"They were not of us" verse

[awretch]

I've been Googling for hours now. It's the verse from 1 John 2:19. I've always thought that it was about those who fell away from the faith. But upon reading it again, it looks like it's about antichrists... isn't there a verse about general people?? I feel like I've got the wrong interpretation all this time!

[tabibito]

They're definitely antichrists who had been counted as among John's immediate group, and possibly the Jerusalem Church. Except for passages which refer to falling away as a possibility, I can't think of anything that refers to a specific person or group apostasising.

[KingsGambit]

The theology of 1 John seems to have a theme of "you're either in Christ or you're not", and polemically, those who are not are antichrists.

Arminians (of which I consider myself one) understandably find this to be an inconvenient verse as at face value, it seems to indicate that apostasy is inherently impossible, and the general Arminian explanation that this only refers to a specific group of defectors strikes me as special pleading. I think the tack of considering it polemically is more promising, but there is still exegetical work to do here, and I haven't made my mind up.

[tabibito]

The theology of 1 John seems to have a theme of "you're either in Christ or you're not", and polemically, those who are not are antichrists.

Arminians (of which I consider myself one) understandably find this to be an inconvenient verse as at face value, it seems to indicate that apostasy is inherently impossible, and the general Arminian explanation that this only refers to a specific group of defectors strikes me as special pleading. I think the tack of considering it polemically is more promising, but there is still exegetical work to do here, and I haven't made my mind up.

I think his primary aim is directed at identification of true and false teachers, rather than a general overview of believers. Even so,
1 John 2:1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:
is fairly solidly contra the "you either are or are not" idea. The Koine Greek makes it clear that neither sinning nor not sinning is a foregone conclusion. To over translate a tad:
that ye sin not = to make it possible that you do not sin
if any man sin = in the event that any-one might sin

[Faber]

1 John 4:3 defines antichrists as those who deny that Jesus had come in the flesh. Possibly connected with the Docetae, or groups which later became the agnostics, who believe, among other things, that the flesh is sinful, therefore Jesus could not have come in the flesh. This heresy tried to associate itself with the early church, as is seen in Paul's letter to Colossians. Even John's Gospel, chapter 1, stresses, "The Word was made flesh...."

[mikewhitney]

In possibly siding with Tabibito, the passage speaks about false teachers who had been among the Jewish followers of Christ (in Judea). There were great pressures upon Jewish Christians to back off from the Messianic message.

[Just Passing Through]

[Adrift]

1 John 4:3 defines antichrists as those who deny that Jesus had come in the flesh. Possibly connected with the Docetae, or groups which later became the agnostics, who believe, among other things, that the flesh is sinful, therefore Jesus could not have come in the flesh. This heresy tried to associate itself with the early church, as is seen in Paul's letter to Colossians. Even John's Gospel, chapter 1, stresses, "The Word was made flesh...."

Small typo there, but they would later go on to develop into Gnostics, not Agnostics . It seems to me that this is one of the more widely held views among NT scholars, but Ben Withering III offers another suggestion,

Source: Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians, Volume 1: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on Titus, 1-2 Timothy and 1-3 John by Ben Witherington, InterVarsity Press, 2006, pp. 488-9

We are told at 1 John 2:19 that these antichrists once were members of this community but "went out from us." This does not suggest their expulsion or excommunication, but simply that they left. The author says that "they were not of us," and the clearest proof of this seems to be that they were schismatic, thus violating the love ethic, which is paramount in the Johannine community. "Secession proves a want of fundamental union from the first."¹⁹¹ Whatever else one might make of this admission, it appears clear that the church is viewed as a corpus mixtum, as both wheat and chaff at the time. It also suggests that the evidence of the antichrists' true spiritual character was not clear until they left, or at least until they denied that Jesus is the Christ and then split off.

But what exactly were they denying about Jesus? Were they docetics who denied his humanity and affirmed only his divinity?¹⁹² Or did they agree there was such a thing as the Son of God, the Messiah, but denied that the man Jesus was the one, denying that he was anything more than an ordinary human being? It is unnecessary to posit two schismatic groups with different errant Christologies.¹⁹³¹⁹⁴ In any case, "the old man" believed that Jesus had anointed all true Christians with the Spirit. The antichrists were not the only ones who could claim spiritual inspirations and insight.





¹⁹¹Plummer, Epistles of St. John, p. 58. Plummer makes the interesting suggestion that our author is not denying the possibility of apostasy here, but that apostasy "is possible, but only for those who have never really made Christ their own, never fully given themselves to Him" (p. 59).

¹⁹²The Greek verb dokeō means "to seem" or "to appear." Smith (First, Second, and Third John, p. 74) thinks that Docetism is at issue here.

¹⁹³Contra Smalley, 1, 2, 3, John, pp. 111-13.

¹⁹⁴

© Copyright Original Source

[Faber]

Small typo there, but they would later go on to develop into Gnostics, not Agnostics .

Oops, sorry.

Long time ago I was doing research on ionized meteor trails in the upper limits of the mesosphere. I wrote to some college professors, and they replied that they got a kick out of the way I misspelled mesopause.

[KingsGambit]

1 John 4:3 defines antichrists as those who deny that Jesus had come in the flesh. "

Wouldn't this by definition include all non-Christians (other than members of certain cults considered so aberrant that they are grouped as such but who do nonetheless not deny the incarnation)? This seems like further evidence for my theory that all outside the faith are in mind.

This would seem consistent with the view of Plummer (per one of Adrift's footnotes). Craig Blomberg has expressed a similar view on his personal non-academic blog.

[tabibito]

Wouldn't this by definition include all non-Christians (other than members of certain cults considered so aberrant that they are grouped as such but who do nonetheless not deny the incarnation)? This seems like further evidence for my theory that all outside the faith are in mind.

This would seem consistent with the view of Plummer (per one of Adrift's footnotes). Craig Blomberg has expressed a similar view on his personal non-academic blog.

Perhaps ... I'm inclined to think, though, that the perimeter for "every" is established at "prophets."

[KingsGambit]

Perhaps ... I'm inclined to think, though, that the perimeter for "every" is established at "prophets."

Upon re-reading, contextually, I think you are right at least in the case of the usage of the term in chapter 4.

I forgot that I have I.H. Marshall's commentary on the Epistles of John on my bookshelf. I was curious how he would deal with 2:19, since although he wrote an influential book arguing for the possibility of apostasy (Kept by the Power of God), he was known for his dislike of systematic theology. It turns out he sees it as somewhat ambiguous:

John, however, believes that if they had truly been members of the church they would have remained within it. If they ever had made a confession of faith, it had been an empty one. But a person who makes a genuine confession can be expected to persevere in his faith, although elsewhere John warns his readers against the danger of failure to persevere. It is when a person departs from the church that the falsity of his faith becomes apparent. The last clause is ambiguous in expression, and it is not clear whether John is thinking of the antichrists in particular (NIV) or making the more general point that not all who appear to belong to the church truly belong to it; perhaps he is combining both thoughts.

(Marshall, The Epistles of John, p 152)

[Adrift]

Wouldn't this by definition include all non-Christians (other than members of certain cults considered so aberrant that they are grouped as such but who do nonetheless not deny the incarnation)? This seems like further evidence for my theory that all outside the faith are in mind.

This would seem consistent with the view of Plummer (per one of Adrift's footnotes). Craig Blomberg has expressed a similar view on his personal non-academic blog.

It doesn't seem to me that John has absolutely everyone outside of the faith in mind, but more directly those who were once in the faith, or claimed to be in the faith and then never returned. If you're referring to the blog post here by Blomberg, If I'm reading him correctly, I don't take him to be saying that it refers to everyone outside of the faith (whether they were ever in it or not), to the contrary, he seems to be warning Christians from using this passage on those who were in the the faith, but may, indeed, eventually return. And the Plummer note I took to mean that he is referring to those who put on the motions of the Christian faith, but who had "never fully given themselves to Him." That, to me, does not suggest your average unbeliever who never heard the Gospel or who never declared they were a Christian at all. Rather, he seems to be referring to those who claimed to be Christians, or who dabbled in Christianity, but were never born again, who never really made Jesus Lord.

Blomberg, I think clarifies his view in his work, From Pentecost to Patmos: An Introduction to Acts through Revelation

Source: From Pentecost to Patmos: An Introduction to Acts through Revelation by Craig L. Blomberg

The third test of life involves correct Christology. The false teachers Jon is opposing are actually "antichrists," foreshadowing the antichrist of end times (v. 18). These teachers, like some of their followers, have seceded from the Christian community, thereby demonstrating that they did not truly belong to it (v. 19). Calvinists regularly see this as one of the clearest verses in Scripture to resolve the questions of how to "diagnose" what happens when someone commits apostasy. These teachers, however, are claiming a unique anointing of the Spirit that John disputes. Such an anointing is the prerogative of allone cannot have the Father without a correct understanding of the Son (v. 23).

© Copyright Original Source

[Obsidian]

"Us" refers to the apostles, not Christians as a whole. (See 1 John 1:1-3). It isn't saying necessarily that these heretics never had faith. It is just saying that they hung out with the apostles, but they left in order to teach something different.

[NorrinRadd]

"Us" refers to the apostles, not Christians as a whole. (See 1 John 1:1-3). ...

Interesting. I never really noticed before, but sorting out the uses of "we," "us," "I," and "you" in 1 John could be a bit of a challenge.