent, amenities most winning, philanthropies most admirable. But God is not really in them all. They “are not of the Father.” A pure and simple regard to his will is not their animating spirit. They are “of the world.” There is nothing in them that rises above the natural influences of self-love and social, as these are blended “in the world.”

Again, 2. “All that is in the world is of the world,” wherever it may be found. The three world-powers or world principles are, always and everywhere, “not of the Father but of the world.” They may be in the Father’s house; they may be in the hearts of the Father’s children; but they are none the better for their being there. They are not themselves cleansed or hallowed by what they come in contact with, however pure and however holy. But all that they touch they smite with leprosy and wither into impotent paralysis. Let us beware then of letting into the sanctuary and shrine of our soul, now become the dwelling-place of God by his Spirit, anything that savours of the world’s sloth and self-indulgence, or of the world’s jealousy and envy, or of the world’s vain pomp and pride. No matter though, as we think, we do not now love the world, but are separated from its friendship, if still we love any of the things of the world. For “all that is in the world is not of the Father, but of the world.” And “if any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.”

Finally, 3. Let us remember that the world which we are not to love, because “all that is in it is not of the Father but is of the world,” is yet itself the object of a love on the part of the Father, with which, as his children, having in us his love, we are to sympathise. “God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” This is said of the very world which we are commanded not to love; and of that world viewed in the very aspect on account of which we are commanded not to love it; as having nothing in it that is really “of the Father.” “God so loved this world,” this very world, thus viewed, having nothing in it or about it that he can recognise as his own, as what he made and meant it originally to be, “that he gave his only begotten Son” on its behalf. And he calls upon us so to love it too; with the same sort of love, and with love moving us to the same sort of effort and the same sort of sacrifice. And it is our so loving the world as the Father has loved it, that will be our best security against loving it as the Father forbids us to love it. Let the world be to us what it is to the Father. Let us look at it as the Father looks at it; as a deep dark mass of guilt, ungodliness, and woe. Let us plunge in to the rescue. Let us lay hold of that young man, whom, as we behold him, like Jesus, we cannot help loving. Let us snatch him, for he is not safe, as a brand out of the burning. If we love the world as God loves it, we will have no heart for loving it in any other way. Its attractions, its fascinations, its amiabilities, its sentimentalisms, will have no charm for us. We see in them only snares to catch and ruin souls that we,—that God,—would have to be saved. We cannot love, with any love of complacency, the world which we love in sympathy with him who “sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.”

XIII

THE GUILELESS SPIRIT, AMID THE DARK WORLD’S FLOW, ESTABLISHED IN THE LIGHT OF GODLINESS

“And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.”—1 John 2:17.

The expression here used concerning the world and its lust, is the same as that used in the eighth verse concerning the darkness: it is “passing away.” The world, with its lust, is in this respect identical with the darkness. They partake at least of a common quality or property; they pass, or are passing.

There is more meant here than merely that “the things which are seen are temporal.” The fleeting nature of this whole earthly scene is doubtless a useful topic of reflection; but it is not exactly what is suggested in this verse. The idea of the darkness being a vanishing element is still the leading thought. The prince of darkness, though he may keep up appearances for a while, is like a beaten foe, drawing off from the disputed territory. Through the shining of the true light, the darkness is passing; and in the same sense “the world passeth away, and the lust thereof.” “But he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever,” for he is one in whom, as in Christ, “the darkness is passing, and the true light now shineth.”

1. The characteristic of the world is that it does not “do the will of God;” it is the sphere or region in which the will of God is not done. The lust of the world is not doing the will of God. Take it in any of its forms. Let it be the lust of the flesh; as “lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God,” you are doing your own will and not God’s. Let it be the lust of the eyes, envying others who prosper more than you; then it is the thwarting of their will, not the doing of God’s will, that your mind is bent on. Let it be the pride of life, hanging on opinion’s idle breath; you have no freedom to do the will of God, for you are at the mercy of the will of your fellow-men.

As not doing the will of God, the world and its lust must pass away; for it is identical with the darkness which is passing. Passing! Whence? and whither? Whence, but from off the stage of this redeemed earth, the final blessed meeting-ground of all the Lord’s children? And whither? I cannot tell. This only I know, it must be to where it shall do no harm any more for ever. I read of everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels. Is that the final resting-place of the darkness?—of the world and its lust? There it is to be no longer passing, but permanent, abiding. “The worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.”

O ye lovers of the world, or of what is in the world, have you considered what the end is to be? It may well move you to be told that the whole of that economy with which you are mixed up is fleeting, transitory, evanescent. “What shadows you are and what shadows you pursue!” It is a deep knell that is rung over the grave of all merely temporal prosperity, all earthly hope and joy; “the world passeth away, and the lust thereof.” But it is a knell that, ringing out life’s present and precarious dreams, rings in a terrible reality. The world, with its lust, is passing here; apssing and changing always. But it is passing to where it will pass no more, but stay; fixed unchangeably for ever. It is not annihilated; it does not cease to be; it only ceases to be passing.

Have you ever thought how much of the world’s endurableness; I say not its attractiveness but its endurableness; depends on its being a world that passes, and therefore changes? Is it not, after all, its being changeable that makes it tolerable even to you who like it best? Can you lay your hand, your memory’s hand, on any one feeling you have ever had of intensest worldly gratification, and say that you could be content, with that feeling alone, to spend eternity? Is there any sensation, any delight, any rapture of worldly joy, however engrossing, that you could bear to have prolonged, indefinitely, for ever, unaltered, unalterable?

But I put the case too favourably. I speak of your finding the world with its lust, not passing but abiding, in the place whither you yourselves pass, when you pass hence. True, you find it there. But you find it not as you have it here. There are means and appliances here for quenching by gratification, or mitigating by variety, its impetuous fires. But there you find it where these fires burn, unslaked, unsolaced; the world being all within, and the world’s lust; and nothing outside but the Holy One.

Again I ask—Have you ever thought how much of the world’s endurableness depends on the fact that, with its lust, it has its seat for a while here in the midst of a transition process, as it were, which is going on, “the darkness passing and the true light shining?” What keeps this earth from being, at this moment, hell, or a part of hell? What but its being a place of preparation for heaven; destined ere long to become to myriads of the saved heaven itself?

When in that heaven where the angels dwell, sudden darkness sought to dim the light, and wilful creatures would not do the will of God, not an instant was lost. Swiftly, summarily, the world is cast out, and its lust. There is no room for it there, no, not for an hour. The lovers of it, and of its lust; the doers of another will than God’s; their own, or their leader’s; are no more found there; but somewhere else in the universe of God, where they are “reserved in everlasting chains, under darkness, unto the judgment of the great day.” That holy heaven is full of light alone, and in it is no darkness at all. The will of God is always done there.

We are taught to pray that his will may be done on earth as in heaven; and we believe that it shall be so. But the time is not yet. The darkness is only passing, not past; “the world is passing away, and the lust thereof.” For it has pleased God not to deal with this earth where we dwell, as he dealt with that heaven where the angels dwell. If he had, he must have left it empty. The darkness must needs be tolerated; the world, with its lusts, not doing the will of God, must be allowed to continue; till the race for whom the earth was made, the family of man meant to fill it, is complete. But all is not to be darkness; a world lusting its own lust and not doing the will of God. There is to be light; there are to be children of the light. For the light and its children, as well as for the darkness and its world, the earth is to be adapted. Its order and laws; its arrangements and accommodations; must be such as suit its present mixed occupancy. And such also must be God’s general providence over it. Hence you who love the world and its lust, and do not the will of God, find yourselves in a position here, under these conditions, which does not give the world and its lust full swing; or, as it were, “ample scope and verge enough.”

Not to speak of the direct shining of the light, in gospel means and ordinances, which tells upon you in spite of yourselves, in some vague way, for your partial respite from the pangs of conscience; I point to the elements of good that there are in the institutions which God has sanctioned, and which he blesses, for alleviating pain and giving happiness on this earth on which he suffers you to dwell for a season with the righteous; healthy labour, alternating with such sleep as God gives his beloved; family relationships; social ties; domestic endearments; spheres also of public activity and usefulness and generous ambition; outlets for native energy and amiability, and lofty thought and fine feeling, and the stirrings of kind pity, and the flights of genius. Do not imagine that these form part of the world or its lust, which you are to carry with you when it and you together pass hence. This earth is not furnished with these conveniences for your sakes, but for their sakes who find in them the choicest apparatus and machinery for doing the will of God. You have the use, you have the benefit of them, for a brief space. Your world, with its triple lust, is permitted for a little to have to do with these contrivances of God for making earth a school for heaven. Alas! what harm does it often work among them; blighting what is pure, blasting what is peaceful, desolating hearths and homes and hearts. Still your loved world, and you who love it, are the better and the happier for your contact with what on earth is even now allied to heaven.

But have you ever thought what it will be to pass hence and go where nothing of all that can follow you? No holy beauty; no virgin innocency; no guiltless, guileless love of parents, spouse, child, brother, friend; no virtue; no decency even; none of the decorum which at least serves to make vice less hideous; no soothing balm of pure hand laid on the fevered brow; no faintly-whispered hope or wish of pure lips blessing you in your despair; nothing of the sort of comely veil which, down to the last breath of the dying sinner’s godless career, may hide the real truth from his view.

Let that real truth burst upon you. Place yourself, with your loved world and its cherished lust, where you and it and God are alone together, with nothing of God’s providing that you can use or abuse for your relief. Your creature comforts are not there with you. Nothing of this earth, which is the Lord’s, is there; nothing of its beauty or its bounty; its grace or loveliness or warm affection; nothing of that very bustle and distraction and change which dissipates reflection and drowns remorse; nothing but your worldly lust, your conscience, and your God. That is hell; the hell to which the world is passing, and its lust; and whence it never passes more; a dreary monotony of banishment from all that God has made to be chosen and enjoyed. It is yourselves, ye lovers of the world, filled with the lust of the world, its vulture appetites and stormy passions; shut up for ever in the darkness, as it were, of empty space, the desolate unfurnished prison-house of eternal justice.

II. But now let us turn to a brighter picture. “He that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.” Suppose that the world has passed away and the lust thereof. Does it follow that the earth is dissolved or perishes? Nay, it remains. And whatever in it or about it is of God remains. There may be a temporary baptism of fire, to purge away the pollution contracted while the world has been tolerated in it and the world’s lust; to regenerate it and transform it into the “new heavens and new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness.” But the earth thus cleansed and renovated does not pass away. It surely must continue, under the condition of the petition, at last fully answered; “Thy will be done in earth as in heaven.” For surely that is a petition which is yet to be fully answered; and not in time only, but for eternity. This abode of men is to be assimilated thoroughly to yonder abode of angels, in respect of the will of God being alike done in both. That at all events is the heavenly state, let its localities be adjusted as they may; that is its eternal crown and joy; angels and men together doing the will of God; they in their heaven, we in our earth. That is the blessed consummation to which the apostle would have us to look forward when he urges this encouragement and motive: “he that doeth the will of God a bideth for ever.

But the precise point of his statement is not adequately brought out unless we connect and identify the future and the present. It is not merely said that he who doeth the will of God may hope to be hereafter in a place or in a state in which he shall abide for ever. It is plainly implied that he is in it now. The world, with its lust, is passing; but he is in possession. The world, as it were, has forfeited its title, and is tolerated on sufferance merely, for a time and for a temporary purpose; he is a proprietor, having a good and valid right to remain for ever. The world must go, he stays; it has notice to quit, he abides. Doing the will of God, therefore, you are already in your abiding state; in the state in which you are to abide for ever. No essential change is before you. There may be stages of advancement and varieties of experience; a temporary break, perhaps, in the outer continuity of your thread of life, between the soul’s quitting the body to be with Christ where now he is and its receiving the body anew at his coming hither again. But substantially you are now as you are to be always.

For there is this difference between you in whom the love of the Father is, and those in whom there is only the love of the world. The world which they love, with its lust, is a foreign element in this earth, considered as the creation of God, and an element, therefore, which must be cast out, as the land of Canaan is said to have “vomited out” its inhabitants when their “iniquity was full.” There is really nothing of hell in this earth viewed as the creation of God, or in its arrangements viewed as God’s ordinances; however much there may be of hell in the world with its lust, which is not God’s creation or God’s ordinance, but fallen man’s, or his tempter’s. From all that is of God’s making or of God’s ordaining in the earth, they who love the world must pass, with the world and its lust; carrying no good of it hence; quitting it all, and going to be with devils in eternal, unquenchable fire. But in this earth as God’s creation, and in its arrangements as God’s ordinances, what may there not be of heaven? And whatever of heaven is in it, and in them, is yours, if you are doing the will of God. Neither does it pass from you nor you from it. You and it together abide for ever.

Here, therefore, is the great alternative between “loving the world and its lust” and “doing the will of God.” Here is the solution of what we are sometimes apt to regard as a hard problem in Christian morals. What is that separation from the world which I must keep up, if I would prove myself to be one who does not love the world, but who does love the Father? A hundred minute points of detail may come into discussion here. Is it lawful? is it expedient? might be asked to weariness, of this or that pursuit, this or that pleasure, this or that party, or company, or occupation. I meet these and all similar inquiries with the broad appeal to consciousness and conscience: Are you doing the will of God? It is not—Are you doing what, as to the matter of it, may be consistent, or not altogether inconsistent, with the will of God? But are you, in doing it, doing the will of God? You may be where the will of God would appoint or allow you to be. Are you there because it is the will of God that you should be there? Are you there on set purpose, there and then to do the will of God? This test will carry you through all entanglements, and raise you above all compromises. Only be sure that you apply it fairly. For, in this matter, the prince of this world is very wily. If possible, he will have you to substitute something of God’s instead of what is his, as being what you are not to love. He will allow and encourage you to abstain from meats and from marriage; to withdraw from your fellows and retire into the desert; to abandon the affairs of active life; to assume an ascetic severity, frowning on the ordinary ongoings of society. He is pleased when he sees you counting that to be coming out from the world. For he knows that all the while it is really God’s creation and God’s ordinance, and not his world with its lust, that you are putting away.

Ah! it is a great thing to draw the line clear and sharp between what here and now is “of God,” and what is “of the world and its lust.” And if the line is to be drawn clear and sharp, it must be drawn, not from without, but from within. It must be drawn, not by external routine or regulation, but by a living spirit in the inner man; the spirit of love and loyalty to the Father; the spirit that moved Jesus to say, “I came not to do my own will, but the will of him that sent me.” He had no perplexities, no misgivings, in going in and out among his fellow-men. He moved freely where the Pharisees were censorious and straitlaced. For everywhere and always, wherever he was, in the house, on the road, at the hospitable table, beside the open grave; with whomsoever he met, publicans, sinners, harlots, as well as Scribes, and Sadducees, and Herodians; he was doing the will of God; he was about his Father’s business; doing his will. It was not with him—Where shall I go? whom shall I meet? so much as,—Go where I may, meet whom I may, what business would my Father have me to be about? Something surely bearing on the great work for which I came into the world; something to glorify my Father; something for the saving of lost sinners; something for the comfort of weary souls. Ah! let this same mind that was in him be in you. Let it become a delight with you, as well as a business, to be everywhere and always doing the will of God. That, and that alone, is “not loving the world, nor the things of the world.”

For the world which, with its lust, is passing away, is just the darkness whose passing you are to apprehend as a thing true in you as in Christ. And the doing of the will of God, which is your abiding for ever, is just the true light now shining; which shining of the true light, as well as the passing of the darkness, you are also to apprehend as true in you as in Christ.

There is a twofold movement going on in the earth; the moving off of the darkness, or of the world and its lust, and the moving in of the true light and its gracious, glorious kingdom. Christ, and all of you in whom, as in Christ, “that thing is true, that the darkness is passing and the true light is now shining,” are engaged in the advancing movement and identified with it. It is the movement that is regaining, reconquering, recovering the earth for God. Into that movement you are to throw yourselves. With all who are in it you are to have a common brotherhood, and to make common cause. That is the will of God which you are to do. With the other movement, the moving off from the stage of the darkness and the prince of darkness, with his trappings and troops, you have nothing to do, save only to rescue, in the Father’s name, all whom you can reach, ere that movement carries them away. For yourselves you have no concern with it. You love not the darkness, nor anything in it or about it. Your whole soul is bent on doing the will of God, and so falling in with the advancing march and movement which is to issue ere long in the universal shining of the true light over all the earth.

Surely that is a noble course for you, and one that must ensure your abiding for ever. It may seem indeed that you have no abiding place here. You may be called hence quickly at any time, while the darkness may seem to be passing very slowly; and the world with its lust may be still holding its ground stoutly, and showing an imposing front. But you lose not the fruit of your doing the will of God. “Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord; they rest from their labours, and their works do follow them.” You have cast in your lot with a cause which does not pass away, but abideth for ever; and a leader who does not pass away, but abideth for ever,—“the same yesterday, and today, and for ever.” It is but a little while. Lo, he comes quickly, and you who have departed to be with him come in his train. He comes, and you come, to triumph over the complete and final passing away of the darkness, of the world and its lust, of all doing of any will but the will of God; and to abide for ever in the earth, in which thenceforth for ever the will of God is to be done, even as it is in heaven.1

1 Robert S. Candlish, The First Epistle of John Expounded in a Series of Lectures (Edinburgh: Adam and Charles Black, 1877), 143–163.

What he here means by the forbidden object of our love, must be gathered from his own explication, ver. 16. The love itself forbidden, in reference thereto, is that excess thereof, whereby any adhere to terrene things, as their best good; wherewith, as he adds, any sincere love to God is inconsistent, as Matt. 6:24; Luke 14:33: a consideration so awful and tremendous, that it is not strange the precept it enforces should have so solemn and urgent an introduction.

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

Here he explains his meaning, what, under the name of the world, and the things of it, we are not to love, or under what notion we ought not to love it, viz. the world as it contains the objects and nutriment of these mentioned lusts; either more grossly sensual, called the lust of the flesh, viz. of gluttony, drunkenness, whoredom, &c. Rom. 13:13, 14; or that which is excited more immediately by the fancy, unto which the eye especially ministereth, the excessive appetite of much wealth, and great possessions; which the eye is therefore said to desire, and not to be satisfied with, Eccles. 2:8–10, and 4:8; called therefore the lust of the eyes. And again, the ambitious affectation of the pomp and glory of the world, vain applause, the unmerited and overvalued praise and observance of other men, with power over them, affected for undue ends, or only with a self-exalting design, meant by the pride of life, forbidden by our Saviour to his disciples, Matt. 20:25, 26. This triple distribution some observe to have been before used by some of the ancient learned Jews, and imitated by certain of the more refined heathens; whence, as being formerly known and understood, the apostle might be induced to make use of it. And these lusts are therefore argued to be inconsistent with the love of the Father, as not being of him, but of the world; not from the Divine Spirit, but the spirit of the world.

17 And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.

He sets the difference in view, of living according to the common genius, will, or inclination of the world, (which is lust,) and according to the Divine will, that he who unites himself in his will and desire with the former, which vanishes, (objects and appetite altogether,) must (which is implied) perish therewith; but he that unites himself with the supreme eternal good, by a will that is guided by and conformed to the Divine will, abideth for ever, partakes a felicity coeternal with the object and rule upon which his heart was set, and which it was guided by.1

1 Matthew Poole, Annotations upon the Holy Bible, vol. 3 (New York: Robert Carter and Brothers, 1853), 932–933.

15–17. Outside the Christian community is the world, and the righteous and beloved children of God are contrasted with the children of the world, possessed by no love of God and controlled by fleshly desire. The Christians must renounce the world (Mt 6:24), and this is all the more necessary because its destruction is imminent (2:18), and because only those who do the will of God (G 6:38, 39; Mk 3:35; Mt 7:21) will survive the catastrophe and share in the new age. For the distinction between the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes cf. Gen 3:6. the vainglory of life. Cf. Jas 4:16; Rom 1:30; 2 Tim 3:2. The presumptuous display of the externals of life, especially of wealth.11 Sir Edwyn Hoskyns, “The Johannine Epistles,” in A New Commentary on Holy Scripture: Including the Apocrypha, ed. Charles Gore, Henry Leighton Goudge, and Alfred Guillaume, vol. 3 (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1942), 663.

2:15 the world. Here represents all that stands in opposition to God and His ways (5:19; John 1:10).

2:16 lust. Desire. Used here of desires contrary to the life-giving will of the Father (compare v. 17).1

1 Jon L. Dybdahl, ed., Andrews Study Bible Notes (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 2010), 1643.

3914 WORLDLINESS, ungodliness (M. Worldliness (1))

1. Warnings, Ps 17:14; Ps 49:11; Ec 5:16; Mt 6:24; Mt 6:32; Mt 16:26; Mk 8:36; Lu 4:5; Lu 9:25; Lu 21:34; Jn 7:4; Ro 12:2; Ph 3:19; Col 3:2; Tit 2:12; Ja 4:4; 1 Jn 2:15.

See Worldly Fullness, 2901; Money Changers, 2397.

3915 WORLDLINESS, (M. Worldliness (2))

2. Evil Effects 1 S 8:20; Am 8:5; Mt 13:22; Mt 19:22; Mt 22:5; Mt 24:38–39; Mk 10:22; Lu 8:37; Lu 12:13; Lu 12:30; Lu 14:19; Lu 17:27; Lu 18:23; 1 Co 7:32–33; 1 Co 15:47; Ep 2:2; Ph 2:21; 2 Ti 4:10; Ja 5:5.

Destroys the Influence of the Truth

Leads to False Security

Makes Earthly Affections Supreme

Molds the Activities and Plans of Life

Leads to Religious Apostasy

3916 WORLDLINESS (M. Sinful Imitation)

3. Imitation Condemned, Ex 23:2; Ex 23:24; Le 18:3; Le 20:23; De 12:30; De 18:9; 1 S 8:5; 1 S 8:19–20; 1 K 16:2; 1 K 16:19; 1 K 16:26; 1 K 16:31; 1 K 22:52; 2 K 3:3; 2 K 8:18; 2 K 8:27; 2 K 13:2; 2 K 13:6; 2 K 13:11; 2 K 15:9; 2 K 15:28; 2 K 16:3; 2 K 16:10; 2 K 17:8; 2 K 17:15; 2 K 17:19; 2 K 17:33; 2 Chr 21:6; 2 Chr 21:13; 2 Chr 28:2; 2 Chr 33:2; 2 Chr 36:14; Ezr 9:1; Ps 106:35; Pr 12:11; Is 2:6; Is 8:11; Je 10:2; Eze 11:12; Eze 20:32; Mt 6:8; Mt 23:2–3; 2 Pe 2:2; 3 Jn 1:11.

In Committing Popular Sins

In False Worship

In bad Governmental Policies

In Heathenish Practices

In Following a Bad Example

3917 WORLDLINESS (M. Worldly Builders)

4. Examples, Job 27:18; Je 22:14; Da 4:30; Mt 7:26; Lu 6:49; Lu 12:18.

See Men’s Plans, 2774.

3918 UNWORLDLINESS, De 17:14; 1 K 3:11; Mt 19:29; Jn 17:14; Ac 6:2; Ro 12:2; 1 Co 7:31; Ga 6:14; Col 3:2; 1 Th 2:6; 2 Ti 2:4; He 11:15; He 11:24–25; Ja 1:27; 1 Pe 1:14; 1 Jn 2:15; 1 Jn 5:4.

See Separation, 290.1

1 Frank Charles Thompson, Thompson Chain Reference Bible: Topical Index (Kirkbride Bible Company, 1997), 2011–2013.

1:5–2:17 Walk in the Light

The symbolic language of John’s Gospel resurfaces in the language of “light” and “darkness,” representing good and evil (vv. 5ff.; cf. John 1:4ff.; 8:12). Since God is pure light, true fellowship with him precludes walking in darkness (sinning). When we do what is right, we enjoy fellowship with other Christians and spiritual “cleansing” from past sins through the substitutionary sacrifice of Jesus. Claiming sinlessness is self-deception, but confession of sins brings God’s forgiveness and his reckoning of the repentant sinner as righteous (cf. Rom. 3:21–5:21). steer his spiritual children clear of sinning. Anticipating their moral imperfection, however, he encourages their confession of sins by portraying Christ as the righteous Advocate who represents them before God the Father and who has already appeased his just anger over the sins of all humanity (cf. Rom. 8:33–34). Nevertheless, the availability of God’s grace does not reduce the importance of obedience to him. In the truth-test of 2:3–6, the author asserts that knowing Christ necessarily results in keeping his commandments (cf. 3:23–24) and walking in the light (cf. 1:6–7). Similarly, “abiding in the light” necessitates following the law of Christian love, commanded by Christ (2:9–11); and abiding in the love of God precludes loving the “world,” the domain of Satan characterized by carnality, greed, and pride (2:15–17; cf. 5:19). The commendations in 2:12–14 show the aim of the letter as one of encouragement, not castigation.1

1 Gordon D. Fee and Robert L. Hubbard Jr., eds., The Eerdmans Companion to the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2011), 713.

2:15–17 1 John contrasts love of the world with love of God. Wesley understood “the desire of the flesh, the desire of the eyes, the pride in riches” (v. 16) as common human sins. In his sermons the first two are associated with satisfying the desire for pleasure both in reality and in the imagination, while the last is associated with the quest for glory (Sermon 50: “The Use of Money,” §II.1; Sermon 95: “On the Education of Children,” ¶7).

Wesleyan Core Term.

Self-Denial

For John Wesley, faithful Christian life and practice included a strong commitment to self-denial. In Sermon 122: “Causes of the Inefficacy of Christianity,” he urged readers to hold tight to faithful Christian belief and practices. He claimed that the people called Methodist achieved these and yet were still lacking in effectiveness, and then asked why? Wesley answered his own question by explaining that doctrine and discipline can be undermined without self-denial. To love things of the world is to allow that desire to eclipse our love for God and neighbor. Desire for money and its accumulation is a dangerous sin since all wealth comes from God and is meant to be shared with God’s children. An attitude of self-denial, alongside faithful beliefs and practices, is an essential characteristic of authentic, vital Christianity.1

1 Mary Catherine Dean, ed., The Wesley Study Bible (Abingdon Press, 2009), 1 Jn 2:15–17.

15–17. The Things to be Avoided;—the World and its Ways

Having reminded them solemnly of the blessedness of their condition as members of the Christian family, whether old or young, and having declared that this blessedness of peace, knowledge, and strength is his reason for writing to them, he goes on to exhort them to live in a manner that shall be worthy of this high estate, and to avoid all that is inconsistent with it.

15. Love not the world] The asyndeton is remarkable. S. John has just stated his premises, his readers’ happiness as Christians. He now abruptly states the practical conclusion, without any introductory ‘therefore’. As was said above on v. 2, we must distinguish between the various meanings of the Apostle’s favourite word, ‘world.’ In John 3:16 he tells us that ‘God loved the world’, and here he tells us that we must not do so. “S. John is never afraid of an apparent contradiction when it saves his readers from a real contradiction … The opposition which is on the surface of his language may be the best way of leading us to the harmony which lies below it” (Maurice). The world which the Father loves is the whole human race. The world which we are not to love is all that is alienated from Him, all that prevents men from loving Him in return. The world which God loves is His creature and His child: the world which we are not to love is His rival. The best safeguard against the selfish love of what is sinful in the world is to remember God’s unselfish love of the world. ‘The world’ here is that from which S. James says the truly religious man keeps himself ‘unspotted’, friendship with which is ‘enmity with God’ (Jas. 1:27, 4:4). It is not enough to say that ‘the world’ here means ‘earthly things, so far as they tempt to sin’, or ‘sinful lusts’, or ‘worldly and impious men’. It means all of these together: all that acts as a rival to God; all that is alienated from God and opposed to Him, especially sinful men with their sinful lusts. ‘The world’ and ‘the darkness’ are almost synonymous; to love the one is to love the other (John 3:19): to be in the darkness is to be of the world.

neither the things that are in the world] Or, nor yet the things, &c., i.e. ‘Love not the world; no, nor anything in that sphere.’ Comp. ‘Not to consort with … no, nor eat with’ (1 Cor. 5:11). ‘The things in the world’, as is plain from v. 16, are not material objects, which can be desired and possessed quite innocently, although they may also be occasions of sin. Rather, they are those elements in the world which are necessarily evil, its lusts and ambitions and jealousies, which stamp it as the kingdom of ‘the ruler of this world’ (John 12:31) and not the kingdom of God.

If any man love the world] Once more, as in v. 1, the statement is made quite general by the hypothetical form: everyone who does so is in this case. The Lord had proclaimed the same principle; ‘No man can serve two masters … Ye cannot serve God and mammon’ (Matt. 6:24). So also S. James; ‘Whosoever would be a friend of the world maketh himself an enemy of God’ (4:4). Comp. Gal. 1:10. Thus we arrive at another pair of those opposites of which S. John is so fond. We have had light and darkness, truth and falsehood, love and hate; we now have love of the Father and love of the world. The world which is coextensive with darkness must exclude the God who is light. By writing ‘the love of the Father’ rather than ‘the love of God’ (which some authorities read here) the Apostle points to the duty of Christians as children of God. ‘The love of the Father’ (a phrase which occurs nowhere else) means man’s love to Him, not His to man: see on v. 5. A fragment of Philo declares that ‘it is impossible for love to the world to coexist with love to God’.

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

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

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

“Tell me where is fancy bred.

It is engendered in the eyes.”

Merchant of Venice, III. ii.

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

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

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

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

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

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

17. and the world passeth away] Or, is passing away; as in v. 8: the process is now going on. We owe the verb ‘pass away’ here to Coverdale: it is a great improvement on Tyndale’s ‘vanisheth away.’ Comp. ‘The fashion of this world is passing away’ (1 Cor. 7:31), where the same verb is used, and where the active in a neuter sense is equivalent to the middle here and in v. 8.

and the lust thereof] Not the lust for the world, but the lust which it exhibits, the sinful tendencies mentioned in v. 16. The world is passing away with all its evil ways. How foolish, therefore, to fix one’s affections on what not only cannot endure but is already in process of dissolution! ‘The lust thereof’ = ‘all that is in the world.’

the will of God] This is the exact opposite of ‘all that is in the world’. The one sums up all the tendencies to good in the universe, the other all the tendencies to evil. We see once more how S. John in giving us the antithesis of a previous idea expands it and makes it fructify. He says that the world and all its will and ways are on the wane: but as the opposite of this he says, not merely that God and His will and ways abide, but that ‘he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever’. This implies that he who follows the ways of the world will not abide for ever. Again he speaks of the love of the world and the love of the Father; but as the opposite of the man who loves the world he says not ‘he that loveth the Father,’ but ‘he that doeth the will of the Father’. This implies that true love involves obedience. Thus we have a double antithesis. On the one hand we have the world and the man who loves it and follows its ways: they both pass away. On the other hand we have God and the man who loves Him and does His will: they both abide for ever. Instead of the goods of this life (βίος) in which the world would allow him to vaunt for a moment, he who doeth the will of God has that eternal life (ζωή) in which the true Christian has fellowship with God. ‘For ever’ is literally ‘unto the age’, i.e. ‘unto the age to come’, the kingdom of heaven; the word for ‘age’ (αἰών) being the substantive from which the word for ‘eternal’ (αἰώνιος) is derived. He who does God’s will shall abide until the kingdom of God comes and be a member of it. The latter fact, though not stated, is obviously implied. It would be a punishment and not a blessing to be allowed, like Moses, to see the kingdom but not enter it. The followers of the world share the death of the world: the children of God share His eternal life.

Here probably we should make a pause in reading the Epistle. What follows is closely connected with what precedes and is suggested by it: but there is, nevertheless, a new departure, which is made with much solemnity.1

1 A. Plummer, The Epistles of S. John, with Notes, Introduction and Appendices, The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1896), 101–105.

[15] The previous verses have rhetorically set the readers on a firm platform; they have achieved a certainty of faith and show no signs of instability. For the author, however, this offers no grounds for complacency. It has served to present a worldview where there is no room for negotiation between the sphere that belongs to God and to possession of God’s word, and the sphere that belongs to the evil one. The exhortation that follows presupposes the same uncompromising division. Here, for the first time, the negative side of that division is labeled “world.” On three occasions 1 John uses “world” (kosmos) for the whole totality that is the setting for and the object of the salvation and forgiveness brought by Jesus (2:2; 4:9, 14; see commentary), but these phrases sound formulaic, and do not represent the main thrust of his thought. More frequently in 1 John “world” denotes a reality that is fundamentally negative: believers necessarily engage with the world, but it is intrinsically hostile to them and to the ways of God: they are to expect to experience its hatred (3:13). Insofar as the world is capable of response (4:5), it is personalized if not embodied in actual men and women; but it is more than the sum total of people, or even of those people who reject the message. In its totality it represents that sphere which is under the sway of the evil one (5:19), and it has its own inherent character and power, which come close to setting it in antithesis to God (4:4–5).

This means that the kosmos to a large degree constitutes the negative pole in 1 John’s dualistic framework, as it does also in the Fourth Gospel. Although positive formulations are more focal there (John 4:42; 8:12), Jesus describes his disciples as hated by the world because they do not belong to the world, just as he does not belong to the world; and he announces that he does not pray for the world (17:9, 14–16). The formulation “this world” (11:9; 13:1; cf. 1 John 4:17) betrays that the origins of this pattern of thinking belong in a Jewish apocalyptic perspective that contrasted this present age with the age to come (cf. Matt 12:32; Mark 10:30). Inevitably, the present age is characterized by opposition to God, just as the age to come will witness the fulfillment of God’s purposes and sovereignty. In the Pauline literature the normal Greek (and LXX) term for “age” (= period of time), aiōn, is used alongside kosmos (1 Cor 1:20–21; 3:18–19; Eph 2:2) with this meaning; Paul also uses kosmos on its own in this sense, particularly in 1 Corinthians (1 Cor 2:12; 5:10). Although there are parallels to a disparagement of social ties and material life, there does not seem to be any precedent in Greek or Hellenistic Jewish thought for kosmos being so used; with its root meaning of order and arrangement, kosmos usually carried positive overtones about the coherence, and even beauty, of the universe and the proper ordering of society. Some have argued that in 1 Corinthians Paul was deliberately redefining a familiar concept in a distinctive way in order to resocialize his readers into a new understanding of contemporary society as something alien to them and as under God’s judgment (1 Cor 1:27–28). However, although this distinctive use of kosmos is part of Paul’s broader cosmology, as it is for the Gospel and First Letter of John, there are no obvious connections between the two sets of writings. Neither the Gospel nor 1 John uses the more familiar “age,” aiōn, in this way, and, unlike 1 Corinthians, the Johannine kosmos is not expressed within patterns of social experience—such as the concerns of the married (1 Cor 7:33–34); instead it appears to constitute a force and a character of its own. The possibility cannot be excluded that there was some precedent perhaps in Hellenistic Jewish thought now lost to us. However, a simultaneous, parallel development in Paul and in the Johannine tradition is not impossible, and would suggest that both arose from a similar experience of fundamental alienation from contemporary assumptions about the virtues of organized society.

Therefore, when the author forbids any love of the world, this is not in itself a rejection of the accoutrements of a comfortable life, or of social success and its benefits; neither is it a repudiation of anything associated with human bodily existence as if this was by definition something to be escaped from—although conceivably these might follow. There is not here an idealization of a spiritual life that advocates contemplation against action, neither is there a denial of the Matthean exhortation to “love your enemies” (Matt 5:44). Both love and the world have to be understood within the framework of 1 John’s thought; as already in 1 John 2:10, and as will be developed in the second half of the letter, love is that which binds the believers together because it constitutes and confirms their participation in a network of love that has its origins in God (4:7–12). If “the world” represents the forces antithetical to God, then it is self-evident that it is not possible to be part of a network of love both with the world and with God. These are two mutually exclusive patterns of loyalty, and those who have been addressed in the previous verses are already identified as excluded from the former.

The last clause of the verse reinforces this: love for the world is incompatible with “the love of the Father”—the one whom the “children” have known (2:14). The translation deliberately reflects the ambiguity of the Greek (i.e., love from or for God; cf. 2:5, “love of God,” and see commentary). If precision is demanded, “love for the Father,” an objective genitive, is most likely to be intended in parallel to loving the world: this anticipates the opposition in the next verse between what belongs to the Father and what belongs to the world, and is itself partly anticipated by verse 14 where the Father is the one known by the “children.” Thus no one who loves the world can claim to harbor love for the Father; 4:20–5:1 will complete the circle with the assertion that no one can claim to love God and fail to love his or her fellow believer. The alternative, a subjective genitive as in 2:5, the love that comes from the Father, also makes good sense: someone who loves the world cannot be the place wherein the Father’s love is secured. Given 1 John’s many ambiguities of expression, however, it may be mistaken to ask of his thought a precision that it did not have.

If the first phrase and the last clause repeat the impossibility of love for the kosmos by those who know and love God, the expansion, “(do not love) the things that are in the world,” apparently gives more content to what such love might mean beyond commitment and loyalty alone. Whereas the Gospel of John acknowledges that disciples are necessarily “in the world” (John 16:33; 17:11–13), 1 John is somewhat more ambivalent about this (see commentary on 4:4, 17). Here what is in the world is excluded from being the object of love simply in virtue of its being there.

[16] Given this framework, the “world” needs no further definition. On this basis an encouragement to avoid it could only mean an encouragement to stick closely together with fellow believers. However, 1 John is not satisfied with this, but goes on to define “everything” that is in the world, and that cannot be the object of the attention and the intention of believers; to do so he uses language that is rare in or otherwise absent from the Gospel and Letters, but which reflects ethical traditions widespread elsewhere. Although “desire” (epithymia) can be used of appropriate longing, its negative potential is explored extensively in both Greek and Jewish thought. Thucydides already contrasts acting from desire with doing so by foresight, while it was a commonplace in philosophy that desire always threatens to overturn the rational mind, and needs to be controlled with regular practice (Thucydides, Hist. 6.13; Epictetus, Diss. 2.18). Psalm 106 (LXX 105):14 describes the Israelites’ testing of God in the wilderness as because of their “desire,” while the Wisdom of Solomon assumes that “roving desire” is as damaging as a “fascination with wickedness” (Wis 4:12). Some scholars have also pointed to the rabbinic concept of the “evil inclination,” the built-in human propensity to choose evil; but the basic idea, and the use of the Greek term, are already sufficiently widespread not to require direct dependence on that.

Close to 1 John’s language is the warning in Gal 5:16 that they not fulfill “the desire of the flesh”; or Eph 2:3, which describes its readers as having formerly lived “in the desires of your flesh”; or the description in 2 Pet 2:10 of those who “indulge their flesh in depraved desire.” In such formulations “flesh,” sarx, is entirely negative, representing the human capacity for self-indulgence and self-preoccupation that ignores the requirements and purposes of God. This type of polemic was encouraged by Greek thought, in which greed, uncontrolled emotions, and particularly sexual passion were associated with the body, but it also went beyond that in constructing “flesh” (and not “body”) in opposition to God and to God’s creative power (or spirit). First John has brought together the Johannine cosmological dualism and mythologization of “the world,” with this separate ethical tradition that also works with a form of dualism, but with one that is more moral and anthropological. However, he does so only here, and it has no further effect on the rest of the letter: there are limited connections with the other uses of “flesh,” “eyes,” and “life” (bios) elsewhere in 1 John (4:2; 1:1; 3:17 [see commentary]; “desire” is found only here).

This background suggests that it would be looking for too much precision to ask whether the flesh and the eyes are the sources of desire, or its location, or whether they are its objects (i.e., what the eyes see, the external); similarly, there is no need to determine quite how arrogance and life relate to each other, although it is probably significant that the word used (bios) is a different one from the divinely revealed life (zōē) of 1 John 1:1–2. For the same reason it is probably unnecessary to identify separate activities among the three phrases—for example, that the desire of the flesh is sexual, the desire of the eyes is covetousness, and the arrogance of life is wealth—or to relate them to the attractions of the forbidden tree in Gen 3:6, “good for food … a delight to the eyes … to be desired to make one wise.” A threefold formula is, as already demonstrated by verses 12–14, a familiar and effective rhetorical device, and verse 17 will show that there is but one desire. Again, the Testament of Judah invites comparison, where Judah exhorts his sons, “Now, children, listen to your father, as to whatever I command you, and observe all my words, so you do the just requirements of the Lord and obey the command of the Lord God. And do not live in pursuit of your desires, in the longings of your thoughts, or in the arrogance of your heart” (T. Jud. 13.1–2). First John is not advocating an ascetic rejection of any physical pleasures. Rather the author is drawing on what were probably conventional formulations in order to infuse the rather abstract concept of “the world” with the immediacy of potential threat—something that, in the Greek as well as in other New Testament traditions, required continuous vigilance.

These seductive possibilities to be avoided are not just “in the world,” they belong to the world and not to the Father: with this the author returns to the contrast between loving the world and love of the Father in the previous verse. “Belongs to” represents the Greek preposition ek, usually translated “from.” The same preposition is used in 4:4–5, “You are ek God … they are ek the world (kosmos)”; and in John 17:14, where Jesus speaks of his disciples, like he himself, as not being “ek the world.” This is an unusual use of the preposition and it seems to have been a Johannine formulation: 1 John 3:19 affirms that “we are ek the truth,” and the Gospel also speaks of being ek below or above, ek the earth or heaven (John 3:31; 8:23). The phrase could be translated as “come from” God (or the world), or, even more strongly, as “have as [their/your] origin” in God or the world. This last possibility would emphasize much more strongly that there is something intrinsic and potentially irreversible about one or other possibility. Certainly this is implied by the image of “birth ek” in 1 John 5:1 (see commentary). In the present verse, however, the difference would be slight; at stake is the utter incompatibility of anything that might be identified with “world” and anything to be identified with the “Father,” and the consequent need for readers to be single-minded about their loyalties. How this is to be expressed is yet to be made clear.

[17] Although the language of “the world” against “the Father” repeats the sharp dualism that shapes the thought of 1 John, this is not a fixed, unchanging opposition. Earlier in this chapter, in 2:8, the author described the darkness as “on the way out” (paragetai); now he uses the same verb of the world and of its desire. The use of the singular here, rather than the plural “desires,” shows it to be more than a number of inappropriate human longings, namely the negative aspiration and mind-set that the author has identified as alien to God; it is indelibly marked by its association with “the world.” In affirming the passing of the world the author probably did not have in mind any cosmological eschatological catastrophe; this is not the disappearance of the first heaven and earth of Rev 21:1, where a transformed new heaven and earth will replace the old. In 1 John’s thought such vivid eschatological imagery has been transformed to become a way of expressing the utter incompatibility between the sphere that represents God’s will and intention, and all that opposes it, as well as the complete certainty that, regardless of whatever might have been happening in society and to this community of believers, the opposition to God was irreversibly doomed. Moreover, the community of believers should think of themselves as living already in the shadow, or rather in the light, of this final confirmation of God’s will and purposes. But the contrast is not really between present and future but between transience and permanence, between the already-disappearing world and the immovability of the one who does the will of God. It would be mistaken to press this last phrase to ask whether 1 John is now concerned with specific ethical patterns: the phrase “to do the will of God” is a traditional one in the Gospel (John 6:38–40; 7:17) but also elsewhere (Matt 7:21; 12:50; Rom 12:2), and it requires no elaboration.

This section has served as something of an interlude, bridging the transition between the more internal conversation of the first part of the letter and the sense of threat to the well-being of the community that will shape what follows. It expresses a tension that lies at the heart of 1 John between the certain assurance that is promised to those who have experienced the knowledge and forgiveness of God, and the devastating consequences of compromising their total commitment to God. From the subsequent verses the test of such commitment appears to be focused in allegiance to the community or to the fellowship fostered by the author, but he does not, at this point or later, use the language of structural membership. It seems likely that a particular, limited, group is being addressed, although again, despite the parallels found for verses 12–14, its shape and structures are of little interest to the author; rather, he sets them on a stage where the opposing forces are “the world,” and time is not a matter of today or tomorrow but of the passing of an age. The author shows no awareness that some may struggle with the clear alternatives he lays before them, but equally he offers few guidelines as to how to apply them to the dilemmas of a daily life where presumably members of his audience lived alongside many who did not share their convictions. The section that follows may explain his attitude, but for an analysis of the ambiguities even of faith and Christian living one would have to look outside this letter.1

1 Judith M. Lieu, I, II & III John: A Commentary, ed. C. Clifton Black, M. Eugene Boring, and John T. Carroll, 1st ed., The New Testament Library (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2012), 91–97.

1 John 2:15.

If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the vainglory of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof; but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.

“I do believe that our salvation

Lies in the little things of life,

Not in the pomp and acclamation

Of triumph, or in battle-strife,

Not on the thrones where men are crown’d,

Not in the race where chariots roll,

But in the arms that clasp us round

And hold us backward from the goal!

In Love, not Pride; in stooping low,

Not soaring blindly at the sun;

In power to feel, not zeal to know;

Not in rewards, but duties done …

Dearest and Best! Soul of my Soul,

Life of my Life, kneel here with me!

Pray while the storms around us roll,

That God may keep us frail, yet free!

Be Love our strength, be God our goal!

Amen et Benedicite!”

—Robert Buchanan.1

1 James Moffatt, The Expositor’s Dictionary of Poetical Quotations (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1913), 195.

15. To you all, whether fathers, young men, or little children, I say, Love not the world—Pursue your victory, by overcoming the world. If any man love the world—Seek happiness in visible things, he does not love God.

16. The desire of the flesh—Of the pleasure of the outward senses, whether of the taste, smell, or touch: the desire of the eye—Of the pleasures of imagination, (to which the eye, chiefly, is subservient;) of that internal sense, whereby we relish whatever is grand, new, or beautiful: the pride of life—All that pomp in clothes, houses, furniture, equipage, manner of living, which generally procure honour from the bulk of mankind, and so gratify pride and vanity. It therefore directly includes the desire of praise, and remotely, covetousness. All these desires are not from God, but from the prince of this world.

17. The world passeth away, and the desire thereof—That is, all that can gratify these desires passeth away with it: but he that doth the will of God—That loves God, not the world, abideth—In the enjoyment of what he loves, for ever.1

1 John Wesley, Explanatory Notes upon the New Testament, Fourth American Edition. (New York: J. Soule and T. Mason, 1818), 659.

John presents only two alternatives in verse 15: A person either loves the world or loves the Father. In this case, the world does not refer merely to creation or to the world’s population for whom Christ died (John 3:16). Instead, this use of the world represents those who stand against John and the teachings of Christ.

In 1 John 2:16, John defines everything the world has to offer:

1. The desires of the flesh. This probably does not refer simply to sensual desires (lustfulness or promiscuity). It refers to everything that is the desire of human beings—all that meets their wants and needs.

2. The desire of the eyes. This is more than merely human desires; this is related to what we want for ourselves. We see it, and we want to have it.

3. The pride of life (NASB) has to do with our possessions and accomplishments, those things we brag about, even if in our minds.

Verse 17 makes it clear that all these things are transitory. While it is true that the world and worldly desires will pass away in the future, for John they have already begun to disappear in the present. The person who does the will of God is the believer (in contrast to the false teachers). It is in doing God’s will (obedience) that the believer demonstrates to himself and to those around him that he is a believer. This amounts, for John, to one means of assurance.1

1 Mark Strauss, ed., Hebrews Thru Revelation, vol. 12, Layman’s Bible Commentary (Barbour Publishing, 2008), 123–124.

It was new in the experience of John’s readers because it was for them the expression of an entirely new way of life.

“Darkness” (v. 8c), symbolic of sin, ignorance, and the absence of God, stands for the old order. The “true light” is the light of God’s self-revelation now embodied in Christ (cf. 1:5). “Hateth” (v. 9) and “loveth” (v. 10) are present tenses and speak of hatred and love as fixed principles of life. The man for whom hatred is a way of life is “in the darkness even until now” (v. 9b, ASV). This means that darkness is now, and always has been, the moral and spiritual atmosphere of his life. The man for whom brother-love is a way of life “abideth in the light” (v. 10a), which means that he lives his life within the light of divine revelation.

Verses 12–17 teach that the Christian is to avoid the spirit of the world. The substance of John’s appeal is in verse 15a: “Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world.” The “world” stands for unbelieving, pagan society. To “love” the world is to court its favor, follow its customs, adopt its ideals, covet its prizes, and seek its fellowship. To do this is tantamount to deserting God (cf. Jas. 4:4). “The things that are in the world” are those elements in society which stamp it as evil—its pleasures, its passions, its dominating principles. John summarizes these in verse 16 as “the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the vainglory of life” (ASV). Verses 12–14, which are a sort of parenthesis, give the basis for John’s appeal. They show that his impulse to write did not spring from doubt of his readers’ Christian experience, but rather from confidence in it. The essential qualities ascribed to them are forgiveness of sins, knowledge of God, and victory over evil.

Verses 15b–17 give two reasons for not loving the world. The first is that love for the world excludes love for God: “If any man love [habitually] the world, the love of [for] the Father is not in him” (v. 15b). The second reason for not loving the world is its transitoriness: “The world passeth [lit., is passing] away, and the lust thereof” (v. 17a). Only the man “who perseveres in doing God’s will lives on forever” (v. 17b, Williams).1

1 Curtis Vaughan, “1 John,” in The Teacher’s Bible Commentary, ed. H. Franklin Paschall and Herschel H. Hobbs (Nashville: Broadman and Holman Publishers, 1972), 797.

3. Transient Desires, Abiding Life

1 John 2:12–17. There are gradations in Christian experience—the child, the father, the young man. The note of the child is the glad sense of forgiveness; of the father, a deep knowledge of God; of the young man, victory over the power of evil. With all these is growth. The child, through forgiveness, also comes to know the Father; the fathers can only go on to know God more profoundly; and as the young men become stronger they are more aware of the indwelling spirit of power.

Distinguish between the world of nature and the world of appearance, which is an illusion, the vain dream of human imaginings and boastings. It is the sphere of sense as contrasted with the sphere of spirit. It is the sum of all that the flesh lusts after, the eyes feast on, and the soul takes pride in. The Preacher gathers the world into one phrase, “under the sun,” Eccles. 1:3. The world is passing as a moving-picture film, and the power to enjoy it is vanishing also. Only that which is rooted in God abides.1

1 F. B. Meyer, Through the Bible Day by Day: A Devotional Commentary, vol. 7 (Philadelphia: American Sunday-School Union, 1914–1918), 160.

The word church, Ecclesia means “Called Out.” Called out of what? The World. Sometimes the church tries to imitate the world, tries to be like the world, tries to adopt the systems of the world, into their affairs, into their lives, into their church. They always fall beneath the world. They end up, instead of a place where God says the Lord will make you the head and not the tail. They end up being the tail and the world becomes their head. They end up in shame. They end up in situations whereby I see the Lord’s hand of chastisement many a times on this area when the church tries to become like the world, God’s hand comes in, especially in this area in church life. So friend, I just want to remind you that as we look at our lives, remember this, Praise the Lord. We are called to be a called out one.

15 Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. 17 And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever. 11 The Holy Bible: King James Version., electronic ed. of the 1769 edition of the 1611 Authorized Version. (Bellingham WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1995), 1 Jn 2:15–17.

2:16–17. Since no form of worldliness is … from the Father, it is contrary to His will, and He does not sanction it. Examples of worldliness are: (1) the lust of the flesh, evil desires from within oneself; (2) the lust of the eyes, coming from without, greed aroused by what is seen; (3) the boastful pride of life, arrogance in one’s possessions, accomplishments, or social position (2:16). The sinful world with one’s lusts for it is passing away—i.e., is transient. It therefore makes little sense for the believer to crave worldly things since they will not endure. Since the believer doing the will of God lives forever, only what is eternal is divinely approved as a legitimate object for his or her affection (v. 17). (On “doing the will of God,” see the comments on Mt 7:21.)11 Ronald Sauer, “1 John,” in The Moody Bible Commentary, ed. Michael A. Rydelnik and Michael Vanlaningham (Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers, 2014), 1978..

Know What the World Offers but Cannot Give

1 JOHN 2:15–17

Having provided a word of encouragement in verses 12–14, John now gives a word of exhortation and warning concerning something he identifies six times as “the world.” Here he is not using the word “world” (Gk cosmos) to speak of God’s good creation (Acts 17:24) or even the world of people for whom Christ died (1 John 2:2; John 3:16). No, instead he is referring here to a worldview perspective (cf. John 16:11) that is led by “the evil one” whom we have overcome and that is characterized by the desires of the flesh, the desires of the eyes, and pride in possessions (1 John 2:16). To love the world is to be devoid of love for the Father (v. 15) and to give ourselves to things that are temporary and transient, things that have no lasting or eternal value.

Worldliness or “being of the world” is often misunderstood. Often it is identified with cultural issues that are of a particular concern to us. John is not telling us to reject any and all aspects of culture, much of which reflects the glory, goodness, and gifts of God. What he is telling us is we are not to love and idolize thoughts, values, and behaviors that are contrary to God’s Word (v. 14) and His will (v. 17). Things that appeal to our sinful flesh (e.g., drug abuse, drunkenness, gluttony, abundance of possessions, sexual perversions, etc.) and are fleeting and passing are not to be the things that we live for. My friend Mark Driscoll put it like this:

John describes worldliness as the cravings of our sinful flesh (gluttony, sexual perversion, drunkenness, etc.), lust of our eyes (sexual lust, coveting, etc.), and arrogant pride that causes us to boast in ourselves without ever thanking God. In our age filled with advertising, rock stars, supermodels and celebrities, it is not an overstatement to say that if worldliness means living only to please our flesh and pursue what our eyes lust after—so that we can arrogantly boast about our conquests and accomplishments—then worldliness is a synonym for America. Therefore, John reminds us that the world is going to burn up in the end; but if we belong to God we will live forever with Him, and so we must remain ever vigilant to love God and not the world. (1, 2 & 3 John: Walking in the Light)

John highlights three things the world promises but cannot deliver. His words are strong medicine that can bring healing to our souls.

The World Cannot Give You What You Need (1 John 2:15)

The longing of the human heart is to be loved and to love. The objects of our affections need to be rightly ordered if we are truly to find ultimate and lasting satisfaction. John, therefore, commands us, “Do not love the world or the things that belong to the world.” Why? To love the world is to not love Father God, which is what you really need. It is what you were created for. John says, “Choose your lover, but choose carefully; choose wisely. Choose God the Father, not the worldly enticements of the father of lies” (John 8:44). We must recognize that turning even good things into “god” things becomes a bad thing. It is to give your love to a lesser lover—one who can never satisfy, who can never give you what you truly need.

The World Cannot Give You What It Promises (1 John 2:16)

This is one of the most important verses in the Bible. It identifies in vivid terms the weapons the world uses to seduce men and women into joining its side. Amazingly, each of these weapons resides in us! The enemy really is within! These same three weapons slew Adam and Eve in the Garden. Genesis 3:6 says, “Then the woman saw that the tree was good for food [lust of the flesh] and delightful to look at [lust of the eyes], and that it was desirable for obtaining wisdom [the pride of life].” These same three weapons were conquered by Christ, the second Adam, in His temptation in the wilderness. Luke 4:1–13 explains that the Devil beckoned Him to “tell this stone to become bread” (Luke 4:3), which is the lust of the flesh. Then he “showed Him all the kingdoms of the world” (Luke 4:5), tempting Jesus with the lust of the eyes. Finally, from the pinnacle of the temple, the Devil challenged him, “If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down from here. For it is written: He will give His angels orders concerning you, to protect you, and they will support you with their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone” (Luke 4:9–10). But even the pride of life could not lead the Savior into sin.

Seeing how prevalent these temptations are, a close and careful inspection of each weapon will be helpful in our pursuit of spiritual victory. Though they are old, they are still effective if we do not recognize and resist them through the power of the Spirit and the Word of God.

The desires of the flesh appeal to our appetites. “Desires” means cravings, lust, or passion. The word is neutral. The object determines whether such desires are good or bad. John tells us that worldly desires are of the flesh. “Flesh” (Gk sarx) may sometimes refer to the whole person, but here it denotes the tendency and bent of humans to fulfill natural desires in a way that is contrary to God’s will. For example, sexual appetite gives way to immorality, and physical appetite gives way to gluttony. We give in to the flesh because we are sinful. It is important to realize that we are not sinful because we sin. Instead, we sin because we are sinful. The lust of the flesh is powerful because we are sinful at our core. To us, sin is fun, enticing, and attractive. We are drawn to it like a fly to flypaper, like a fish to a baited hook.

The desire of the eyes appeals to our affections. Our eyes, like our natural desire, are not evil. Proverbs 20:12 says, “The hearing ear and the seeing eye—the Lord made them both.” However, the eyes are windows to the mind (soul) by which sinful desires enter in. This is why Jesus said in Matthew 5:27–29,

You have heard that it was said, Do not commit adultery. But I tell you, everyone who looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of the parts of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.

Men, being creatures of sight, must especially be on guard here. Remember, it was David’s eyes that led him to lie, commit adultery, and murder (2 Sam 11).

Pride in possessions appeals to our ambitions. Pride is vainglory, boasting, or arrogance. It refers to the braggart who exaggerates what he has in order to impress others. It is the “I, me, my” person. “Pride of possessions” or “pride of life” speaks of the person who glorifies himself rather than God. He or she makes an idol of their stuff, their career, their achievements, and their social standing. They suffer from “affluenza!” Pride, power, possessions, prestige, and position are what life is all about. This person fails to see that the Lord Jesus, the King of glory, turned the value system of this world on its head. A. W. Tozer draws our attention to the blinding deception of the “pride in possessions”:

There is within the human heart a tough, fibrous root of fallen life whose nature is to possess, always to possess. It covets “things” with a deep and fierce passion. The pronouns “my” and “mine” look innocent enough in print, but their constant and universal use is significant. They express the real nature of the old Adamic man better than a thousand volumes of theology could do. They are verbal symptoms of our deep disease. The roots of our hearts have grown down into things, and we dare not pull up one rootlet lest we die. Things have become necessary to us, a development never originally intended. God’s gifts now take the place of God, and the whole course of nature is upset by the monstrous substitution. (The Pursuit of God, 22)

Jesus sets for us a beautiful counter example. Concerning pride in birth and rank, He was a carpenter’s son (Matt 13:55), a poor family’s child (Luke 2:24; see Lev 12:8). Concerning pride in possessions, He said, “The Son of Man has no place to lay His head” (Matt 8:20). Concerning pride in pedigree, it was said of Him, “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?” (John 1:46). Concerning pride in people, it was said of Him, “[He is] a friend of tax collectors and sinners” (Matt 11:19). Concerning pride in intellect, He said, “As the Father taught Me, I say these things” (John 8:28). Concerning pride in self-will, He said, “If You are willing, take this cup away from Me—nevertheless, not My will, but Yours, be done” (Luke 22:42).

The example of Jesus is instructive. James 4:6 says, “But [God] gives greater grace. Therefore He says: God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble.” And 1 Peter 5:6 says, “Humble yourselves, therefore, under the mighty hand of God, so that He may exalt you at the proper time.” God’s newly created beings rightly relate to Him not with a heart of pride, but in a posture of humility, just as Jesus, who was Himself the Creator, demonstrated His entire life.

The World Cannot Give You What Will Last (1 John 2:17)

This verse brings to a conclusion John’s argument as he contrasts the two loves, two lives, two approaches to life. Why side with the world? Why give your life to an empty imitation, a worthless fake, a temporary illusion? The world, this evil and deceptive system of Satan, is continually passing away and its desires with it. The darkness was on the run in 2:8. The world is on the run in 2:17. Light and that which will last forever has shown up in Jesus Christ. What remains? What lasts? What endures? The answer is, the one doing (continually) the will of God. This one abides (continually) forever.

Jesus said many things about the will of God, especially in John’s Gospel.

My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me and to finish His work. (John 4:34)

I can do nothing on My own. I judge only as I hear, and My judgment is righteous, because I do not seek My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. (John 5:30)

For I have come down from heaven, not to do My will, but the will of Him who sent Me. (John 6:38)

Jesus’ work is lasting and effectual because it was the will of the Father for Him to do that work. For our work to abide like Christ’s, our hearts must not be attached to the things of this world, but to the will of the Father.

In the book Embracing Obscurity, a beautiful contrast is drawn between the things of the world and the things of the Father (Anonymous, Embracing Obscurity, 87). In the chart below, I have listed differences, making only a few slight adjustments and additions to those in the book. The differences between the two could not be more striking.

Things of the World

Things of the Father

• The focus is on me.

• The focus is on God.

• Make as much money as possible.

• Give as much money away as possible, and spend even yourself on others.

• Live comfortably.

• Life is not about comfort, but about doing hard things now so that we can reap rewards in the life to come.

• Make a name for yourself.

• Make His name great.

• Do whatever makes you happiest.

• Do whatever makes God happiest.

• Teach your children to love themselves and seek self-fulfillment.

• Teach your children to love and obey God. (“Behaving” is often, but not always, a blessed by-product.)

• Look like a model in a magazine and turn your physical appearance into an idol.

• Treat your body as the temple of the Holy Spirit, and cultivate an inner beauty.

• Offer “acts of service” when you feel like it (on your terms).

• Be a servant, even when it is uncomfortable or inconvenient.

• Stay married as long as your spouse meets your needs.

• Serve your spouse (the way Christ modeled servanthood), and choose to love him or her for life.

• Come across as powerful, influential, and/or interesting.

• Give preference to others in words and actions.

• Use (worldly) wisdom to accrue wealth.

• Value true wisdom (which is the fear of God) over all the treasures on earth.

• Stay up to date with the fashions.

• Be content just to have clothes.

• The things of the world are passing away.

• The things of the Father will abide forever.

• I do the will of the world.

• I do the will of the Father.

Conclusion

One of the saddest stories in the Bible concerns a man by the name of Demas. He is not very well known, but his life serves as an important and tragic lesson for those of us who love the Father who sent His Son. We first hear of him in Colossians 4:14 where he is working hard for the gospel alongside Luke. He is listed along with nearly ten others for their faithful service to Christ (Col 4:7–18). We do not hear of him again until 2 Timothy 4:10, toward the end of Paul’s last letter, as Paul anticipates his own execution and martyrdom for Christ. There we simply read, “Demas has deserted me, because he loved this present world.” The NLT says, “he loves the things of this life.” You can almost feel Paul’s heart break as he pens these words.

Let’s learn from the unfortunate story of Demas. Don’t let love for the things of this life eclipse your love for the Father. Don’t let a love for the things of this life cause you to chase after that which is fleeting and passing away. Let the love of the Father found in Jesus come in. Love the Father with all your heart, and see every room you enter become a sanctuary of love from the Father, all your work a sacrifice of love to the Father, and every praise that rolls off your lips a confession of love for the Father. Love the Father supremely who has loved you so deeply. There will be no regrets. God’s Word says so.1

1 Daniel L. Akin, Exalting Jesus in 1,2,3 John (Nashville, TN: Holman Reference, 2014), 39–45.

15 Do not love the world or the things in the world Your affections are meant for something better than these transient and defiled things, so do not let your heart’s love flow out to things so soiled and base. “Set your mind on the things above, not on the things on earth” (Col 3:2).

Now, one might soon misunderstand this position, and by degrees look down from a pharisaic elevation and say, “I do not belong to this world. I am superior to it and utterly despise it. I take no interest in its welfare; it is too lowly a thing for me to care about.” I think I have seen something of this sort in certain brothers who promulgate the theory that a few are to be rescued from the wreck that is breaking up and going to pieces on the beach. Just a few may be brought to shore, but all hope that the vessel itself will ever float again is gone. We have nothing to do but to load the lifeboats with one here and there, and pull away from the wreck with all speed. I do not believe in this theory, and I hope I never shall. I feel a yearning toward the blinded sons of men; I cannot take complacency in them, but I feel a love of benevolence toward them. Every Christian who has realized the love of Christ must, I think, feel the same. I believe that the kingdoms of this world will yet become the kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ.

Loving the World as a Foster Child

Preaching Themes: Love

Now we feel such love to the world as that which the nurse has toward her foster child. It may be a very tiresome child, but she is entrusted with it. Because its hunger cannot be appeased unless she feeds it, and its nakedness cannot be clothed unless she wraps it up, its needs and its weaknesses appeal to her pity and she cares for it until by degrees her heart warms into an intense affection toward it.

That is the sort of feeling which our Lord would have us cultivate toward mankind.

If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him These two things are such deadly opposites that they cannot live together. Where the love of the father is, there cannot be the love of the world. There is no room in us for two loves. The love of the world is essentially idolatry, and God will not be worshiped side by side with idols. You cannot send your heart at the same time in two opposite ways—toward evil and toward good. You must make a choice between the two.

Does not this text draw a very sharp distinction between those who love the Lord, and those who do not love Him? Remember that this is the language of John, the apostle of love, but true love is honest, outspoken, heart-searching, heart-trying. Do not imagine that there is any love for your souls in the heart of the preacher who preaches smooth things, and who flatters you with his “Peace, peace,” when there is no peace. No, the highest, deepest, most heaven-inspired love is that which searches and tries the heart lest there should be any deception there.

16 the desire of the flesh and the desire of the eyes and the pride of material possessions That devil’s trinity “is not from the Father, but is from the world.” While you are not to love the world you must take care that you do not fall victim to any of the lusts of this present evil world, such as the lust of the flesh. We have to speak very solemnly and admit that the most advanced saint still needs to be warned against the lust of the flesh, the indulgence of appetites that so readily lead men to sin.

Then there is the lust of the eyes. David fell into that when he repined because of the prosperity of the wicked, and was obliged to confess, “I was brutish and ignorant” (Psa 73:22). He looked at the prosperous wicked till he began to fret himself about them. That lust of the eye, in desiring more for yourself and envying those that have more—never let it happen.

And the pride of life—that thirsting to be thought respectable, that emulation of others, that struggling after honor and such like—this must not be. You are men, and must “set aside the things of a child” (1 Cor 13:11). Do not fall prey to vanities: these toys are for the children of the world, not for you who are so near to the glory of the Lord. You are grown ripe in grace, and will soon enter heaven: live accordingly. Let all earthly things lie like babies’ baubles beneath your feet while you rise to the manhood of your soul.

17 the world is passing away It is only a puff, a phantom, a bubble, a mirage that will melt away as you try to approach it; there is nothing substantial in it. It ought not, then, to be difficult to make a choice between these fleeting shadows and the everlasting substance.

the one who does the will of God remains forever Not, “the one who does some great thing to be seen by men”; not, “the one who builds a row of poorhouses, or leaves a great mass of money to charity when he dies, because he could not possibly carry it away with him”; not, “the one who sounds a trumpet before him to let everybody know what a good man he is”; not, “the one who needs to outdistance everybody else”; but, “the one who does the will of God remains forever.” Obedience to the will of God is the pathway to perpetual honor and everlasting joy. Everything else is transient, fleeting, and soon passes away, but the one who does the will of God has entered into the eternal regions, and he has himself become one of those who remain forever. Do not be carried away, therefore, from your old firm foundation, and from your eternal union to Christ.1

1 Charles Spurgeon, Spurgeon Commentary: 1 John, ed. Elliot Ritzema, Spurgeon Commentary Series (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2014), 1 Jn 2:15–17.

2. The substance of the appeal (verse 15a). John states his appeal in terse language: Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. The general import of the words is clear, but popular thinking about the world and worldliness may obscure the meaning which John’s readers found here.

“The world” is a term employed by John more often than by all the other New Testament writers put together—seventy-nine times in the gospel and twenty-three times in this epistle. It has at least three different significations in the Johannine writings: (1) It is used of the world of nature, the created order, the material universe (John 1:10; 1 John 4:17). This world, with its changing seasons, majestic mountains, restless seas, and verdant fields, is a thing of beauty and is to be acknowledged as such by Christians (cf. Psalms 8, 19, et al.). (2) It is used of the whole human race thought of as a world fallen into sin and in need of redemption. This world God loves (John 3:16); He feels its burdens and is sensitive to its needs (1 John 2:2; 4:9). (3) It is used of unbelieving, pagan society thought of as a rebel order embodying the influences and forces hostile to God (1 John 5:19; John 14:30; 15:18, 19; 16:30; cf. James 1:27; 4:4). John saw this world ranged in opposition to the people of God and threatening their very existence on the earth. It is this world which the Christian is not to love.

Findlay explains that the world in this last sense “is not made up of so many outward objects that can be specified; it is the sum of those influences emanating from men and things around us, which draw us away from God. It is the awful down-dragging current in life” (p. 199). Law defines it as “the social organism of evil” (p. 148); Erdman calls it “the society of the unspiritual and the godless” (p. 123); Conner interprets it as “an all-pervasive atmosphere” (p. 81); Dodd takes it to mean “human society as organized under the power of evil” (p. 39); Blaiklock sees it as “almost the ‘darkness’ of John’s earlier theme” (p. 23). The neb uses the term “godless world.”

Blaiklock points out that in our modern western society “ ‘the world’ is a gentler but no less deadly force. It still envelopes the Christian with the subtlety of its attraction and appeal. It is not a menace backed by a hostile, persecuting state, but it is still a facet of man’s rebellion, a thrust and urge toward conformity, surrender to the secular multitude, and the death of finer things which is involved in that capitulation” (p. 24).

What does it mean to “love” the world? To answer this question, one must bear in mind what has already been said about the significance of the word “world.” To love the world of men, as God loves it, is to demonstrate benevolent, sacrificial good will toward men lost in sin. This is the duty of every Christian. But to love the world as a moral order hostile to God is an altogether different thing. It is to court the world’s favor, follow its customs, adopt its ideals, covet its prizes, and seek its fellowship. Loving the world in this sense means setting one’s affection on evil and is tantamount to deserting God. This the Christian must not do.

“The things that are in the world” are its lusts, its ambitions, its pleasures, its dominating principles and motives—in a word, those elements in society which stamp it as evil. John summarizes these things in verse 16: “the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the vainglory of life” (asv).

3. The expansion of the appeal (verses 15b–17). In developing his appeal John gives two reasons for not loving the world. One is that love for the world excludes love for God: If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him (verse 15b). The tcnt: “When any one loves the world, there is no love for the Father in him.” The use of a present tense verb makes clear that John was thinking of love for the world and love for God as ruling principles of life. As such they are mutually exclusive; where one is the other cannot be.

Verse 16 tells why love for God and love for the world are incompatible: For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. The gist of it is that God and the world belong to two separate spheres. “All that is in the world” is totally different from and directly antagonistic to all that is “of the Father.” He lays down one plan or program of life for His people: the world proposes another, which is its antithesis. There can be no compromise.

“All that is in the world,” which picks up “the world” (verse 15) and “the things that are in the world” (verse 15), may be translated “all that the world can offer” (tcnt). This is defined as “the lust of the flesh,” “the lust of the eyes,” and “the pride of life.” This “trinity of evil” is literally all that the world has to offer. It is not in its power to give anything nobler or better.

In “the lust of the flesh” the word “flesh” stands for human nature as corrupted by sin. Williams translates it “the lower nature.” Barclay calls it “that part of our nature which … offers a bridgehead to sin” (p. 68). The “lust” of the flesh means the unlawful desire produced by that nature. The phrase includes all those desires and appetites centered in man’s physical nature and exercised without regard to the will of God. The one word “sensuality” describes it.

“The lust of the eyes” speaks of the unlawful craving for that which entices our eyes. Ramsay interprets it of heathen entertainment—“all delight in immoral scenes, spectacles, plays”—and explains that the phrase “needed no commentary for readers familiar with the foul and cruel exhibitions of the circus and the amphitheatre” (p. 268). Dodd, who speaks of it as “the tendency to be captivated by the outward show of things” (p. 41), seems to equate it with materialism. Law thinks that the most obvious example of it is covetousness, but he concludes that the phrase is broad enough to include every kind of unlawful desire which makes its appeal to the eye.

The Greek for “the pride of life” may be translated “the vainglory of life” (asv), “the proud display of life” (Moffatt), or “the proud pretentions of life” (Williams). Perhaps it means something like pride in, or a pompous display of, material wealth and worldly advantages. It implies an arrogant spirit of self-sufficiency and a vain sense of security, both of which are based upon a false estimate of the stability and value of worldly things.

The Greek words for “pride” and “life” are both worthy of notice. The latter translates a term (bios) used by John only here and in 3:17. In both places it denotes the means of supporting life and may be translated “livelihood” or “possessions.” (Compare Luke 15:12, “And he divided unto them his living.”)

“Pride,” translating a word used elsewhere in the New Testament only in James 4:16, suggests arrogant display. In earlier Greek it meant “swagger” or “braggadocio.” Vincent defines it as “an insolent and vain assurance in one’s own resources, or in the stability of earthly things, which issues in a contempt for divine laws” (p. 376).

In saying that these things—sensuality, materialism, and arrogant self-sufficiency—are “not of the Father” John means that they do not originate in God, show no likeness to His character, and are contrary to the life which He wills for His people. “Of the world” means that they come from and belong to that realm which is unalterably opposed to God. They are therefore completely alien to His will. The Christian has no alternative but to flee from them.

A second reason for not loving the world is found in its transitoriness. This is hinted at in verse 16 but is brought out clearly in verse 17a: And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof. Williams gives a better rendering: “the world is passing away and with it the evil longings it incites.” The use of the continuous present tense (“is passing away”) points up that the process of dissolution is already at work.

We must not interpret this as a reference to the destruction of the material universe. “The world” must here, as above in verse 15, be thought of in moral and spiritual terms. It is the world as a rebel order, the world as an organized system marked by hostility to God. It is pagan society, “the whole world” which “lieth in the evil one” (5:19, asv).

“The lust thereof” may be understood as lust for the world, as lust which the world stimulates (see Williams’ rendering), or simply as the lust or desire belonging to the world. There is an obvious allusion to the sinful tendencies mentioned in verse 16.

In writing that the world and “all its allurements (neb) is passing away” John teaches that human society in its hostility to God has in it the seeds of death, and its final dissolution is certain. Because of this “the world” can give no permanent satisfaction. As an object of desire and affection it is evanescent, vain, and disappointing. To build one’s life around it is therefore not only sinful, it is also foolish. It is to bind oneself to a doomed and dying order.

Over against the impermanence of the world and its lust John sets the man whose life conforms to the divine plan: He that doeth the will of God abideth for ever (verse 17b). The statement is an assurance of the believer’s victory over the world. Williams translates it, “He who perseveres in doing God’s will lives on forever.” Such a person shares the very life of God and in so doing links himself with eternity.

Join thy heart to the eternity of God, and thou shalt be eternal with Him.1

1 Curtis Vaughan, 1, 2, 3 John, Founders Study Guide Commentary (Cape Coral, FL: Founders Press, 2011), 53–56. Augustine

Cut Yourself Off from the Heretic

1 Corinthians 15:33–34; Galatians 6:1; James 5:19–20

Preaching Themes: Apostasy, Friendship, Lust, Temptation

If a friend of yours is tempted by lust, give him a helping hand if you can and pull him back. But if he falls into heresy, and persists in spite of your efforts, go away quickly, cut off his friendship. For if you dally with him, you might be dragged with him into the deeps.

Theodore of Pherme1

1 Elliot Ritzema, 300 Quotations for Preachers from the Early Church, Pastorum Series (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2013).

Purity in the Eyes, Ears, and Tongue

Job 31:1; Matthew 5:28–29; 18:9; Mark 9:47; Colossians 4:6

Preaching Themes: Lust, Purity, Speech

The eye must not fix its gaze on anything that the soul may not desire without sin. The hearing must be pure and governed by discretion, deaf to all things vain and useless, ready to take in with delight the knowledge that is of God. Our speech must be seasoned with the salt of wisdom—to condemn all that is unprofitable or evil, to give utterance only to what is good and useful.

Hugh of St. Victor*1