"They were not of us" verse

[tabibito]

There might be a parallel with Galatians 2:12 here. "Before certain men from James came, Peter ate with the gentiles." It seems likely that the apostles had "schools" within the church, though not intended to be competing. - also note the "I am of Paul," and "I of Apollos" (1 Cor 1:12)

[The Remonstrant]

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!

I cannot recall a single text in the New Testament (NT) that posits a universal principle that any and all persons who ever depart from the apostolic teaching have been, and always were, non-believers, phoneys, wolves in sheep’s attire, antichrists. First John 2.19 is often cited to this effect, but given the fact that other scriptures entertain the possibility of believers apostatising,* and no similar passages are to be found in the NT elucidating a principle of ‘all apostates without exception were never united to Christ, but false professors’, I believe that it is asking too much of a single verse to establish such a rule.


* See, for example, Hebrews 6.4–6; 10.26–31.

[tabibito]

I'm not satisfied that "they were not of us" indicates that "they never had been of us." I think that "once were of us" is a more expected interpretation arising from "had remained" μεμενηκεισαν (pluperfect: it isn't used very often in the NT). Still, I can't be certain without a lot more checking.

[awretch]

Woah, so many responses. Thanks everyone for helping me out. Yes, after reading the passage a few times, I have to agree... it's about the antichrists. Though I wish I had read it more carefully early on! Better to catch it late than never.

[Rushing Jaws]

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.

Would reading the passage in light of St John’s Gospel help ? Disciples of Jesus leave Him in chapter 6 and chapter 8. And in the Synoptic Gospels, there are the Parable of the Tares, the Man Not Clothed In a Wedding Garment, and other Parables about people who are excluded when they seem to be included. A lot of the Gospels is about People Not Really Belonging Even Though They Seemed To Belong - and about rank “outsiders” belonging after all. Which makes the verse an expression of a very common NT theme.

As both writings are in some sense Johannine, it seems reasonable to think that they will have ideas in common. Why do they leave ? Maybe because they were not among those whom the Father “gave to the Son”. St John does not say that in 1 John, but that supra-historical activity is one of the ideas in the Johannine Gospel, and, at the very least, does not contradict 1 John.

Calvinism (like other forms of Christianity) has picked up & emphasised some ideas and themes that belong to specifically Johannine Jewish Christian apocalyptic eschatology - it does not necessarily follow that St John was a Calvinist. The verse is (presumably) an expression of Johannine Jewish Christian apocalyptic eschatology, which is pervaded by the notion that Jesus is King.