Guy N. Woods Commentary On 1st John 1SECTION ONE (1 John 1:1-4) PROOF OF THE OF THE WORD(1 John 1:1-3) The Epistle opens with an exordium, or introduction (1: 1­4), in which the author sets out the personal experiences which had been his, thus enabling him to offer eyewitness testimony regarding the facts presented and to announce the purpose for which they were offered. This introduction consists of a lengthy and involved sentence, but it may be analyzed as follows: (a) beginning of the sentence in verse 1; (b) its temporary suspension and the insertion of verse 2 as a parenthetical statement to explain verse 1; (c) resumption of the original thought in verse 3 with enough of verse 1 repeated to enable the reader to resume the thought. Omitting the parenthetical statement of verse 2, we may gather up the thought set out in verses 1 and 3 as follows: “ That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen, which we beheld, and which our hands handled con­cerning the Word of life, we declare unto you also, that ye also may have fellowship with us.” The striking resemblance between this exordium of the First Epistle of John and the “ Gospel” which he wrote is immediately apparent, and will appear clearly in the following parallel: 1 John 1:1 ---That which was from the beginning,— Instead of a per­sonal pronoun in the masculine gender which we would ordinarily expect in this instance, the sentence begins with a neuter relative, that which. The reference is thus not to Christ contemplated as a person only, but to the attributes and characteristics which he, as the Word, possesses. It was “ concerning the Word of life” which John purposed to write, hence the neuter to express a collective or comprehensive whole. The words “ from the beginning” are reminiscent of “ In the beginning was the Word” (John 1:1), and “ In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1). However, “ the beginning” in John’ s phraseology does not always indicate the same period; in any given instance, the context must be examined to determine its significance. “ Be­loved, no new commandment write I unto you, but an old com­mandment which ye had from the beginning” (1 John 2:7), “ the beginning” denoting the time when these to whom John wrote be­came Christians. “ He that doeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning.” (1 John 3:8.) Here the beginning points to the time when Satan came into possession of his devilish character— the occasion of his sin and fall. “ I have written unto you, little children, because ye know the Father. I have written unto you, fathers, because ye have known him who is from the beginning” (1 John 2:14), i.e., from all eternity. In our text “ from the beginning” points to that period before creation, and therefore into the eternity which precedes it. It is an affirmation of the eternal characteristics of the Lord and the attributes which he possesses. 1 John 1:1 ---That which we have heard, that which we have seen with our eyes, that which we beheld, and our hands handled con­cerning the Word of life.—It will be observed that there is a fourfold repetition of the neuter that which (ho) introducing the phrases which follow: (1) that which was from the beginning; (2) that which we have heard; (3) that which we have seen with our eyes; (4) that which we beheld and our hands handled. The first of these, “ that which was from the beginning,” is an affirmation of the eternal character of that to which reference is made; the three which follow indicate John’ s relation thereto. That which was from the beginning he (and others) had (a) heard; (b) seen with his eyes; (c) beheld; and (d) handled. Each of the verbs heard, seen, beheld, and handled, in rising gradation, sharpens the concept and vivifies the thought intended by the writer. The lowest in the scale which he presents is hearing. There is no personal contact in hearing; it may be done from a distance, with­out design or purpose, indeed, unwillingly. Seeing is likewise involuntary, though the eyes may be averted from that which we do not desire to see. The word “ beheld,” however, indicates con­scious and willful participation; it denotes more than mere seeing (etheasametha), from which it is translated, suggests a steady and penetrating gaze designed to hold the object in view until all its characteristics are noted. Also inherent in the meaning of the word is the idea of contemplating with pleasure, looking with delight, finding satisfaction in the object thus contemplated. The verb handled suggests the most tangible, intimate, and definite evidence which John offered. In it there was physical contact. Thus three senses— hearing, seeing, and touching— were utilized by the apostle to obtain evidence of the reality of the Word of life about which he testifies here. The reason why the apostle felt it necessary to deal thus minutely with the evidence, and to offer testimony in such detailed fashion is to be seen in the nature of the false doctrines prevalent regarding the person of the Christ. (See under “ Design of the Epistle” in the Introduction.) The Lord was not a mere influence, nor yet a shadowy phantom, but a living, vibrant, tangible personality whose voice John has heard, whose body he had seen, and whom he had touched with his own hands. The testimony which the apostle offered was “ concerning the Word of life.” This does not mean the gospel, but he who is its source, the logosa (John 1:1), the complete expression of deity. The testimony which John offered was with reference to the Word in the flesh, the second person in the Godhead, the Lord himself. “ Of life” is in apposition to “ word” (logosa) and is descriptive of the Word thus designated. The prepositional phrase “ of life” is frequently used by the Lord to describe his various character­istics. He is “ the life” (John 11:25 John 14:6); “ the bread of life” (John 6:35 John 6:48); “ the light of life” (John 8:12). Thus, the neuter relative, “ that which,” points to the matters concerning, pertaining to, and descriptive of Christ as the Word (the full expression) of life. John was particularly careful to guard his readers against the conclusion that the Word of life was merely some speech or saying delivered by Christ, and hence emphasized that it was the actual, literal, fleshly body of Christ which he had seen, beheld, heard, and his hand had handled. Here, as in the first chapter of the Gospel by the same writer, is refuted the Gnos­tic heresy that Christ was not really in the flesh but only appeared to be. There, he declared that the “ Word became flesh, and dwelt among us” (John 1:14); here, that he was in possession of tan­gible, definite evidence of his reality. 1 John 1:2 ---And the life was manifested, and we have seen, and bear witness, and declare unto you the life, the eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us.— This verse is parenthetical and repeats the sense of verse 1, re­vealing why John and those similarly situated— the other apostles — were able to bear witness of and declare Jesus as the life. To “ manifest” is to make visible in the sense of revelation; to make known matters formerly concealed. Because this life was revealed, John had been privileged through investigation— hearing, seeing, gazing upon, and handling— to obtain sensible knowledge of him thus revealed, and hence to be able to bear testimony regarding him. A progression of ideas is to be noted here, each of which, in ascending order, indicates the care which John exercised in leading his readers to the conclusion he desired: (1) the life was manifest­ed (in the ipcarnation); (2) John had seen it; (3) he was, there­fore, competent to testify regarding it; (4) this he was doing in declaring “ the life, the eternal life,” which, before his advent into the world, had been with the Father. This life had been with the Father prior to the incarnation and is thus eternal. Here is the first of four stages indicated in the sacred writings regarding the second person of the Godhead and points irresistibly to his deity: (1) his pre-existence in eternity as the Word prior to creation; (2) his foreshadowing in the Old Testament period as the angel of Jehovah, the anticipated Mes­siah, etc.; (3) his incarnate life on earth; (4) his present glorified state in heaven at the right hand of God, the Father, on the throne of David. (Acts 2:25-36.) A complete study of the life of our Lord must proceed from each of these heads. 1 John 1:3 ---That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you also, that ye also may have fellowship with us;—The apostle here resumes the thought begun in verse 1, and asserts the pur­pose for which the Word of life is declared: “ That ye also may have fellowship with us.” “ Fellowship” (koinonia) is partner­ship, joint sharing. Through the acceptance of the Word of life a unity of faith, practice, and worship is established, and it was for this purpose that the life was being declared. Here, in the most emphatic fashion, the writer points out that only in unity of faith is there communion in religion. It is possible to have fellowship only when there is a common bond established in faith, work, and love. 1 John 1:3 ---Yea, and our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ;—Where there is communion among the saints, established through the acceptance of the truth, it leads on to fellowship with the Father and his Son, Jesus Christ. (1 Corinthians 1:9.) Here, indeed, is the only way to church unity; a common faith based on unity of teaching and practice. When such obtains, there is unity among the believers, and the bond of fellowship thus established is extended to include both the Father and the Son. We thus learn that the society of the saints is not limited to the earth: it extends into heaven and consists of an intimate bond of sympathy with deity itself. On the other hand, when there is an alienation of fellowship here, there is an inevitable severance of such in heaven. Brethren cannot allow themselves to become alienated from each other here without suffering similar alienation from the Lord himself. That this unity might prevail, Jesus prayed; “ Neither for these only do I pray, but for them also that believe on me through their word; that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us: that the world may believe that thou didst send me.” (John 17:21.) PURPOSE OF WRITING(1 John 1:4) 1 John 1:4 ---And these things we write, that our joy may be made full.—“ These things” were the matters immediately referred to in the early verses of the chapter and, in a secondary sense, in all of the Epistle. The plural pronoun “ we” is a common literary device and does not, of course, mean that others were joined with John in the authorship of this Epistle. (Cf. 2 Corinthians 1:1; Colossians 1:1; Philippians 1:1; Philem. 1: 1; 1 Thessalonians 1:1.) The purpose for which “ these things” were penned was that the joy of John might abound. Through the announcement of the testimony regarding Christ (verse 1) fellowship would obtain (verse 3), and the effect of this fellowship was joy. The same writer later said, “ I re­joiced greatly, when brethren came and bare witness unto thy truth, even as thou walkest in the truth. Greater joy have I none than this, to hear of my children walking in the truth.” (3 John 1:3-4.)SECTION TWO GOD IS LIGHT(1Jn 1: 5-2: 28) OF WITH GOD(1 John 1:5-7) 1 John 1:5 ---And this is the message which we have heard from him and announce unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at alL—Again the apostle cites the sensible evidence which he had of the Lord’ s identity, emphasized so strongly in verse 1, as the ground of his readers’ acceptance of the “ mes­sage” which he was announcing, viz., (1) God is light; (2) in him is no darkness at all. This message John and the other apostles had “ heard” from “ him,” i.e., Christ. The affirmation, “ God is light,” is not the same as “ God is the light” or “ God is a light,” but simply God is light, such is his essence; he is of the character of light. The word “ light” sums up the divine character on the intellectual side, as “ God is love,” similarly describes the fullness of his moral nature. He is the “ author” of light (James 1:17) its creator (Genesis 1:3); he is bathed in perpetual light (1 Timothy 6:16) ; and the marvelous light in which Christians are to walk is his (1 Peter 2:9). Moreover, “ in him is no darkness at all.” “ Darkness” is a figure of ignorance, superstition, and sin, as “ light” represents truth, purity, and goodness. In this manner, God is contrasted with the heathen deities the worship of which promoted immorality, ungodliness, and gross sin. The devil and his agents are styled “ the world rulers of this darkness” (Ephesians 6:12), and their domain is called “ the power of darkness” (Colossians 1:13). Those formerly enmeshed in the mazes of heathenism were said to have been “ once darkness,” but now, as the result of their obedience to the gospel, “ light in the Lord.” (Ephesians 5:8.) Paul gave thanks unto the Father, “ who made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light.” (Colossians 1:12.) Though there is much darkness in the world, “ darkness in him there is none whatsoever.” This statement, in the Greek text, is an exceedingly emphatic one, the two negatives, ouk estin oude- mia, signifying “ no, not even one tiny particle!” There is no discoloration, no admixture of darkness in the pure light which streams from the character of God. He is, indeed, “ the Father of lights, with whom can be no variation, neither shadow that is cast by turning.” (James 1: 17.) 1 John 1:6 ---If we say that we have fellowship with him and walk in the darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:—This verse con­tains a conclusion drawn from premises in the verse preceding. The situation which he assumes is a hypothetical one: Should one say, “ I have fellowship with God,” and yet walks in darkness, his words are false, and he does not the truth. “ Walk” is a figure of the Christian life, summing up its activities. The Lord said, “ I am the light of the world; he that followeth me shall not walk in the darkness, but shall have the light of life.” (John 8: 12.) To be in fellowship with God, one must walk in the light; he who claims it, yet does not walk therein, sins both in word and in deed. Here, as often elsewhere in the sacred writings, it is made clear that theory and practice in religion are inseparably connected. Truth, properly held, always exhibits itself in obedience. Those who “ walk in darkness” are not only sinful in conduct; their dis­position is one of hatred and envy. “ He that saith he is in the light, and hateth his brother, is in the darkness even until now. He that loveth his brother abideth in the light, and there is no occasion of stumbling in him. But he that hateth his brother is in the darkness, and walketh in the darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth, because the darkness hath blinded his eyes.” (1 John 2: 9-11.) 1 John 1:7 ---But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another,—The verb “ walk” here (ean peripatomen) is present active subjunctive, thus literally, “ If we keep on walking in the light . . .” It must be a continuing walk. Moreover, we are to walk in the light in which the Father is. We are in the light only when fellowship with him obtains; and in this light must we remain. It is conditional whether we are in it, but such is his constant habitation. His dwelling is in “ light unapproachable.” (1 Tim. 6: 16.) If the element of our daily walk is the same as God’ s, “ we have fellowship one with another.” “ Fellowship” (koinonia) is partnership, joint participation, com­munion. Thus only through fellowship with God is fellowship with the brethren possible. Fellowship with the brethren involves mutual assistance in all the difficulties of life; it includes the bear­ing of one another’ s burdens (Gal. 6:2), the sharing of all the sorrows and joys which constitute life. “ And whether one mem­ber suffereth, all the members suffer with it; or one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it. Now ye are the body of Christ, and severally members thereof.” (1 Cor. 12: 26, 27.) 1 John 1:8 ---And the blood of Jesus his Son cleanseth us from all sin.—This clause is coordinate with “ we have fellowship one with an­other,” and is a statement of the means by which it is possible for us to walk in the light. Thus, by walking in the light two results follow: (1) we have fellowship with each other; (2) the blood of Jesus cleanses us from all sin. Cleansing efficacy is thus attributed to the blood of Christ. Many important considerations follow from this passage: (a) It is not the mere example of Christ’ s dying that accomplishes our salvation; (b) it is not simply the contemplation of his death which delivers us from the guilt of sin; it is not belief in the moral implications of Calvary which pro­duces the blessing; nor (d) faith in the suffering of Christ on the cross. It is the blood, the shed blood of the Son of God, that cleanses us from sin. Moreover, it cleanses from sin, not merely or solely the conscience, but sin (amartias), all sin, whether of thought, word, or deed, rash sins, sins of ignorance, of malice, of omission or commission, sins of the flesh, sins of the disposition, sins of pleasure or of pain, sins of every type and kind committed at any time or place. “ Cleanseth” is from the verb katharizei, in the present tense, thus revealing that it is a constant process, conditioned on our walking in the light. As we thus walk the blood operates to keep us constantly cleansed from the defilement of sin and the condem­nation which attends it. This verse is an exceedingly significant and comprehensive one, in the light of the false doctrines which were in vogue when the Epistle appeared and which it was written to refute. Established beyond reasonable controversy are the fol­lowing important propositions: (1) the reality of the body and blood of Jesus; (2) the sufferings which he experienced on the tree of the cross; (3) the efficacy of the blood which he shed. SIN AND ITS 1 John 1:8-101 John 1:8 ---If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not m us.—Inasmuch as there is no article before the word “ sin” in this passage, it is contemplated in essence, ab­stractly considered. These words were penned to refute the pre­vailing notion of the heretics— and some to this day advocate the same view— that it is possible for one to live above sin. Those who so affirm (a) deceive themselves, and (b) exhibit the fact that the truth is not in them. Because of the weakness of the flesh and the ever-present problem of temptation, even the best of peo­ple inadvertently sin, and hence have need of the cleansing power inherent in the blood of Jesus. Aware of such, John was shortly to write: “ My little children, these things write I unto you that ye may not sin. And if any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.” (1 John 2:1.) Those who deny that they have sin, add to the sin they already have, and sin in so affirming! The ever-present problem of sin is adduced by the apostle as the reason why children of God must have the cleansing power of the blood applied. This clearly refutes the notion that men have lived, or may live in this life, without sin. The truth is not in those who so allege. It may be around them or near them, but it is not in them; it does not constitute a part of their character. These to whom John wrote had been forgiven of their past or alien sins; thus reference here is not to any previous state of guilt prior to conversion, but to present sin, sin at the time he wrote, sins of omission and commission, sins of the flesh and of the disposition, all sin, any sin of which we may be guilty. The recognition and confession of sin is a prerequisite to our approval before God. To refuse such recognition and confession is simply to deceive ourselves and to demonstrate the fact that the truth is not in us. 1 John 1:9 ---If we confess our sins, he is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.—The phrase, “ If we say . . .,” a mere formal admission of guilt (verse 8), becomes here “ If we confess . . .,” a much more vivid concept. One may indeed “ say” (eipon) that he has sin without experiencing any deep or abiding sense of guilt or wrong and without being moved to repentance. The confession (homologe) here contemplated is a humble acknowledgment of wrong, a peni­tent attitude essential to forgiveness. The word homologeo, from which the word “ confess” is translated, means to say the same thing, to speak together, and figuratively implies a dialogue be­tween God and the sinner, in which the Father describes the con­dition of the sinner, and the sinner finally accedes to the correct­ness of the description and thus confesses that God is right! The word “ sin” of verse 8, an abstract concept of wrong, be­comes “ sins,” individual and specific acts of wrong-doing in verse 9. It follows, therefore, that the sins we are to confess are the specific and particular manifestations of the sin which all sincere believers of the Word know in their hearts they possess. The verb “ confess” is translated from a present active subjunc­tive, thus literally, “ If we keep on confessing our sins . . .,” indica­tive of a continuous process. There are two definite and specific types of confession required of the erring in the New Testament: (1) confession before the Father, as here; (2) acknowledgement of sins before others, as in James 5:16. It is scarcely necessary to add that an additional confession before a priest on the pretext that such a one can absolve sins is wholly unknown to the New Testament, is contrary to the teaching of the scriptures, and inim­ical to the genius and character of the Christian religion. With Jesus as our Priest, Mediator, and Advocate, we need no other assistance in approaching the Throne of Grace. (Hebrews 7:25 Hebrews 10:19-20; 1 John 2:1; 1 Timothy 2:5.) If we keep on confessing our sins, God “ is faithful and righteeous to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteous­ness.” “ Faithfulness” and “ righteousness” are attributes of the great Jehovah; and when we confess our sins before him, we enter into and partake of the blessings which result from them. He has promised to forgive us on condition that we confess our sins; and since he is faithful, he will not fail in the performance of his promises. David joined these attributes in Psalms 143:1 : “ Hear my prayer, O Jehovah; give ear to my supplications; in thy faithfulness answer me, and in thy righteousness.” It is God’ s nature to be faithful and righteous, and it is his purpose to cleanse when the conditions— confession and penitence— are met. “ Unrighteousness,” the opposite of “ righteousness.” is synony­mous with the word sin, of verse 8. Wrong-doing is set forth under various aspects in the scriptures. A collection of terms in­dicative of its different qualities occurs in Exodus 34:7. 1 John 1:10 ---If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.—Compare verse 8. Here, again, there is an advance in thought, as in verses 8 and 9. The “ if we say we have no sin” (abstractly considered) becomes here, “ If we say that we have not sinned ...” (have not been guilty of specific and concrete acts of sin). Verse 10 designates specific acts of sin; in verse 8 sin is regarded as a state or condition. Those who insist that they have not sinned make God a “ liar” and demon­strate the fact that God’ s word is not in them. Much emphasis is given here to the fact and reality of sin in the lives of us all. Those who deny this lie (verse 6) deceive themselves (verse 8) make God a liar (verse 10). Taught here, in the most emphatic fashion possible, is the constant and recurring need of pardon on the part of all children of God. Not only is such essential to the alien sinner in order that he may be adopted into the fellowship of God; he must continue to seek it and avail himself of its benefits through­out life. As sin is evermore about us, and, alas, all too often in us, we must continually seek new pardons through the means hereinbefore set forth. This section of the Epistle, far from teach­ing that the Lord forgave us of all sins, “ past, present, and future,” as the advocates of the doctrine of the impossibility of apostasy allege, establishes the fact of an ever-present need of the cleansing power of the blood of Jesus Christ our Lord. Happily we have the assurance that “ the blood of Jesus his Son keeps on cleansing us from all sin” (verse 7) as we conform to the conditions on which such depends. Those who deny the fact of sin in their lives make God a liar by contradicting his express statements of man’ s sinfulness before him, and they demonstrate the fact that the truth is not in them by exhibiting ignorance of the truth in their allegation. 1st John Chapter OneVerse 1 JOHN'S FIRST LETTERThe beautiful prologue (1 John 1:1-4) is like the one in John's gospel, having the profoundest dimensions and embryonically stating the theme as: "God manifested in Jesus Christ, that man may have fellowship with the Father through the Son."[1] The remaining six verses are part of a complicated paragraph running through 1 John 2:28 and which begins with "God is light" (1 John 1:5), the first of three epic statements about God which are usually cited by scholars as marking in a rough sense the three major divisions of 1John. The other two are: "God is righteous" (1 John 2:29) and "God is love" (1 John 4:7-8). As noted in the introduction, however, a satisfactory classical outline of this letter is hardly possible. The echoes of the great prologue in John's gospel are so pronounced in these first four verses, with just those variations which are believable in John but which no forger would have dared to attempt, that this shorter prologue here has been understood by the Christians of all ages as a convincing Johannine signature. Nobody except John could have written this. ENDNOTE: [1] J. R. Dummelow, Commentary on the Holy Bible (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1937), p. 1054. That which was from the beginning, that which we have heard, that which we have seen with our eyes, that which we beheld, and our hands handled, concerning the Word of life; (1 John 1:1) It will be seen that this verse is not a complete sentence, the entire four verses of the prologue being "but one highly compressed and complicated sentence in the Greek."[2] This complexity has led to different opinions as to how it should be translated. That which ... This neuter pronoun seems opposed to the usual view that "Word of life" here is a reference to Jesus Christ; therefore some render it "word of life," meaning "the message"; however, "Word of life," meaning Jesus Christ, is far better. "John goes on to speak of hearing, seeing and even touching, which makes it necessary for us to think of Jesus."[3]From the beginning ... In the gospel (John 1:1), John wrote "in the beginning"; and based on the variation here, Macknight thought that the beginning of the gospel age is meant, rather than the beginning of all things.[4] However, as Morris pointed out, the gospel did not begin with the Incarnation. "It was always in God's plan.[5] Paul used such expressions as "from times eternal" and "before the world was" regarding the gospel; and these considerations as well as the thundering echoes of the gospel prologue with which this passage has close affinity convince us that Roberts' firm comment on this is correct: John is referring to Christ and to his existence with the Father from eternity. In 1 John 2:13, he will speak of Christ as "one who was from the beginning." Compare John 1:1-2 John 1:14 John 17:5.[6]That which we have heard ... Who are the "we" of this clause? The conviction here is that the apostolic eyewitnesses of Christ throughout his ministry and of his death, burial and resurrection are those meant. Heard ... seen ... handled ... Such terms designate the holy apostles and perhaps a few others who might have been eyewitnesses (Luke 1:2). Certainly it is the apostles who are primarily the ones meant here. "This refers to the companionship of John and the other disciples with Jesus on earth."[7] Wilder and other recent commentators have construed the "we" of this passage and in 1 John 1:3 as meaning "all believers, whether eyewitnesses or not ... the church ... through the generations";[8] but such a view cannot possibly be right. "It is impossible to make good sense out of this if we think of `we' as meaning ewe Christians.' It must mean those believers who actually saw Jesus in the flesh."[9] The great facts of the Christian gospel are founded upon historical events witnessed by people who saw and experienced the things they preached. "We Christians talking to each other" did not "develop" our holy religion; it was revealed, and conveyed to us by competent and authentic witnesses, the Incarnate God in Christ being the source of all of it. That which we have seen with our eyes ... Mere hearsay evidence formed no part of basic Christian teaching. The apostles recounted what they had heard, seen, beheld (more intensive investigation than merely seeing), and even handled. Was it not their hands that passed out bread and fishes for a vast multitude? Affirmations in these clauses forbid making "the message" the subject. Could the apostles have "handled" the message? Maybe they read by the Braille method! On the other hand, they did handle Christ. See the Saviour's invitation for them to do so in Luke 24:39, where again this very unusual word for "touch" is rendered "handle," a word occurring only three times in the whole New Testament.[10] Many have seen in this word an allusion to the resurrection of Christ. Concerning the Word of life ... Those intent on declaring the message of the gospel and not Christ himself as the subject of this prologue prefer the rendition "word of life," as in the ASV margin, the RSV and a number of other recent translations; but these should be rejected. The same considerations that required the capitalization of "Word" in the gospel also require the capitalization of "Word" here. It is the same word, the words "of life" not altering that fact. Many of the most dependable versions and translations attest this: Word of life -- King James Version Word of Life -- New Catholic Version, 1946 Logos of life -- James Moffatt Word of Life -- Richard Francis Weymouth WORD OF LIFE -- Emphatic Diaglott Word of life -- John Wesley Word of life -- Good News for Modern Man Word of Life -- Amplified New Testament Word of life himself -- J. B. Phillips It is true, of course, that some great names among the scholars have insisted on making "message" the subject. Westcott, Dodd, Scott and White are among them, the most insistent being C. H. Dodd, who went so far as to translate the phrase "the gospel" instead of "Word of life." However, it should be noted that Scott was influenced by Dodd, and that Dodd had an axe to grind. He was anxious to sustain his theory of a different author for this epistle, one of his big points being that [Greek: logos] was used in a different sense in the epistle from that in the gospel. (See a discussion of this in the introduction.) What he actually did was to contrive a different meaning here and then offer his contrivance as a bona-fide argument against Johannine authorship of 1John! Westcott, one of the most distinguished scholars in a thousand years, in this, made one of his rare mistakes. He also missed the proper translation of Joh 1:18, significantly, both passages dealing with the ascription of outright deity to Jesus Christ. He justified the error in the gospel on the basis that other New Testament passages fully cover the question anyway and that the additional testimony was unnecessary; and he could have justified the error here in the same way. In spite of the insistence of a few influential men, however, the old meaning should be preserved in this text. But, is not the whole question `much ado about nothing'? In a sense, yes. Roberts pointed out that, "There is little difference between saying that John is proclaiming the personal Word ([Greek: logos]) ... and saying that he is proclaiming the message about the life which is eternal." Our refutation of C. H. Dodd in the introduction was based, not upon the error of supposing a different use of [Greek: logos] in 1John from that of the gospel prologue, but upon the fact that the idea is exactly the same. Christ is the gospel. Preaching Christ and preaching the gospel are synonymous terms and were so used by the apostle Paul and the Christians of all generations. The word of the gospel is in fact a "living word" (Hebrews 4:12). Despite this, however, the translations which have been accepted for centuries should not be presumptuously set aside, far too many of those doing so having in mind exactly the same kind of attack upon New Testament books that Dodd made. It is one thing to change a translation in the light of new manuscript evidence, and possibly other bona-fide reasons; but many of the proposed changes are indefensible, as is the one in view here. Morris summed up the case thus: While this term (Word of life) might well describe the gospel, we must bear in mind that Jesus is called "the Word," and that in him was life, and the life was the light of men (John 1:1 John 1:4).[11][2] Leon Morris, The New Bible Commentary, Revised (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1970), p. 1260. [3] Ibid. [4] James Macknight, Macknight on the Epistles, Vol. VI (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, reprint, 1969), 1John, p. 24. [5] Leon Morris, op. cit., p. 1261. [6] J. W. Roberts, The Letters of John (Austin, Texas: R. B. Sweet Company, 1968), p. 20. [7] James William Russell, Compact Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1964), p. 597. [8] Amos N. Wilder, The Interpreter's Bible, Vol. XII (New York: Abingdon Press, 1956), p. 218. [9] Leon Morris, op. cit., p. 1261. [10] R. W. Orr, A New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1969), p. 609. [11] Leon Morris, op. cit., p. 1261. Verse 2 (and the life was manifested, and we have seen, and bear witness, and declare unto you the life, the eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us)This verse is parenthetical, but it regards the very thing in John's mind from the first verse, namely, the Holy One, the same who in the beginning was "with God" and "was God" (John 1:1), called in the gospel "the Word" and here "the Word of life" (1 John 1:1). This life manifested ... Moffatt was doubtless correct in capitalizing "Life" in both verses. "Manifested" is a term frequently used in the New Testament of the appearance of the Son of God in flesh (1 Timothy 3:16,1 Peter 1:20,1 John 3:5 1 John 3:8). It is further illuminated by the counterpart of it in the gospel, "The word became flesh and dwelt among us" (John 1:31). John also used the same word to describe the resurrection appearances of Jesus (John 21:1 John 21:14). And we have seen, and bear witness ... By this, John refers to his gospel, to which, in a sense, this letter is an appendix. His "witness" or "testimony" is incorporated in that which he wrote. Again, "we" refers to the apostles. Macknight paraphrased the words here thus: "We apostles who accompanied him during his abode on earth, etc."[12] Clemance also understood this whole verse as concerning Jesus Christ. He wrote: "From what follows, there can be no question that the apostle here refers to the Lord Jesus Christ."[13] "Bear witness" means to proclaim, testify, or bear testimony, such words appearing no less than nineteen times in these epistles. Thus, John's assault on error was a thundering reiteration of basic gospel truth. As Hoon said: Because this epistle was occasioned by heresy and misconduct, argument and denunciation frequently appear. But the author did not first engage in apologetics; he knew that error is best met by confronting it with the truth it denies.[14][12] James Macknight, op. cit., p. 27. [13] A. Clemance, The Pulpit Commentary, Vol. 22,1John (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1950), p. 6. [14] Paul W. Hoon, The Interpreter's Bible, Vol. XII (New York: Abingdon Press, 1957), p. 216. Verse 3 that which we have seen and heard declare we unto you also, that we also may have fellowship with us: yea, and our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ:That ... we declare unto ... The word "declare" is here repeated from 1 John 1:2, indicating the close unity of the whole passage. "The proclamation (declaration in our version) need not refer to the Gospel of John specifically. It is the substance of all gospel or apostolic preaching."[15] Furthermore, the present tense shows the established and continual nature of that proclamation through the lives of the apostles and their writings. It is wrong to limit the proclamation to the contents of this epistle. That which we have seen ... This repeated stress upon the eyewitness nature of the apostolic gospel is important, as it affirms dogmatically that the writer is himself one of the eyewitnesses. Unto you also, that ye also ... One of these words (also) may be construed as applicable to the proclamation, "readers thus being informed that this letter is supplementary to the basic witness of the gospel."[16] "It also means `ye also' who have not seen Jesus."[17]That ye also may have fellowship with us ... Fellowship is from the Greek word [@koinonia], meaning "a close relationship or harmonious association as partners or sharers of the gospel."[18] Note too that a definite purpose of the epistle is the maintenance and extension of Christian fellowship, a fellowship which was threatened by the rise of heresies and the ensuing bitterness and strife which resulted. The purpose of the apostles regarding this essential fellowship of Christians "rebukes much of our modern evangelism and church life."[19]And our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ ... Oneness with God in Christ is the basis of Christian fellowship, and it cannot exist without it. That is why the doctrinal and ethical nature of the Christian message should continually be stressed from the pulpit; because, in this essential basis is the principle of cohesion that binds Christians first to God in Christ and then to each other. Any congregation or church which depends upon a superficial social camaraderie to replace the word and doctrine as its cohesive power blunders fatally. If there would be fellowship, first let the heresies be denied and thwarted and the ethical behavior of Christians restored. This was exactly John's purpose in this letter. Father ... and Son Jesus Christ ... The equal dignity of Jesus Christ with the Father is clear in John's association of their names together at the very outset of his letter. [15] J. W. Roberts, op. cit., p. 23. [16] R. W. Orr, op. cit., p. 609. [17] David Smith, Expositor's Greek New Testament, Vol. V (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1967), p. 170. [18] J. W. Roberts, op. cit., p. 24. [19] John R. W. Stott, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Vol. 19 (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1964), p. 64. Verse 4 and these things we write, that our joy may be made full.We write ... It has been debated whether this applies primarily to the whole apostolic message just referred to in the prologue or to the epistle about to follow. Scott is likely correct in referring both to the apostolic proclamation "Declare we (1 John 1:3) and write we (1 John 1:4) refer to the same message."[20] Since the epistle itself is part of the apostolic message, this appears to be logical. A NOTE "ETERNAL LIFE" Before leaving this study of the prologue, a little further attention to the subject of eternal life is appropriate. It is well known that both in the gospel and the epistles John often speaks of eternal life as the present possession of Christians. J. W. Roberts has given a thorough discussion of this in his commentary. He cited many passages that indicate that, "In some sense, John sees the Christian as enjoying eternal life here and now,"[21] a proposition that is obvious to any reader or student of John. He concluded that, "The eternal life which the believer has (present tense) is to be interpreted not as quantitative (everlasting) but as qualitative."[22] Those qualities of the Christian's present "eternal life" are evident in the declarations that he "has passed from death into life," that he is a "partaker of the divine nature" (2 Peter 1:4), and that he arises from baptism to walk "in newness of life." No disagreement whatever is felt with regard to Roberts' analysis; but it seems appropriate to guard against any misunderstanding of it. The Christian's possession of eternal life now and here must be understood in the sense of his enjoying the blessed promise of it. The earnest of it (Ephesians 1:13) which he now sheds forth in his heart many qualities of the ultimate eternal life that shall crown the efforts of the faithful in heaven; and, in that possession of the earnest, the Christian certainly enjoys qualitatively the eternal life yet to come; but it should always be remembered that in no sense should the earnest (which of the whole is only a very small part) ever be equated with the entirety of that eternal life, which according to the blessed promise of the Christ himself is the ultimate reward of the faithful in Christ. Nor can it be thought even of those qualities of eternal life enjoyed in the present time, that they are in any sense to be equated completely with the ultimate "eternal life." The very term earnest forbids this. Not all the joys of eternal life are ours now; nor can it be thought, even of those fruits of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22 f) which we already possess, that they have the same fullness, quality, and intensity of the eternal life to come. Thus, in Roberts' statement about having eternal life qualitatively, it would be wrong to understand it as totally so. It is more accurate to view the present possession of eternal life as prospective. It is ours in the sense of our possession of the blessed promise and the confident expectation of receiving the fulfillment of it at "the last day." There is abundant testimony in the New Testament to the effect that not all of those qualities of eternal life ultimately expected are in the possession of the saints now. Even the apostle John's joy was not yet full when he wrote this epistle, as indicated by the last verse of the prologue (1 John 1:4) above. Paul's statement that it would be "better" to depart and be with Christ; John's declaration that "it is not yet made manifest what we shall be" (1 John 3:2); the absolute inability of any Christian ever to rise completely above all sin; the fact that it has never even entered into the heart of man (1 Corinthians 2:9) the things that God prepared for them that love him; the constant attendance upon human footsteps of sorrow, pain, and tribulations; - all such considerations deny the quality of that eternal life in Christians now as having any complete correspondence to the eternal life given on the last day to them who shall be invited to "enter thou into the joy of thy Lord" (Matthew 25:23). "Entering in" cannot be equated in any complete sense with "You have already entered." [20] Ibid. [21] J. W. Roberts, op. cit., p. 26,27. [22] Ibid. Verse 5 And this is the message which we have heard from him and announce unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.It is not merely an abstract teaching with regard to the nature of God that John presented here (though some of that is in it). His general theme regarded the fellowship mentioned in the prologue; but as Roberts said, "John's thoughts are not arranged logically and symmetrically."[23] The most practical organization of the next few verses lies in the arrangement of his thoughts around such words as "if we say," which are undeniably addressed to the prevailing errors he was exposing. God is light ... Orr supposed that a similar grand pronouncement found in 1 John 3:11, introduced by words almost identical with the introductory clause here, might indicate that we have in the words "God is light" an actual saying of Jesus Christ repeated by him at various times.[24] He based this upon the fact that the statement in 1 John 3:11, that we should "love one another" was indeed an actual saying of Jesus recorded in the Gospels. It has the same authority either way. "To the Christians alone, God is revealed as light, absolutely free from everything material, impure, obscure or gloomy."[25] Light is a symbol of all that is lovely, beautiful, holy, good, desirable, righteous and lovable. To the pagans, God was hatred, vengeance and fear; to the ignorant, God was a God of darkness, an unknown Being to be propitiated, not a Person to be loved; to the philosopher, God was an abstraction, an idea, having no connection at all with man; to the Jew, God was a God that hideth himself and a consuming fire. However, John had a practical reason behind this statement about God. "The apostle intended that his words should emphasize the difference between the light which God is and purely intellectual enlightenment, so-called,"[26] which was claimed by the philosophical pretenders who were disturbing the church, and which even today has by no means disappeared from the earth. In high is no darkness at all ... Darkness, contrasting with light, is a symbol of all that is wicked, ignorant, gloomy, shameful, depraved and perverted. Paul described the deeds of the wicked as the "works of darkness." And there are several kinds of darkness. Plummer cited "physical, intellectual, moral and spiritual darkness."[27] Note too that John did not say that there is no darkness in God's presence, but that there is no darkness "in him." Now this verse has its application to the problem of fellowship because the false teachers were walking in a moral darkness of the worst intensity, while at the same time claiming to be "in God." The impossibility of their pretensions having any merit was proved by this very first sentence of the message proper. It is preposterous for one to claim fellowship with God while walking in darkness. The message which we have heard from him ... Commentators have difficulty deciding on who is the antecedent of "him," since both the Father and the Son Jesus Christ were mentioned together in 1 John 1:3. To one with John's exalted view of Christ, this was no problem. He most likely referred to the personal instruction which he and the other apostles had received from Christ himself. [23] Ibid., p. 28. [24] R. W. Orr, op. cit., p. 609. [25] A. Plummer, The Pulpit Commentary, Vol. 22,1John (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1950), p. 4. [26] James William Russell, op. cit., p. 597. [27] A. Plummer, op. cit., p. 4. Verse 6 If we say that we have fellowship with him and walk in the darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:In this verse, the apostle made the application of his remarks in the verse preceding. Smith identified the false teachers refuted by this as "the Nicolaitans who held to the heresy of antinomianism."[28] John did not honor their heresy nor the names of any of its advocates with any identification whatever. Plummer thought that the heresy in view was that of the "Carpocratian Gnostics, who taught that to the enlightened all actions are indifferent, because neither impurity nor filth Can change the nature of pure gold."[29]And do not the truth ... This is changed in the RSV to "do not live according to the truth," but Morris assured us that the ASV is the correct rendition.[30] This very statement is found in John 3:21 and in the Qumran scrolls. "Truth can be a quality of action as well as of speech."[31]The false claim in this verse is that of affirming that we walk with God even while we are walking in darkness. "Walk" in this passage, as frequently in the New Testament, is an idiom for the totality of human conduct. [28] David Smith, op. cit., p. 171. [29] A. Plummer, op. cit., p. 4. [30] Leon Morris, op. cit., p. 1261. [31] Ibid. Verse 7 but if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanseth us from all sinIf we walk in the light ... When the light from God, as revealed in Christ Jesus and the preaching of the apostles, is entered and walked in by the Christians, "Walking in the light shows up their sins and frailties, revealing the need for constant cleansing."[32]Roberts pointed out that John's teaching here "implies that only the sinless can have fellowship with a sinless God," adding that this involves a contradiction between our own "admitted sinfulness and the affirmation that we do have fellowship with God (1 John 1:3)."[33] Roberts resolved the "contradiction" in the considerations of: (1) Christ's propitiation for our sins; (2) the cleansing action in view in this verse; and (3) the intercession on our behalf of Jesus Christ our advocate. Here indeed is the achievement of that absolute perfection required of all who hope to enter heaven, as announced by Jesus Christ in the sermon on the mount (Matthew 5:48). The whole doctrine of Perfection requires a great deal more attention to it than is evident in current Christian literature. For a further study of it, see in my Commentary on Galatians, pp. 130-133. For those who walk in the light, the continual, ceaseless and effective cleansing through the blood of Christ is the means of their continuing in a state of absolute perfection. This cleansing, however, is not necessarily automatic. "It is based upon confession, penitence, renewal (1 John 1:9), and keeping his commandments (1 John 2:3)."[34] Even beyond this, however, the cleansing effect of Jesus' blood is operative unconditionally in instances of the believer's unawareness of sins that lie hidden from himself. Fellowship one with another ... Although not stated in this sentence, this fellowship is also with God the Father and his Son Jesus Christ (1 John 3). This fellowship stands for membership in the corporate spiritual body of Jesus Christ. Thus the cleansing here mentioned is not that from "old sins" prior to conversion, but from the accrual of sins daily by the Christian. The blood of Jesus his Son ... All forgiveness for mortals, in the last analysis, derives from this source. John's mention of it so early in the epistle shows the high priority of this fundamental truth. Cleanseth us from all sin ... "The singular sin sometimes denotes the principle of sin, but this cannot be the meaning here. All sin means `every act of sin.'"[35]This great verse is the source of incredible joy, assurance and consolation to the child of God. He never needs to fear that some impulsive, unintentional, or atypical conduct might overtake him with the result of eternal condemnation. His walking "in the light" can be established by the long term directional thrust of his whole life upon earth and cannot be contradicted and negated by any temporary or insignificant lapse. [32] Charles C. Ryrie, Wycliffe Bible Commentary, New Testament (Chicago: Moody Press, 1971), p. 1007. [33] J. W. Roberts, op. cit., p. 31. [34] Ibid., p. 32. [35] Leon Morris, op. cit., p. 1262. Verse 8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.If we say that we have no sin ... This is the second false claim John refuted, the first being that of 1 John 1:6. Here the error is that of claiming inherent sinlessness, perfection, the absence of any need of cleansing through the blood of Christ. Such a claim is capable of deceiving the claimant, but not anyone else! Despite the effrontery of such a proposition, entire religions are founded upon just such claims. "There is no sin" - this is the proposition that underlies a great deal of current thinking. See under 1 John 1:9. Scott and others have supposed that John might also have had in mind "the Gnostic subtlety that sin was a matter of the flesh and did not touch or defile the spirit."[36]If we say ... is an expression of remarkable interest, because the apostle here identified himself with the false teachers, not through any agreement with them, but out of a delicate regard for his readers. This identification of an apostle with those addressed is prevalent in the New Testament. Hebrews 2:3 is a remarkable example of the same thing; and yet that instance of it has been perverted to mean that no first generation Christian could have written that epistle! Some have pointed out that the need for John's teaching here resulted from the most audacious immorality advocated, indulged, and rationalized by heretics such as Valentinus. Irenaeus has a description of such views, which although later associated with the heretic whose name was given to the error, nevertheless existed early in the first century. They hold that they shall be entirely and undoubtedly saved, not by means of conduct, but because they are spiritual by nature. It is impossible that spiritual substance (and by this they mean themselves) should ever come under the power of corruption, whatever the sort of actions they indulged. For as gold submersed in filth, loses not on that account its beauty, but retains its own native qualities, filth having no power to injure gold, so they affirm that they cannot in any measure suffer hurt, or lose their spiritual substance, whatever the material actions in which they may be involved.[37]This ancient heresy exists today in a much more sophisticated form in what is heralded as salvation "by faith alone," which has exactly the same meaning as salvation "not by means of conduct." Man's presumptuous blindness in denying the existence of sin, either as a principle, or as existent within himself, is self-deception at its worst. The Lord's Prayer which enjoined the petitions for daily bread and forgiveness, both assumed and implied the need of daily prayers for forgiveness. "Woe to that soul that presumes to think that he can approach God in any other way than as a sinner asking mercy."[38][36] John R. W. Stott, op. cit., p. 77. [37] Iraeneus, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, On Heresies I, 6,2 (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, n.d.), p. 324. [38] David Smith, op. cit., p. 172. Verse 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.If we confess our sins ... To whom shall sins be confessed? Certainly, the usual concept of a confessional in a church, where confession is a one-way street, is not what is meant here. Macknight paraphrased this: "If we confess our sins to God with a firm resolution to forsake them, etc." In any confession to other Christians, a mutual confession of sins "to one another" would be the requirement. Even the confession of sins by Christians to each other is a practice that can be very unrewarding and hurtful. Currently, there are outcroppings of a practice among fervidly religious groups of holding confessionals in which the most sensual and reprehensible conduct is unreservedly reported openly and publicly within such groups. In such a context, that is bragging about sins, not confessing them; and it cannot be possible that John had any such thing in mind. There are no New Testament examples of a religious service being built around any such orgy of self-revelation. Confessions of sins "one to another" among Christians means an admission of guilt where it exists as a barrier to their fellowship, a mutual sharing of blame, and a restoration of the broken harmony. It is difficult for man's ego to admit blame and guilt, society as a whole being hardly capable of any such admission. More and more, the trend is to deny sin exists. Drunkards have merely contracted an unfortunate disease, alcoholism! Adulterers and philanderers are schizophrenic! Thieves, murderers, outlaws, etc. are not criminals at all, but anti-social, a state induced by society itself. Sinful behavior is not that at all, but the natural response to one's heredity, environment, deprivation or other things beyond the sinner's control. The apostolic word for all such thinking is "self-deception." Our sins ... It is not the principle of sin merely that is to be acknowledged but the plurality of sins. This has been misunderstood as meaning "all of our sins publicly"; but no such meaning is in it. Rather the need for acknowledging and confessing sin again, and again, as multiple occasions arise requiring it, is the true meaning. The right course is not repetitious confessions of all the sins one can remember, but the admission of sin on the successive occasions when the believer stumbles. If this is done, the aggregate is "confessing our sins," no less than the indulgence of such things as the group confessionals mentioned above. (God) is faithful and just to forgive us our sins ... It is a false view that construes this as meaning that God would not be just and righteous if he did not forgive us wicked sinners! God does not prove his righteousness by forgiving sinners, who in any just frame of reference must be accounted as worthy of eternal death. No, that is not what John meant. Roberts has the truth thus: "He is faithful in that he will not go back on the promise he made in Christ Jesus."[39] Scott also has a wonderful word on this: "He is faithful to forgive us because he has promised to do so, and just because his Son died for our sins."[40] In the forgiveness of Christians of their sins and his continual cleansing them from such sins, God displays loyalty to the sacred covenant he himself established. Furthermore, the theoretical grounds, the rational basis, upon which it is just for God to forgive sins is established in the Person and sacrifice of the Son of God. God may justly forgive us, because Christ paid the penalty that was due. The justice of God in allowing our participation in the benefits of that sacrifice is vindicated and proved by the manner of incorporating those to be forgiven into the spiritual body of Christ, and then justifying them, not in their own sinful identities, but as Christ and in Christ. [39] J. W. Roberts, op. cit., p. 35. [40] John R. W. Stott, op. cit., p. 77. Verse 10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.If we say ... These repeated expressions (1 John 1:6 1 John 1:8 1 John 1:10) indicate the principal stream of the apostle's thought in this section. He is still dealing with evil heresies that had encroached upon the Christian fellowship. If we say that we have not sinned ... This is the most blatant and offensive of all the false theories. "To go to the length of denying past sin and present guilt, is not only to becloud ourselves with sophistry but to give the lie to God himself."[41] God gave his only begotten Son upon the cross that man might be saved from sin, a salvation that was impossible for any man apart from God's redeeming act. If man had not been sinful and utterly helpless to achieve salvation for himself, all of the heavenly outpouring of God's merciful visitation in the person of his Son was unnecessary; the crucifixion was a useless murder; and every promise of the gospel is essentially a lie. John's language here is certainly not too strong. People who deny their need of redemption from sin, through the pretense of not ever having sinned, are of all people most guilty and contemptible. "To say that we have not sinned is not just to tell a deliberate lie, or to be self-deceived, but actually to accuse God of lying, to make him a liar."[42]His word is not in us ... Characteristic of John's writings is his use of such words as "word" and "truth" to stand for the whole body of gospel teaching. Moreover, "the truth" or "the word" in John's view was not some indefinite and nebulous goal pursued by the Christians seeking to know it; it was something which they already knew, already had, already walked in, already obeyed. The reference, of course, is to the basic gospel of the New Testament which is perfect, complete, final, and sufficient. It is not to be added to nor taken from. Such is the Johannine conception of the message which he and other apostles delivered to people that they might be saved. [41] Amos N. Wilder, op. cit., p. 225. [42] John R. W. Stott, op. cit., p. 79. "THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN" Chapter One John begins his first epistle like he does his gospel: with a prologue regarding the Word of Life (Jesus Christ) who dwelt in the flesh among men and made fellowship with the Father possible (1 John 1:1-4). Fellowship with God is maintained as we walk in the light and confess our sins that we might enjoy continual cleansing through the blood of Jesus (1 John 1:5-10). POINTS TO PONDER * The witness of John concerning the Word of Life * The nature of the evidence for faith in Jesus * The basis of our fellowship with God REVIEW 1) What are the main points of this chapter?- Prologue: The Word of Life - 1 John 1:1-4- Fellowship with God - 1 John 1:5-10 2) How is John’ s beginning in this epistle similar to his gospel? (1 John 1:1-4, cf. John 1:1-14)- Both begin with a prologue regarding the Word who became flesh 3) How does John describe the pre-incarnation of Jesus? (1 John 1:1)- As "that which was from the beginning" 4) What empirical evidence does John provide concerning the Word? (1 John 1:1)- He has heard, seen with his eyes, handled with hands 5) What does John declare? What does he want to share? Why does he write? (1 John 1:2-4)- Eternal life; fellowship with the Father and His Son; that our joy may be full 6) What message has John heard that he now declares to us? (1 John 1:5)- That God is light and in Him there is no darkness at all 7) If we say we have fellowship with God but walk in darkness, what are we? (1 John 1:6)- Liars who do not practice the truth 8) What do we enjoy as we walk in the light together with God? (1 John 1:7)- Cleansing of all sin by the blood of Christ 9) What if we say that we have no sin? (1 John 1:8 1 John 1:10)- We deceive ourselves, make God a liar, His word and the truth are not in us 10) What’ s required to be forgiven of sin and cleansed of all unrighteousness? (1 John 1:9)- To confess our sins This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/zerrcbc/ 1 John 1:2. This verse gives some more details of the general truths that are stated in the preceding one. The life is the same as "Word of life" above which was with the Father before the inhabitants of the earth ever heard about it. It was manifested to the extent that it could be seen with human eyes as well as be "handled" as stated in the first verse. The manner in which this was done is expressed somewhat more directly by this same writer in John 1:14 which says that "the Word was made flesh." Everyone will understand this refers to the fact of the life of Christ in a fleshly body on the earth. Show unto you that eternal life. Such a life is spiritual and thus cannot literally be shown, but John means that when a man sees Christ he is seeing eternal life in that He is the one who gives us the hope of eternal life. 1 John 1:3. John was especially concerned with the divinity of Christ, that although He dwelt among men in the flesh (in order that they might see and hear Him), yet he was (and is) the divine Son of God. Have fellowship with us denotes having a share in or being partakers with the apostles in the relationship between God and Christ and their faithful disciples. 1 John 1:4. That your joy may be full. The last word is where the emphasis of thought should be placed. Small or partial joy may be possible from many different sources, but the joy that can come from a faith in the only divine Son of God is full both in the sense of being complete in its extent, and perfect in its quality. It will leave nothing that can reasonably be desired further by a firm believer. 1 John 1:5. The message which we (the apostles and others through them) have heard of him (the Son of God). The subject of the message is light, brought into the world by Christ which he received from his Father. God not only has light (spiritual truth) but He has nothing else; no darkness at all. Good men and angels have some light but it is limited, while with God it is light unmodified. 1 John 1:6. The Lord is all light and truth which is the opposite of darkness. For this reason no man can possibly be a partaker (have fellowship) with Him whose life is one of darkness which is a figurative name for that which is not the truth. Hence it is a logical conclusion that if a man claims to be on both sides of this proposition at the same time he is lying. 1 John 1:7. Walk in the light. No man lives who does not make some mistakes and commit sin incidentally. But this phrase means a man whose general life is one of godliness and whose motive principle is the light of the New Testament. This man can truly be said to be walking with the Lord because he is in the pathway that Jesus laid out for him. Being in the fellowship with God the source of all light, is like being constantly in the stream of the blood of His son. That blood is constantly flowing (figuratively) through the body or church of the Lord Jesus Christ. In the natural body of a man whose blood stream is healthy, if germs slip into the person that blood, being always present, will be like a disinfectant that will destroy the germ. Likewise the blood of Christ is ever present to cleanse away the mistakes and incidental sins that a true Christian does. Hence if a man is a worker in the Lord's vineyard and his life as a whole is one of obedience to the law of Christ, he does not need to worry about the mistakes he might make which he does not realize, for the blood of Christ will take care of it and wash them away. They will be cleansed by the "fountain opened to the house of David . . . for sin and for uncleanness" (Zechariah 13:1). "There is a fountain filled with blood, drawn from Im-manuel's veins; And sinners plunged beneath that flood, lose all their guilty stains." 1 John 1:8. This verse does not contradict the preceding one or the comments made on it. To say we have no sin would be like saying we do not have any need for the blood of Christ. Hence even a faithful disciple should admit his weaknesses and understand his dependence upon the blood of Christ for his cleansing. 1 John 1:9. Confess our sins. This does not say that we are to confess that we have sins for that would be so general that it would be virtually no confession at all; the sins themselves is what we are to confess. Sometimes persons will come forward in a meeting saying they wish to make a confession, and when given the opportunity will say, "I have not been living as I should." That does not confess any sin as our verse requires. It may be replied that David made that sort of confession to the prophet because all lie said was, "I have sinned." That is true but it was after his sin had been pointed out so that his statement was an acknowledgment of the specific sin. It was like the action of a jury that says, "We find the defendant guilty as charged" without naming any particular misdeed. If a disciple does not know of anything wrong he has done then he has none to confess. Should he have some faults of which he is not aware, verse 7 of this chapter will take care of them. If he has committed sins which only he and the Lord know about, then he needs only to make his confession to Him. Faithful and just. The first word means He will keep his promise to forgive the sins of the penitent, and it is just for Him to do so since the sacrifice of Christ makes it possible for God to be merciful and just at the same time (Romans 3:26). 1 John 1:10. Have not sinned differs from have no sin in verse S because it goes back over the past of our lives. When the two are considered together they mean that there never has been a time since we were old enough to be responsible. that we were "as free from sin as the angels" as it is sometimes expressed; hence man has needed a Saviour all the years of his life. Make him. a liar. If a person makes an assertion that contradicts what another has said, it is equivalent to calling him a liar even though no direct reference is made to him. God has said in his word that all men are sinners (Ecclesiastes 7:20), therefore if a man says he has not sinned he contradicts the Lord and that is why John says such a man will make him a liar. His word is not in us because that word declares that all men have sinned. Guy N. Woods Commentary On 1st John 2JESUS OUR (1 John 2:1-2)1 John 2:1 ---My little children, these things write I unto you that ye may not sin.—The words of this section are to be construed and considered along with the matters set forth in chapter 1. It should be remembered that when John wrote, the chapter and verse divisions now characteristic of the text were not there. This section was designated to show, (1) the means by which one is enabled to walk in the light; (2) the conditions upon which for­giveness is available, viz., (a) a confession of sins and (b) the forsaking of them. The chapter begins with a term of endearment: “My little children ...” The apostle John, when he wrote these words, was an old man, and the mode of address is such as might be expected from an aged one to those near and dear and much younger. There are two Greek words translated by the phrase “ little chil­dren” in the Epistle. The first of these, teknia, plural diminutive of teknon. occurs here and at 2: 12, 28; 3: 18; 4: 4; 5: 21, and only elsewhere, in the New Testament, in John 13:33, where the Lord used it, and which use likely occasioned John’ s adoption of it here. It is a word which, when figuratively used, designates the spiritual relation of children to a father in the faith. (See 1 Corinthians 4:15, where the idea, but not the word, occurs.) The second word translated by the phrase “ little children” is paidia, occurring in 1 John 2:13 1 John 2:18. This word denotes the age and characteristics of childhood, and, as here used, conveys the kind and tender address of age to youth, of authority to subordinates, of wisdom to igno­rance. “ These things” embrace the matters which were written in the closing portion of chapter 1, the purpose of which was to lead thesaints to forsake all sin. “ That ye may not sin” is a negative pur­pose clause in the aorist tense, and the apostle thus warned against even isolated acts of sin. Fellowship with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ, and with all saints depends on walking in the light, and only those walk in the light who, as far as they are able, abstain from sinful conduct. Thus, those to whom John wrote stood in relation to him as his “ little children” in the Lord. He has written to them for the purpose of warning against any participation in sinful acts. But what if some, in spite of such counsel, inadvertently fell into sin? Their case was not hopeless. 1 John 2:1 ---And if any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:—Though the followers of the Lord are ever to strive to avoid any participation in sinful activity, when such occurs, they are not to despair; they have an “ Advo­cate,” Jesus Christ the righteous. The verb “ have” here is, sig­nificantly, in the present tense (echomen), thus literally, “ We keep on having” an ever-present remedy for the isolated acts of sin which, through weakness, ignorance, and inadvertence, we com­mit. An “ Advocate” is a lawyer or an attorney, whose function it is to represent one in court. Jesus thus represents us in the court of heaven, pleading our cause and advocating our case before the bar of God’ s divine justice. As our Advocate, he is “ with” (pros) the Father, thus at his side, and ever present to afford us adequate and constant representation. There is no article be­fore the word “ righteousness” in the Greek text. The meaning is, Jesus, a righteous one, pleads the cause of unrighteous ones. Only the pleading of such an Advocate could possibly avail. An advocate himself in need of intercession could not hope to influence the great Judge in behalf of others. 1 John 2:2 ---And he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the whole world.—To “ propitiate” is to appease and render favorable, to conciliate. The word “ propitia­tion,” in the text, occurs only here and in 1 John 4:10, in the New Testament, though other forms of it are in Luke 18:13; Romans 3:25; and Hebrews 2:17. Here is announced but one of the many aspects of the death of Christ in our behalf. (1) He propi­tiates (Hilasmos) the Father, thus rendering him favorable toward us. (2) He reconciles (katallasso) us to God, enabling us to be at peace with him. (Romans 5:11; 2 Corinthians 5:18-19.) (3) As a ransom (apolutrosis) for us, he paid the debt, permitting us to go free from the thralldom and bondage of sin. The blessings of this propitiation extend to the whole world and have been made available to all mankind. Here is positive and undeniable evidence of the falsity of any system of theology which would limit the benefits of the atonement, or deny its blessings to any portion of the human family. Martin Luther well said, “ It is a patent fact that thou too art a part of the whole world; so that thine heart cannot deceive itself and think, the Lord died for Peter and Paul, but not for me.” No man is outside the mercy of God, except as he deliberately places himself there through the repudiation of the plan which was evolved to save him. This entire section, 1 John 1:5— 2:2, is a closely-knit and well-ordered argument, designed to reveal the blessings available to us through Christ. (1) There is no darkness in God, for he is light. (1 John 1:5.) (2) If we affirm that we have fellowship with him, yet walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth. (1 John 1:6.) (3) If we walk in the light, (a) we enjoy such fellowship, and (b) the blood of Jesus Christ constantly cleanses us from any sin which, through weak­ness of the flesh, or the infirmities of our nature we commit (1 John 1:7.) (4) The truth is in us if we acknowledge our sins. (1 John 1:8-9.) (5) Shall we then disregard all warnings against sin on the ground that the blood of Christ operates to cleanse us ? God forbid. (1 John 2:1-2.) The purpose of the entire section is to warn against this very thing. Avoid sin when possible. But if into it you fall, do not despair. Rely on your Advocate who effectively pleads your case in heaven! It is significant that John did not say, “ Ye have an Advocate ..” nor “ Ye have me for an Advocate,” but “ We have an Advocate . . .,” thus including himself among those in need of the interces­sion before the throne of grace which Jesus alone can supply. Walking in the light requires: (1) fellowship with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ; (2) acceptance of the propitiation pro­vided through the shed blood of the Lord; (3) obedience to the Lord’ s commandments. This third condition, of walking in the light, John develops in the section to follow. TESTS OF THE (1 John 2:3-6) 1 John 2:3 ---And hereby we know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.—“ Hereby” (en toutoi), literally, “ in this,” a phrase often used by the apostle, and occurring at 2: 5; 3: 16, 19; 4: 2, 13; 5: 2. It refers to the clause, “ If we keep his command­ments.” “ Keep,” here, is present subjunctive, thus, “ If we keep on keeping his commandments.” We are informed here that it is possible for us to “ know that we know him.” How, or in what way? If we keep his commandments! To know him is to have far more than an acquaintance with his nature; it is to enter into the most intimate relationship with him as his child. It is possible to claim a knowledge of God and of Christ and to be deceived. Paul writes of those who “ profess that they know God; but by their works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.” (Titus 1:16.) One does not know God who does not conform to his will. We may believe intel­lectually that there is a God; we may affirm the truth of his exist­ence, the facts of his attributes, the reality of his works in nature. But only those who have wholly committed their wills to his know him in his saving power. “ And this is life eternal, but they should know thee the only true God, and him whom thou didst send, even Jesus Christ.” (John 17:3.) If it be asked which commandments constitute the test here submitted, the answer is, All of them! Any commandment we are disposed to break because of our unwilling­ness to bend our wills to his provides the occasion which demon­strates lack of full knowledge of him. This is the “ one thing” which we “ lack” and which, like the young ruler’ s riches, will close the door of heaven in our face. 1 John 2:4 ---He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his com­mandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him;—A conclu­sion drawn from the foregoing premises, and a further affirmation of the truth above expressed. The Gnostics boasted of their su­perior knowledge and spiritual insight and maintained their ac­quaintance with the Lord despite the fact that they kept not his commandments. With reference to all such the apostle solemnly declares, “ He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.” The verbs in the Greek text are in the present tense. He who keeps on say­ing, I know him, and yet keeps not on keeping his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. Far from actually and really knowing God, those who refuse to do his will are, in addition to being disobedient characters, liars and without truth. The words “ He is a liar” are more emphatic than “ we lie,” of John 1:6, and “ we deceive ourselves,” of 1: 8. His status is not simply that of one who is guilty of a single falsehood, or one who is innocently de­ceived; his acts of falsehood have become embedded in his char­acter and he is, essentially, a liar. .Such a one is demonstrating the nature and character of his father, the devil, who is a liar from the beginning. (John 8:44.) It was evidently no uncommon thing for men, at the time John wrote, who had adopted the per­nicious doctrine of the Gnostics to affirm that they, though will­fully guilty of sinful acts, were not thereby corrupted. Some of these men maintained that they were no more polluted by sin than gold is by the mire into which it might fall. As shocking as the foregoing theology is, it has its modern counterparts. Those false teachers, while denying any contamina­tion from sin, did admit the fact of sin in their lives. There are those today who deny both the sin and the contamination. A prominent denominational preacher, in a tract entitled, “ Do a Christian’ s Sins Damn His Soul?” wrote: “ We take the position that a Christian’ s sins do not damn his soul. The way a Christian lives, what he says, his character, his conduct, or his attitude toward other people have nothing whatever to do with the salva­tion of his soul. . . . All the prayers a man may pray, all the Bibles he may read, all the churches he may belong to, all the services he may attend, all the sermons he may practice, all the debts he may pay, all the ordinances he may observe, all the laws he may keep, all the benevolent acts he may perform will not make his soul one whit safer; and all the sins he may commit from idolatry to murder will not make his soul in any more danger. . . . The way a man lives has nothing whatsoever to do with the salva­tion of his soul.” Such theology, whether ancient or modem, is precisely in principle what John condemned when he affirmed that those who say they know him, yet do not keep his command­ments, are liars. 1 John 2:5 ---But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily hath the love of God been perfected.—“ Keepeth his word,” of verse 5, is synonymous with “ keeping his commandments” of verse 4. Here, as in 1 John 1:7 1 John 1:9, the opposite of that immediately preceding is stated, and the thought advanced one step further. The “ love of God” here contemplated is not God’ s love for us, but our love for God, and the affirmation of the apostle is that he who keeps God’ s word has his love for God perfected. “ Perfected” is perfect passive indicative of teleioo, to stand complete. Thus, he who keeps the commandments of God matures his love, for such is the way in which love for God manifests itself. “ For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.” (1 John 5:3.) It is idle for one to claim love for God while neglecting or refusing to do his commandments. Such is the acid test of one’ s love. 1 John 2:5 ---Hereby we know that we are in him:—I.e., by keeping his word. The words “ in him” indicate a relationship of the most intimate nature. The phrase is a summary of all the blessings available from God. To know God we must keep his word; those who keep his word love him; but those who love him are in him. Fruit bearing produced as the result of love for God is evidence of our union with him. “ Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; so neither can ye except ye abide in me. I am the vine, ye are the branches: he that abideth in me, and I in him, the same beareth much fruit; for apart from me ye can do nothing.” (John 15:4-5.) 1 John 2:6 ---He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also to walk even as he walked.—There is here, as in verse 4, a boast­ful attitude hinted at. He who represents himself as abiding in the Lord has the definite obligation to “ walk even as he walked,” i.e., in the light, in fellowship with God, in keeping his commandments. In this manner alone does one demonstrate the soundness of his claim and the validity of his profession. “ Ought,” from opheilo, to be in debt, denotes the moral obligation here to exhibit the basis of one’ s profession. To walk as Christ walked is to follow him as the perfect model and guide that he is. Nothing less than this will meet the demands of the case. The walk of the Lord which we are to imitate is, obviously, to be found in the reli­gious, moral, and spiritual activities of his life on earth. There is no reference here to the miraculous powers which Jesus exhibited on earth. As Martin Luther fittingly remarks, it “ is not Christ’ s walking on the sea that we are to imitate, but his ordinary walk.” The verb “ walk” is figuratively used to denote the activity which must characterize us as children of God. Jesus used it in this sense (John 8:12 John 12:35), as did Paul (Ephesians 2:10; Colossians 3:7; Romans 6:4). But how did Christ walk? The answer is to be found in the whole of the things recorded concerning him in the sacred volume. These words sum up the life of Christ on earth. NEW AND OLD(1 John 2:7-11) 1 John 2:7 ---Beloved, no new commandment write I unto you, but an old commandment which ye had from the beginning: the old commandment is the word which ye heard.—The apostle had just commanded his readers to walk as Christ walked. (Verse 6.) This walk was grounded in, and originated in, love. Hence, the commandment to love God was not a new one, i.e., a novel, unusual thing. These to whom John wrote had been aware of this obli­gation, yea, had in some measure followed it from the beginning of their Christian life. Far from being a new thing, this com­mandment was essential to their salvation from sin; they were already in possession of it; they had possessed it from the begin­ning. This commandment was the “ word” which they had “ heard.” The “ word” sums up the message they had received; “ heard” indicates the manner of reception. They had “ heard” it; it therefore came to them through preaching. The time when they heard it was at the beginning of their Christian experience. 1 John 2:8 ---Again, a new commandment write I unto you, which thing is true in him and in you; because the darkness is pass­ing away, and the true light already shineth.—Through the commandment to love is as old as the race (1 John 3 : Iff, partic­ularly verses 11, 12), from another aspect it is always new. To walk as the Lord walked and hence to comply with the require­ments of the “ old commandment” is as old as religion, but each new compliance therewith constitutes a new and fresh approach thereto. Love, as old as man, becomes new with each experience. It was the Lord himself who designated the command to love one another as a new one: “ A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another; even as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.” (John 13:34.) The newness was not merely or solely in the command to love; the law and the prophets re­quired this., (Deuteronomy 10:19; Micah 6:8, etc.) It was the measure or extent of the love that made it new: “ even as I have loved you.” Never before the Christian age had such a love been required of man. It was henceforth to be a condition precedent to disciple- ship ; indeed, the badge and token thereof: “ A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another; even as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another ” (John 13:34-35.) The darkness of ignorance, superstition, bitterness, and hate was passing; the “ true light,” which radiated from the Lord, was shining, thus dispelling the gloom and darkness of unbelief. The text does not affirm that the darkness had already passed. Then, as now, there was much error in the world. But, as the truth was preached, the light was extended, and the darkness receded as man came into the refulgence thereof. Jesus said, “ And this is the judgment, that the light is come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light; for their works were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, and cometh not to the light, lest his works should be reproved. But he that doeth the truth, cometh to the light, that his works may be made manifest, that they have been wrought of God.” (John 3:19-21.) “ Again therefore Jesus spake unto them saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.” (John 8:12; cf. 1 John 1:4-10.) 1 John 2:9 ---He that saith he is in the light and hateth his brother, is in the darkness even until now.—Another hypothetical case, of which there are many in the Epistle (1: 6, 8, 10; 2: 9; 4: 20), is stated, and the inconsistency between the profession and the fact pointed out. He who affects to be in the light, i.e., the light of truth about which the apostle had been writing, yet hates his brother is, notwithstanding his pretension, in darkness. The brother of this passage is a fellow believer. He who hates one of a common origin and with the same loving Father is, despite his claim to being in the light in darkness, “ even until now,” i.e., up to the present. Jesus commanded us to love one another (John 15:17) ; he made love the badge of discipleship (John 13:35) ; and without it, one remains in darkness— the element which char­acterizes all away from God. It is significant that the apostle leaves no middle ground either here or elsewhere in the contrasts which he draws between light and darkness, right and wrong, truth and error. With him, on the one side is God, and on the other, the world; here is life, there is death; here love, there hate; there is no common ground. Such is in harmony with the Lord’ s affirmation: “ He that is not against you is for you” (Luke 9:50, and the converse, “ He that is not with me is against me” (Luke 11:23). One is either for God, in which case the principle of his life is love, the sphere in which he moves light, and the desire of his heart obedience; or, he is against him, in which event, though lie may hide his hatred, and craftily conceal his worldliness and evil, the fountain from which his moral life emerges is not God, but the world— he is yet in death, he loves nothing but himself, and his proper element is darkness. The word hate (miseo) here does not indicate the degree, but merely the fact of such a dispo­sition. When it exists in any degree, he who manifests it is yet in the darkness. Let him who holds malice in his heart against a brother in Christ recognize his position and see the folly of preten­sion which his conduct belies. He deceives no one by his allega­tion. 1 John 2:10 ---He that loveth his brother abideth in the light, and there is no occasion of stumbling in him.—The verb “ abideth” means more than merely being in the light; to abide is to remain (Menei), and the tense (present indicative active) reveals a con­tinuous action rather than a temporary state. He who loves his brother is evermore remaining in the light; the fact of the love guarantees continuation in the sphere. Moreover, the force of the tense indicates that he has not only entered upon this sphere; he has settled down into it as if it were his home. It is, of course, unnecessary to add that love, with John, indeed with all of the New Testament writers, is much more than affection. Here, it is made to stand for all the graces which adorn the character of the Christian, all the duties owed to those who are our brethren in Christ. This comprehensive aspect of the term is observable throughout the apostle’ s writings. “ My little children, let us not love in word, neither with the tongue, but in deed and in truth.” (1 John 3:18.) “ Hereby we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and do his commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his com­mandments are not grievous.” (1 John 5:2-3.) The principle is the same as that alluded to by our Lord when he declared that to love God supremely and one’ s neighbor as one’ s self embraces (in principle) all that is in the law and in the prophets. (Matthew 22:34-40.) He did not by this mean that love for God or man is accepted in lieu of obedience; there is, indeed, no such thing as love apart from obedience. (1 John 5:3.) What is meant is that he who truly loves God and his neighbor will be prompted thereby to discharge his full duty to both. Not only does one who loves his brother abide in the light, in addition there is no occasion of stumbling in him. An occasion for whose stumbling? His own, or another’ s? The verb “ stum­ble” (skandalon) is derived from a word which designates a snare or trap. In Matthew 18:7, it obviously refers to an occasion of stum­bling in the way of others. Here, however, the context, and par­ticularly the verse which follows, appears to indicate that John had in mind an occasion of stumbling in one’ s own self. The apostle thus emphasizes here that those who walk in the light and abide in the truth are protected from the snares and pitfalls into which they would otherwise fall. Certainly, one who loves his brother as himself will never find occasion to give expression to the evil passions of envy, malice, hate, and revenge. Those who walk in darkness stumble, because they are unable to see their way; those who walk in the light can recognize, and therefore avoid, the snares which beset their way. One who truly loves his brother will conduct himself in such fashion as to avoid any semblance of friction or difficulty, and will thus neither stumble nor fall in his relationship with him. “ Owe no man anything, save to love one another: for he that loveth his neighbor hath fulfilled the law. For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, That shalt not covet, and if there be any other commandment, it is summed up in this word, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. Love worketh no ill to his neigh­bor; love therefore is the fulfillment of the law.” (Romans 13:8-10.) 1 John 2:11 ---But he that hateth his brother is in the darkness, and walketh in the darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth, because the darkness hath blinded his eyes.—Three conditions are here affirmed of him who hates his brother: (1) he is “ in the darkness” ; (2) he “ walketh in the darkness” ; and (3) he “ know­eth not whither he goes,” the reason being that “ the darkness hath blinded his eyes.” Such is the fearful status of those who hate their brethren. The inner condition is one of darkness; the out­ward life is a walk in darkness. The element which is his natural sphere has possessed him; he has partaken of the realm in which he habitually moves. Moreover, he has lost his sense of direc­tion; “ He knoweth not whither he goeth.” His way is dark; he neither knows its direction or its end. He is like the insects of Mammoth Cave in Kentucky, which have no eyes, the faculty of sight being so long disused it is gone. The poet Tennyson, in vivid verse, though with reference to sorrow rather than sin, sets forth the fatal result: “ But the night has crept into my heart and begun to darken my eyes.” The state which the apostle describes is all the more fatal because unrecognized by those in it. “ They know not, neither do they understand; they walk to and fro in darkness.” (Psalms 82:5.) “ Blinded” here is from the same verb and form occurring in 2 Corinthians 4:4 : “ In whom the God of this world hath blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not dawn upon them.” Thus the blindness which characterizes the alien is that which possesses him who hates his brother. The grace of love is so basic that he who lacks it is deficient in all the virtues of Chris­tianity. Where it does not exist, no other can. LITTLE , YOUNG MEN, AND FATHERS (1 John 2:12-15) The verses which immediately follow, 12, 13, 14, involve mat­ters admittedly difficult, and which have long taxed the ingenuity of Bible students, expositors, and commentators. An analysis reveals that there are six clauses, divided into two sets of three each by the different tenses of the verb grapho, I write. They may be arranged thus:1. I am writing unto you (grapho) children (teknia) fathers young men You are forgiven because You know the Lord You have overcome 2. I have written unto you (egrapsa) children (paidia) fathers young men You know the Father because You know the Lord You are strong, and have overcome Numerous questions arise, the answers to which are essential to the understanding of this section. (1) Why did John use the present tense, “ I write” (grapho), in the first three clauses, and “ I have written” (egrapsa), epistolary aorist, in the second three? (2) To what writing does he refer in the first instance? In the second? (3) What is the meaning of the word “ children” in the first clause of each of the divisions ? (4) Why did he use the word teknia in the first reference to children, and paidia in the second? (5) In what sense is the reference to “ fathers” and “ young men” to be taken, literal or figurative? Here, as often elsewhere in the Epistle, the opinions which have been advanced are many, and merely to list them would ex­tend the limits of this commentary far beyond that which the plan justifies. In seeking the answers to these questions, it is not our purpose to burden the reader with views which have accumulated across the years, only to refute them; those interested may exam­ine them at their sources. We shall, instead, set forth the grounds which, after much careful consideration and study, we have adopted as, on the whole, the most reasonable exegesis of the passage. Why did John use the present, “ I write” (grapho), in the first three clauses, and “ I wrote” (egrapsa), epistolary aorist, or as it may be rendered in English, “ I have written,” in the second? “ I write” is from the viewpoint of the writer— as the matter occurred to John as he actually wrote. The “ I wrote,” or, as it may be translated, “ I have written,” is the viewpoint of the reader. The first reflects the author’ s position; the second, his readers. “ I write” these matters to you; when you read them, your position will be with reference to that which is written. To what writing does he refer in the first instance? In the second? In both instances the reference is the same: to the Epistle which he was then writing. Efforts to make one refer to the Epistle, the other to the Gospel which he wrote; or, the first to the whole Epistle, and the second to that which preceded what he was then writing, we reject as unsound. A simpler and more satisfactory conclusion is that both words embrace the same com­position, the entire first Epistle. What is the meaning of the word “ children” in the first clause of each of the divisions ? All of John’ s readers, so most expositors think. And, that such is the significance of the word in 1 John 2:1 seems certain. But that the word has this significance here, we are disposed to doubt, (a) The designations “ children,” “ fathers,” and “ young men” appear to be a detailed analysis of all his read­ers. There was, it seems, evident definite design on the part of the writer to particularize those addressed. (2) On the assump­tion that “ children” embrace the whom of those addressed, who are the “ fathers” and the “ young men?” (c) Why, if the term is used thus comprehensively, did the writer use two different Greek terms—teknia, paidia— to designate the children? Does not this fact lead to the conclusion that it was the author’ s purpose to assign a specific, and therefore, a limited meaning, to the terms used? On the whole, it seems more in keeping with all the facts to assign to the word “ children” a limited significance, and to conclude that those thus addressed were the ones among John’ s readers who had but lately obeyed the gospel, and whose sins had accordingly but recently been forgiven. This view is supported by the fact that the reason given why John addressed them par­ticularly is “ because your sins are forgiven you for his name’ s sake.” Why were two different Greek words, teknia, paidia, used to designate this particular group? The reason is not immediately apparent. It is obvious, from the context, that both terms describe the same individuals; and this consideration leads to the conclu­sion that the variation was resorted to, not for the purpose of dis­tinguishing between two groups, but to emphasize the different characteristics of the same group. The answer to our question must, therefore, be sought in the difference of meaning in the terms themselves. Teknia, plural of teknion, designates the fact of childhood; paidia, the infancy of those thus designated. The words, in their literal sense, denote those of tender age; and, as here figuratively used, denote those who are babes in Christ. The first reveals that those thus designated were children; the second, that they were infant children. Not literal babies, of course, but those lately born into the family of God. (John 3:3-5 ; 1 Peter 2:1-2.) In what sense are the words “ fathers” and “ young men” to be taken, as a literal designation, or a figurative one? If literal, then no elderly men, not fathers, were addressed in this connection by John. In such an instance, no women whatsoever were included. It must, therefore, be obvious that the words “ children,” “ fathers,” and “ young men” were used to describe three different classes of people among John’ s readers. The children were the recent con­verts; the young men, those who had reached maturity and were possessed of great spiritual strength in the Lord; and the jathers were those who had been in Christ the longest, and had therefore attained to the greatest spiritual growth. 1 John 2:12 ---I write unto you, my little children, because your sins are forgiven you for his name’ s sake.—Those thus addressed were familiarly styled “ little children” ; the occasion for the address was that their sins had been forgiven them; and the reason as­signed for their forgiveness was “ for his name’ s sake.” “ For his name’ s sake” means on the basis of his name, i.e., God, the Father, forgives on account of Christ’ s name and because of his advocacy of our cause. (1 John 2:1.) It is through the name of Christ that we are privileged to approach the Father. “ Jesus said unto him, I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one cometh unto the Father, but by me.” (John 14:6.) “ And in none other is there salvation: for neither is there any other name under heaven, that is given among men, wherein we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12.) The words “ are forgiven” are translated from a Greek per­fect (apheontai), a tense pointing to past action with existing results. “ You have been, and consequently stand forgiven of your past, or alien, sins.” 1 John 2:13 ---I write unto you, fathers, because ye know him who is from the beginning.—As there was a special reason for ad­dressing those who had but lately obeyed the gospel, so John also felt it needful to include instruction for those of more maturity in the Christian life, and who had long been faithful disciples of the Lord. The fathers were, therefore, addressed because “ ye know him . . .” The word “ know,” as here used, means far more than casual acquaintance. The verb is in the perfect tense (egnokate), "You came to know, and now know,” and describes the rich and full experience which these fathers had with the Lord. He who is "from the beginning” was the word, the second person of the Godhead: “ In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (John 1:1.) 1 John 2:13 ---I write unto you, young men, because you have overcome the evil one.—Here, and often elsewhere in the Epistle, as also through the New Testament, the personality of Satan is clearly indicated. Far from being merely or solely an influence, he is revealed as a definite and distinct agent who must be resisted, repelled, and overcome by the saints. (See comments on 1 John 3:8 1 John 3:10.) Those thus addressed by the apostle had “ overcome the evil one.” This they had done by remaining stedfast in the faith and not succumbing to the seductions of the devil. "And this is the victory that hath overcome the world, even our faith.” (1 John 5:4.) 1 John 2:14 ---I have written unto you, little children, because ye know the Father.—For a full discussion of the various terms used, an analysis of the passage, and reasons assigned for the change in tense here, see above at the beginning of this section. The word “ know” here is of the same tense, and has the same significance as in verses 3 and 4, literally, “ you have come to know, and now retain this knowledge of the Father.” Such knew him as their Father, because they were his children; they had been adopted into his family, and were by him regarded as such. In verse 12, these alluded to as children are declared to have been forgiven, to know the father. The ideas are correlative and dependent; only those who are forgiven know the Father; only those who know the Father have been forgiven. 1 John 2:14 ---I have written unto you, fathers, because ye know him who is from the beginning.—He who is from the beginning is the Word (John 1:1-2; 1 John 1:1-3); the reference is thus to the pre-existent Christ who occupies eternity. The nature, attri­butes, and characteristics of the Eternal One constitute a profound study; but these mature saints, from long and careful consideration of the facts available to them, had come to possess a knowledge of him who thus bridges the brief span of time before and after which is the eternity without end. It is a subject especially intriguing to those advanced in years and mature of mind. 1 John 2:14 ---I have written unto you, young men, because ye are strong, and the word of God abideth in you, and ye have overcome the evil one.—Three characteristics of these young men are men­tioned: (1) They were strong; (2) the word of God abode in them; and (3) they had overcome the evil one. The occasion of their strength was in the fact that the word of God was in them, and the consequence of this indwelling was their triumph over the evil one. In no other fashion may one achieve victory over Satan. Only as the word dwells in us richly (Colossians 3:16), do we become strong in the Lord and in the power of his might (Ephesians 6:10), and are we protected from sinning against God (Psalms 119:11). LOVE OF THE WORLD (1 John 2:15-17) 1 John 2:15 ---Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world.—Those addressed in the verses immediately preceding — the children, fathers, and young men— though each is com­mended for having triumphed in his respective sphere, were nev­ertheless yet in the world, yet subject to its allurements and temp­tations, yet within the reach of the Evil One. There was, there­fore, need that such an exhortation be given. What is the “ world” here contemplated? How do the “ things of the world” differ from the world itself? What is the signifi­cance of the word “ love” in this passage ? In view of the fact that “ God so loved the world” (John 3: 16), does the world which he loved differ from that which we are not to love, or is the difference in the “ love” which is to be exercised, or both? Obviously, the answers to these questions are essential to any proper exposition of this passage. The “ world” which John’ s readers were forbidden to love was not the material universe, God’ s original creation (Romans 1:20), the people who inhabit it (John 3:16); the earth (John 1:9), or the visible and tangible elements of our surroundings which are in themselves neither good nor bad. By the world John did not mean the sunshine and the rain, the mountains and the seas, the sunset and the stars, the loveliness of the night, the sparkling freshness of the morning, the sweet song of the birds, or the fra­grance of the flowers. He did not mean the dust from which our bodies are composed, the earth which supplies us with our food, and in whose gentle embrace we must at last eventually rest. Nor does the word “ love” denote the tenderness of affection and the warmth of heart which characterize God and man toward those whose attributes encourage and stimulate such feeling. The “ world” of this passage is a sphere or cosmos (kosmos) of evil, an order which is opposed to God, and to whose pursuit those who abandon the Lord have dedicated themselves. The “ love” which men entertain for this world is evil desire. The love contemplated in John 3:16 is that of divine compassion and redeeming mercy; here, it is the emotion of selfish desire, of avarice and worldly pride. The love of the Father is an affection grounded in utter selflessness; that which man cherishes for the world is a greedy reaching for its affairs. The “ world” which God loves is man­kind ; that which man is forbidden to love is an evil order or sphere. But not only did the apostle’ s exhortation embrace the “ world,” it is extended to include the “ things of the world.” The prohibi­tion is exceedingly emphatic: “ Love not the world, neither (mede) no not either the things of the world.” The meaning is, Do not love the world, no, nor anything that may be in it. There is, therefore, a distinction drawn between the world and the things in it: a,distinction between the general and the specific, the whole and the particular. 'We are forbidden to love even a specific or par­ticular part of the world— an exhortation needful then and now. There are those who have repudiated the world, but for one par­ticular, as for example the rich young ruler, who but for his love of riches would have surrendered his life wholly to the Lord. The “ one thing” which we “ lack”— be it the love of pleasure, of riches, of ease; the attraction of a home, a farm, or a business; the desire for fame, prominence, and worldly honor, is the particular or specific thing, though we may have repudiated the world as such, which will eventually close the door of heaven in our faces. 1 John 2:15 ---If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.—Love for the world and love for the Father are wholly incompatible; they cannot exist in any heart at the same time. “ No man can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.” (Matthew 6:24.) The antithesis drawn is the same as that in Romans 8:5 : “ For they that are after the flesh mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.” The warning is similar to one from James: “ Ye adulteresses, know ye not that friendship of the world is enmity with God? Whosoever therefore would be a friend of the world maketh himself an enemy of God.” (James 4:4.) On the principle here enunciated is the exhortation of Paul: “ Wherefore come ye out from among them, and be ye sepa­rate, saith the Lord, and touch no unclean thing; and I will receive you, and will be to you a Father, and ye shall be to me sons and daughters.” (2 Corinthians 6:17-18.) 1 John 2:16 ---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.—The things of the world have their ori­gin, not in the Father, but in the world of which they are a part; and they are designated as (1) the lust of the flesh; (2) the lust of the eyes; and (3) the vainglory of life. The “ lust of the flesh” is evil desire which finds its origin in the flesh and through the flesh finds expression. It is a lust after the flesh; but it is more; the genitive is subjective, the flesh is thus designated as the seat in which the evil desire dwells. The word “ flesh” as here used does not denote skin and muscle and tissue; it is used in that darker sense so often seen in Paul’ s writings of the animal nature, the source of evil appetites. (See Galatians 5:16-24; Ephesians 2:3; 2 Peter 2:18; Colossians 2:18.) The lusts of the flesh exhibit themselves in the works of the flesh, a catalog of which is listed in Galatians 5:19 ff. It is significant that John sums up, in this section, the three avenues of approach which Satan, in his efforts to seduce, follows. The appeal which he ever makes is based on (1) carnal desires; (2) desires awakened through the appeal of objects of sight; and (3) vanity, pride, worldly honor. Such was, precisely, the course followed in the seduction of Eve and in the unsuccessful attempt on the Saviour. “ And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food (the lust of the flesh), and that it was a delight to the eye (the lust of the eyes), and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise (the vainglory of life), she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat; and she gave also unto her husband with her, and he did eat.” (Genesis 3:6.) In similar fashion, and by follow­ing the same procedure, Satan suggested that Jesus, after forty days of fasting, should command the stones to become bread, thus appealing to the lust of the flesh; he showed the Lord all the kingdoms of the world and promised them to him on condition that he do him homage, an appeal to the lust of the eyes; and in bidding the Lord to exercise his powers of divine protection by flinging himself down from the pinnacle of the temple there was an evident appeal to a sense of pride and vainglory which such an achievement, in the breasts of some, would have been certain to create. 1 John 2:17 ---And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.—The world will pass, and with it every lustful pleasure; but he who does the will of God abides through the ages. The transitoriness of the one— the world— is contrasted with the permanence of the other, the one doing the will of God. God himself is eternal; and those who abide in his will share in his eternal nature. In view of the temporal nature of the world, it is supreme folly for one to cling tenaciously to it, when it will inevitably be dissolved and cease to be. The tense of the word “ passeth” is present middle indicative, “ is passing away,” the process is even now in operation, and will continue until the present evil age is no more. But, notwithstand­ing its passing, he who does (literally, keeps on doing) the will of the Father, abides unto the ages. (1 John 2:18-29)1 John 2:18 ---Little children, it is the last hour:—Again we meet with the designation, “ little children” (paidia), as in 2: 1, 12, 13; and the meaning here, as in 2: 1, is obviously, the entire body of disciples addressed by the apostles. For the reasons why a more limited significance is to be assigned to the expression in 2: 12, 13, see the notes there. The words “ It is the last hour” are to be closely construed with the verses which immediately precede them. The apostle had described the transient nature of the worldly sphere and had pointed out that only those who do the will of the Father shall abide unto the ages. Here, he continues his exhortation by sol­emnly directing attention to the fact that his readers were even then in the period of “ the last hour,” and that events known to foretoken it were already appearing. What is the last hour here referred to? The termination of the Jewish state, so many think; the last hour of the world before the consummation of all things, so others. Both views are erroneus. The Jewish state had already ended when the Epistle was written, and thus could not have been the “ hour” to which the apostle alluded. And, to understand John as affirming that the last hour of the world was imminent in his day is to ascribe to him a position which the passing of the centuries has proved to be un­true. The first view is thus historically incorrect; the second impeaches the inspiration of the writer; and we hence reject both. Three Greek words are variously used in the New Testament to indicate time, as such. Chronos is time with reference to dura­tion or succession; kairos is time contemplated with reference to events; and hora is time with reference to a fixed date or period. It is the last of these words—hora— which occurs in the text, and the meaning is, therefore, a fixed date or period. The word is of obvious figurative significance, and thus describes a determinate period fixed in the divine mind and the last of the events thus predetermined by the Father. The word designates time, time conceived of as a definite period, this period being the last in the succession of periods similarly determined by deity. It therefore designates the Christian dispensation, the last of the great periods or ages arranged by the Father. (Isaiah 2:2-4; Acts 2:17; Hebrews 1:2.) 1 John 2:18 ---And as ye heard that antichrist cometh,—The apostle’ s readers were already in possession of information regarding “ anti­christ” ; they had heard it through the preaching of the writer and others. Those who had been their teachers, among them John himself, had earlier warned of the appearance of this antichrist. Who, or What, is “ antichrist?” The word itself suggests two possible meanings, accordingly as the preposition “ anti” used in composition here, is understood to signify (a) over against, or (b) opposed to. If the former, the word denotes one who puts him­self in the place of Christ; if the latter, one who stands in opposi­tion to Christ. The word appears only in the writings of John; here, and in 2: 22; 4: 3; and 2 John 1:7. His characteristics, as indicated in those verses, are, (1) he is a liar; (2) a deceiver; (3) a denier that Jesus is the Christ; and (4) he refuses to acknowl­edge that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh. References to a similar individual, in the language of the Lord, and the writings of Paul, enable us to fix his identity more defi­nitely, and indicate that the word combines the two meanings suggested above, viz., one who not only opposes Christ, but who usurps the place of Christ. “ For many shall come in my name, saying, I am the Christ; and shall lead many astray.” “ For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders; so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect.” (Matthew 24:5 Matthew 24:24.) “ Let no man beguile you in any wise; for it will not be, except the falling away come first and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition, he that opposeth and exalteth himself against all that is called God or that is worshipped; so that he sitteth in the temple of God setting himself forth as God.” (2 Thessalonians 2:3-4.) The individual here described is designated as “ the man of sin,” and the “ son of perdition.” (a) He opposes his will to that of God; (b) he exalts himself against God; (c) he sits in the temple of God; and (d) he sets himself forth as God. He is, moreover, (1) the personification of sin; (2) the son of perdition; (3) a participant in signs and lying wonders, the pur­pose of which is (4) to deceive. Like the antichrist described by John, and the false Christs predicted by the Lord, he seeks to identify himself with deity; he, like them, seeks to deceive, and has arrayed himself against the Lord and his Christ, and opposes them. To the candid mind the conclusion is irresistible that the “ man of sin,” whom Paul describes, is identical with the “ anti­christ,” to which John refers. And, in the centuries which have passed since these words were penned, no character in history so nearly conforms in minute detail to the representation here given as the pope of Rome! To deny that these prophecies find fulfillment in him is to close one’ s eyes to the facts in the case, utterly to ignore the evidence which obtains, and to reduce Biblical exegesis to mere caprice. 1 John 2:18 ---Even now have there arisen many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last hour.—If it be asked why John added that already there had arisen many antichrists (long before the development of the apostasy and the appearance of the first pope), the answer is obvious: while the great antichrist predicted by John and described by Paul had not come, many were evidencing and exhibiting the same spirit as would be characteristic of him, and were, therefore, properly styled antichrists. We, today, refer to men as papists who evince the spirit of and support the papacy; and with equal propriety those of John’ s day who preceded the popes but possessed his spirit were similarly designated. False and heretical teachers were then active, some of whom denied the deity of Jesus, and others his humanity, men who were clothed in the attributes of and possessed the spirit of the antichrist to come. If it be insisted that the pope does not today deny the Christ or oppose him but, on the contrary, supports his cause and defends his name, we deny it. As the so-called vicar of Christ, he affects to be the Lord’ s personal representative on earth; he blasphemously claims the prerogative of Christ in forgiving sins; and he alleges that he sits in the seat of Christ on earth. He is, therefore, a parody of the Christ, a counterfeit Christ; and though he imitates some of the characteristics of Christ, this is preciselv what is ex­pected of one who seeks to deceive. The appearance of these antichrists was evidence that the “ last hour” had been ushered in, such being tokens predicted by Christ to appear before the consummation of the age. (Matthew 24:5 Matthew 24:24­27.) 1 John 2:19 ---They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they are not of us.—The antecedent of “ they” is the word “ antichrists,” of the preceding verse. The preposition ek, rendered “ out from,” indicates origin from the center; and these were, therefore, for­merly among the disciples, and members of the church. They became apostates from the fold by going out. They were not “ of” the disciples, i.e., they did not possess the same spirit of obedience characteristic of the disciples, for if they had “ they would have continued with” the disciples. In going out, i.e., in apostatizing from the faith, they were “ made manifest” (shown to be), not of the disciples, and for the reason assigned above. This passage, often cited by advocates of the doctrine of the impossibility of apostasy for the purpose of showing that those who abandon the cause are mere professors or pretenders, and were never sincere, falls far short of the effort; for (a) they were once with the disciples; (b) they went out from them; (c) one does not go out from a place where he has never been; (d) had they possessed the same love for the Lord and equal desire to serve him as those from whom they went out, they would have continued with them; (e) they did, in fact, continue for a time, and then ceased to be faithful, (f) It follows, therefore, that they simply apostatized from the right way. We learn from this that (1) there was no necessity from without which made it impossible for these people to forsake the right way; (2) they were under no compulsion such as would have been true if the doctrine of decrees and predestination, as taught by Calvinists, is true. (3) Some obey the gospel and, like him of whom the Saviour spoke in the parable of the soils, “ heareth the word, and straightway with joy receiveth it; yet hath he not root in himself, but endureth for a while; when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, straightway he stumbleth.” (Matthew 13:20-21.) Others, like those of this text, adopt false and heretical doctrines, forsake the church, and make shipwreck concerning the faith. (1 Timothy 1:19.) 1 John 2:20 ---And ye have an anointing from the Holy One, and ye know all things.—This passage asserts that these to whom John wrote: (1) had an anointing; (2) this anointing they re­ceived from “ the Holy One/’ Christ; (3) as a result of this anoint­ing they knew all things. The word “ anointing” is translated from the Greek chrisma, a term originally signifying an oil or ointment rubbed on the skin, and later, the anointing itself. There is a play on words in the Greek Testament here, not observable in the translation. If the false teachers were anti-christoi, these to whom John wrote were christoi, anointed ones. The reference here is to a custom charac­teristic of the law of Moses of anointing with perfumed oils those elevated to positions of trust or power. In compliance with the will of Jehovah, kings (1 Samuel 10:10), priests (Exodus 29:7), and prophets (Isaiah 61:1) were anointed; and ointment is both figura­tively, and in the act itself, a symbol of the Holy Spirit. Jesus was the anointed one (Acts 4:27), and that with which he was anointed was the Holy Spirit (Acts 10:38). Some hold to the view that the anointing alluded to by John was the “ ordinary measure” of the Spirit, believed by them to be vouchsafed to all believers. References cited in support of this view are Galatians 4:6; Ephesians 3:16; Philippians 1:19; and 2 Corinthians 3:17 ff. This conclusion is based on an unwarrantable assumption. It should be noted that the test makes no mention whatsoever of the time when, nor the manner in which the anointing was received It merely affirms the fact of its occurrence, and not the manner or mode thereof. To affirm that this is the “ ordinary measure of the Spirit which all Christians receive in conversion” is to inject a meaning into the passage, rather than to draw out the meaning that is there. This was not an “ ordinary measure” of the Spirit, and for the following reasons: (1) The context is against this view. Antichrists, formerly among the disciples, and now apostates, were advocating false and heretical doctrines designed to lead the dis­ciples astray. These teachers were readily recognizable because the faithful had received an anointing from the Lord, "in this anointing these saints had been supplied with an endowment en­abling them to discern false spirits, and their teaching— -to detect those who falsely asserted their inspiration: “ Beloved, believe not every spirit, but prove the spirits, whether they are of God; be­cause many false prophets are gone out into the world.” (1 John 4:1.) This test they were able to make by comparing the teach­ing of the Spirit within them with the pretensions of those teachers who affected to be similarly led. (2) This anointing which they had received enabled them to know “ all things.” This phrase, “ all things,” is, of course, to be interpreted in the light of the context, and with reference to matters there considered. It was not the apostle’ s purpose to imply that such anointing made those who received it omniscient; otherwise, why was he, an inspired apostle, Writing to them at all? If, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they had come into possession of all knowledge, why this Epistle to them ? The “ all things” must, therefore, be limited to include the things pertaining to the antichrists. (3) The anoint­ing supplied them with such information as they needed to recog­nize and refute the false teachers who had gone out from among them. So, the apostle later affirmed: “ These things have I written unto you concerning them that would lead you astray. As for you, the anointing which ye received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any one teach you; but as his anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is no lie, and even as it taught you, ye abide in him.” (1 John 4: 26, 27.) We conclude, therefore, that the “ anointing” which these to whom John particularly wrote had received a miraculous measure of the Spirit; that this measure enabled them to recognize and refute the false teachers which plagued the church at that time; and that the anointing is not to be confused with any so-called “ ordinary measure” of the Spirit available to Christians today In the absence of a written revelation, it was needful that an in­fallible test be supplied the early saints by means of which they were able to discern and to expose the pretensions ofi those who sought to lead them astray. Such was the purpose of the “ anoint­ing” here contemplated. See further on this in the comments on 1 John 2:27. 1 John 2:21 ---I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and because no lie is of the truth.—Here, again, the reference is to the immediate context, and to the matters which had claimed the apostle’ s attention above. Certainly he is not to be understood as affirming that the reason he wrote the truth to them was because they already possessed all the truth which he wrote. If they already had it, why did he write? The “ truth” which they possessed was with reference to the false teachers about them; the manner in which they received this truth was through inspiration, styled in the verse preceding, “ an anointing,” a miraculous gift enabling them to discern false and lying spirits. The “ lie” which is opposed to the truth was that which the antichrists taught. (Verse 18.) 1 John 2:22 ---Who is the liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ—The “ lie” had claimed the apostle’ s attention in verse 21; here, the one who originated it. Passing from the abstract to the concrete, John identified the liar as “ he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ.” Many false theories regarding the nature and the attributes of the Saviour were afloat when John wrote this Epis­tle. The Gnostics alleged that Jesus and Christ were two different persons; that Christ merely appeared to have flesh, but in reality did not; and that the one designated as Jesus was without divine origin. The effect of this heresy was, in the case of Christ, to deny his humanity; and in the case of Jesus, to deny his deity. (See under “ Design of the Epistle,” in the Introduction.) 1 John 2:22 ---This is the antichrist, even he that denieth the Father and the Son.—Here, the word “ antichrist” is used in the same sense as in its second occurrence in verse 18, to identify those who possessed the character and attributes of the great antichrist to come. He who taught the things attributed to him here was of the same purpose and spirit as antichrist, and thus might properly bear his designation. To deny the humanity and deity of Jesus was to repudiate his Messiahship; and to reject the Messiahship was, in effect, to reject the Father himself. “ He that honoreth not the Son honoreth not the Father that sent him.” (John 5:23.) The Son reveals the Father (John 1:18 John 14:9), and our only approach to the Father is through the Son (John 14:6). Thus to reject the Son is to repudiate the only method by which it is possible to reach the Father. This is the reason why an acknowledgement of the Son before men is a prerequisite to ac­knowledgement by the Father: “ And I say unto you, Every one who shall confess me before men, him shall the Son of man also confess before the angels of God: but he that denieth me in the presence of men shall be denied in the presence of the angels of God” (Luke 12:8. Cf. Matthew 10:32.) 1 John 2:23 ---Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: he that confesseth the Son hath the Father also.—A conclusion drawn from preceding premises. He who disowns the Son, in the same act rejects the one who is his Father. Inasmuch as it is not possible to know the Father but by the Son, such rejection must inevitably extend to the Father also. This truth is stated both negatively and positively in this verse. It emphasizes what is often taught in the sacred writings that no man can have a clear knowledge of God the Father who does not learn of and familiarize himself with the attributes and characteristics of the Son. “ No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him,” i.e., revealed him, made him known. (John 1:18.) Since the appearance of the Son no one can truthfully object to the accept­ance of deity on the ground that such is unknowable. The Father has revealed himself to man through his Son. While these words were primarily written to refute the ancient Gnostics who plagued the church with these heresies at the time John wrote, they are not without a very definite and pertinent relevancy in our time. The seeds of the ancient Cerenthian heresy is to be seen in the modem rationalism which affects to believe in God but which rejects Christ as his Son and the Scriptures as a revelation from him. God, without Christ, is simply not! Such a being is utterly without existence. The attempt to visualize God, without Christ, is to reduce him to a metaphysical abstraction, eventuating in pantheism, or atheism. Voltaire, the famous French infidel, entranced by the unspeakable beauty in the Swiss Alps, shouted, “ God the Father! I adore thee/’ and then, as if ashamed of his outburst, immediately added that he did not worship the Son, an illustration of the conclusion which the apostle draws that it is impossible to acknowledge the Father without confessing the Son also. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/zerrcbc/ 1 John 2:2. Propitiation means something that appeases or satisfies one who is (justly) making strong demands. God is violated by the sins of mankind and His justice demands the eternal condemnation of the offenders. Man was unable to furnish what was rightly required to pay the debt, but Jesus was able and willing to do so. That is what he did when He shed his blood as was shown in chapter 1:7. Not for ours only but also, etc. The pronoun stands for disciples who have already made use of the cleansing blood by obedience to the Gospel. But the blood is sufficient to cleanse the whole world if all will accept it on the same terms as the present disciples. (See the familiar passage in John 3:16.) 1 John 2:3. Know is not used in view of some technical distinction between faith and knowledge. The thought is that if we keep his commandments (and we may know whether we have done so or not), then we may he sure or have the assurance that we have a saving knowledge of Him. 1 John 2:4. A knowledge of having kept the commandments is necessary to a knowledge of Him (see preceding verse). Therefore if a man asserts that lie knows the Lord when he has not kept the commandments (and he may know whether lie has or not), he is rightly classed with liars as the apostle here states. 1 John 2:5. The love of God perfected has virtually the same thought as Jesus expressed in John 14:21. To be perfected means to be made complete, and that will be accomplished when a man proves his love for God by keeping the commandments. On the same principle a man cannot truly claim to love the Lord who does not obey His word, even though he may sing "0 how I love Jesus" as vigorously as anyone. Know that we are in him. For comments on the word know see those at verse 3. 1 John 2:6. To abide in Christ is equivalent to walking with Him, for Christ is an active being and no person can continue with Him and not walk in the same way. "Can two walk together except they be agreed?" (Amos 3:3.) 1 John 2:7. The word new may mean with reference to its age or date. In that sense the divine law is not new because God has placed governing law before man ever since he has existed. On that basis it is the old commandment and they had heard it from the beginning. 1 John 2:8. The commandments of the Lord are new in the sense of being fresh and vigorous (not infirm as with old age). The newness or liveliness of the laws of the Lord is manifested in their being able to dispel the darkness of ignorance, and shed the light of knowledge in the Lord. 1 John 2:9. This is the same in thought as several preceding verses, namely, that true love is manifested by showing an obedient spirit toward the law of God, and that law requires a disciple to love his brother. 1 John 2:10. Occasion of stumbling denotes being the cause of another's stumbling or committing error. If a man loves his brother he will not put any stumbling block in his way (Romans 14:13). 1 John 2:11. Darkness is figurative and means the absence of truth. The truth of God requires that the brethren love each other, hence if one brother hates another he is not walking according to the word of God but is walking in darkness. 1 John 2:12. In this and the two verses following the writer uses the different age groups in a natural family to compare the ones with different talents and experiences in the family of God. Little children, therefore, cannot mean those usually designated by the term, since they do not have sins to be forgiven. It is used in view of some of them who were recent additions to the divine family by the spiritual birth. 1 John 2:13. As fathers in the natural family would be mature and ripe with the experience of age, so there are those in the church who have that qualification over other brethren. Young men are more mature than little childdren and have lived long enough to have demonstrated their strength in the contests of life. In the preceding verse the little children are given mention because of their purification from sins. Now they are named because of their knowledge of the Father from whom they have received the forgiveness of their sins. 1 John 2:14. This verse adds no special thoughts to the preceding two, except to indicate their importance by the repetition for emphasis. 1 John 2:15. World is from a word that means the inhabitants of the earth. Other passages require us to love our enemies and John 3:16 says God loved the world. The apparent difficulty is explained by the words things that are in the world. We should understand that Christians are not to love the things that the people in the world possess and use for their lustful pleasures. Of course no man can love such things and love the Father also, for He has condemned them and commanded His children to "abstain from fleshly lusts which war against the soul" (1 Peter 2:11). 1 John 2:16. The things named in this verse the apostle says are all that is in the world. That is not merely an arbitrary declaration made just because the apostle chose to sum it all up that way, but upon examination it will be seen that it is historically and logically true. In Genesis 3:6 we read; "When the woman saw that the tree was good for food [lust of the flesh], and that it was pleasant to the eyes [lust of the eyes], and a tree to be desired to make one wise [pride of life]," etc. Next we shall consider Luke 4:1-13. Satan suggested to Jesus a way to get food, which was an appeal to the lust of the flesh. (The obtaining of food was no sin if done by lawful means.) Satan showed Christ the kingdoms of the world which was an appeal to the lust of the eyes. Next he challenged Him to cast himself from the roof of the temple to show the greatness of His power, which was an attempt to get Jesus to yield on a point that would have shown the spirit of pride. Luke says after these three items that "the devil had ended all the temptations," which agrees with John that the three classes of evil are all that is in the world. 1 John 2:17. World is still from the word that means the inhabitants pf the earth, and the lusts are the practices of the same which confirms the comments on the preceding verse. Since this world and its practices are to pass away, it is great folly for a disciple to let his affections be attached thereto. But the doer of God's will abideth for ever and hence that is the proper subject to receive our sincere interests. 1 John 2:18. Little children is used in the sense that is explained at the first verse of the chapter. Last time could have a number of definitions on account of the second word, hence the thought must be gathered from the use that is made of it. The doctrine of Christ is not directly taught in the Old Testament while He is the central figure in the New. The verse speaks of antichrists (which means against Christ) so we understand John means we are living in the last Dispensation. Such is a logical conclusion because the basis of the whole system is belief in Christ (not Moses). 1 John 2:19. Went out from us signifies the antichrists were once associated with the true believers but apostatized from the faith. All this pertains to their outward movements only, for John says that they were not of us. Church workers are not mind readers, and if unconverted persons go through the motion of obedience to the Gospel there is no way to detect or avoid it. They obeyed the form of doctrine but not "from the heart" (Romans 6:17). Such persons will wait until some pretext appears when they will show their true sentiments by turning against the church and making false accusations. It is true that John is writing directly about antichrists which means those who oppose Christ. The principle is the same, for whoever opposes the church of Christ is an enemy of Him. At heart they are disbelievers in Christ but show their spite against Him by turning against his church. 1 John 2:20. Unction is used figuratively from the ancient custom of pouring oil on the heads of those who were to act in the service of the Lord. In its spiritual sense it refers to the enlightening that the Lord bestowed on the apostles, enabling them to impart the necessary information to the members of the body of Christ. Ye know all things means they know all that pertains to life and godliness (2 Peter 1:3). 1 John 2:21. Not all inspired writing was done to give new information but also to supplement what had been given (2 Peter 1:12-13 2 Peter 3:1). Another consideration is that people who have already shown an interest in the truth are glad to have it repeated to them. No lie is of the truth. Anything that denies a truth is bound to be a lie, and John was particularly concerned about the truth of the divinity of Christ. 1 John 2:22. This verse is virtually the same as verse 18 (See 1 John 2:18). 1 John 2:23. God and Christ are two distinct persons but are one in divinity, hence to reject the one is the same as rejecting the other. The last half of this verse is not found in some copies of the Greek text and for that reason some translations leave it out. However, it does not add anything that disagrees with the rest of the New Testament, hence no harm is done by retaining it at least to the extent of endorsing it. 1 John 2:24. Heard from the beginning refers to the truth given to the world through Him who is "from the beginning" (chapter 1:1). If this truth remains in us we will be in fellowship with both the Father and the Son. 1 John 2:25. The reward for being in fellowship with God and his Son is not of a temporal nature; it is eternal life. That reward will be given to those who are faithful until death, since it will not come in this world but in the next which will be "when earthly things have ceased to be." 1 John 2:26. To seduce a person means to mislead him or cause him to stray from the truth. There were many deceivers in the world who were so expert in their false reasoning that the uninformed were easy victims. For this reason the apostle was writing the warning information to the disciples. 1 John 2:27. Anointing is from the same word as "unction" in verse 20. Need not that any man should teach you. This means that no uninspired man should be depended upon for teaching on the great story of Christ. They had the enlightening that had come to them from Christ through the inspired teachers. With such divine guidance they were able to abide in him who is Christ. 1 John 2:28. Little children is general and is the same endearing term that John uses in the beginning of the chapter. With the advantage of the spiritual enlightenment the disciples are exhorted to abide in him. This means more than merely being in Christ at times but it should be always. No man knows when Jesus is coming hence it is important always to be in His favor. In that case the disciple will not be taken unawares and be made ashamed, but will be confidently looking for Him. 1 John 2:29. The Lord is righteous and hence can beget righteous offspring only. The exhortation is for the disciples to honor their family reputation by being righteous. Guy N. Woods Commentary On 1st John 3SECTION THREE GOD IS LOVE(1Jn 3: 1-5: 12) GOD’ S LOVE FOR MAN(1 John 3:1-2) 1 John 3:1 ---Behold what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called children of God; and such we are.—The first verses of 1 John 3 continue and advance the thought set out in the final verse of the second chapter of the Epistle. Having declared that those who exhibit righteousness in their lives evidence the fact that they are the hegotten sons of God, the apostle proceeds to dwell upon the marvelous blessings which such a relationship suggests. “ Behold” (eidete) means to see, to take notice of, to be im­pressed with. Its design, as in John 1:29 John 19:5; Mark 13:1, and often elsewhere in the New Testament, was to fix the attention of John’ s readers on the measure of the love which had been revealed in their behalf. “ Manner of love” is a phrase descriptive of the quality of the love which the Father has vouchsafed to his children. In it is revealed not only the size, but the blessedness of it. “ What glorious, sublime, immeasurable love the Father hath bestowed upon us . . .” Included in the manner of it is the freeness, the greatness, the preciousness, the scope, the duration— in a word, all that is summed up in the word, “ For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son . . .” (John 3:16.) This love God “ bestowed” (literally, gave), eventuating in our being “ called chil­dren of God.” Inasmuch as the Lord makes us what we are, to be called his children by him is to be such, and to sustain this relation to him in all the affairs of life. “ And such we are” is a positive affirmation of that which had just been said. 1 John 3:1 ---For this cause the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.— The first clause of this sentence is a conclusion drawn from the premise which the second clause contains. The world knows us not. Why does the world know us not ? Because it knew him not. Since the world does not know the Father, of course it does not recognize the Father’ s children! The word “ know” here, as in many other instances in John’ s writings, is used to mean much more than merely superficial knowledge. The world knows, of course, that Christians are in it; they are aware of the fact that Christians worship God; but they do not approve of the lives of Christians, nor do they acknowledge the Christian’ s God as their Sovereign and King. Of similar import are the words of the Lord: “ If the world hateth you, ye know it hath hated me before it hated you. If ye were of the world, the world would love its own; but because ye are not of the world but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.” (John 15:18-19.) 1 John 3:2 ---Beloved, now are we children of God, and it is not yet made manifest what we shall be.—We are children of God now, in spite of the nonrecognition of the world. Though the world about us refuses to recognize us for what we are, God does, and this is enough. And, the fact that “ it is not yet made manifest what we shall be,” does not raise a question regarding our present status. Grant that we dcy not possess a full knowledge of matters pertaining to the next life; let it be admitted that here is much with reference to the future which we do not know. Does this, in any fashion, raise a presumption of doubt regarding our present rela­tion to the Father? Certainly not. We are children of God; we are children of God now; and as such, all the blessings of sonship are ours. 1 John 3:2 ---We know that, if he shall be manifested, we shall be like him; for we shall see him even as he is.—To “ be manifested,” is to be made to appear, to be brought to the light, to be known. The phrase, “ if he shall be manifested,” refers to the Lord’ s second coming. When this event occurs, our imperfect conceptions will vanish in the perfect knowledge of him which will then be ours. Then it is that we shall see him even as he is, and shall be like him. The meaning is: we are children of God now, as much so as we shall be when the Lord comes; but at the present we arewaiting for an inheritance which we do not fully comprehend; when he comes we shall still be children and, in addition, in pos­session of that for which we now wait. Moreover, we shall then have perfect understanding of matters with reference to our future state which now we do not fully understand. The glorious anticipation of being “ like him” should prompt us to utilize every faculty we possess in his service, and thrill us with the prospect of awakening in his likeness. To be like him is to be as he is, in both spirit and body. It is to partake of his glorious characteristics of mind and heart, of soul and spirit; to come into possession of the spiritual graces which are his. It is to be like him in purity, in holiness, in kindness and in love; it is to share with him the complete approval of our Father and God. It is, further, to be like him in body; to possess the immortal nature which he possesses, and to be no longer, as he is no longer, subject to death. “ For our citizenship is in heaven; whence also we wait for a Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ : who shall fashion anew the body of our humiliation, that it may be conformed to the body of his glory, according to the working whereby he is able even to subject all things unto himself.” (Phile. 3: 20, 21.) The wondrous blessing which this promise includes— of being like him— should not be lightly regarded or passed over hurriedly. It is a summary of all the good things which the Father has in reserve for his own. There is a story often told of a group of heathen converts who, when they came to this verse in translating into their language, unable to believe that such could possibly be in store for sinful man, stopped and said, “ No! It is too much. Let us write that we shall be permitted to kiss his feet.” ORIGIN AND OF SINFUL CONDUCT(1 John 3:3-12) 1 John 3:3 ---And every one that hath this hope set on him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.—The “ hope” which we have is in being like him when he shall appear; and he who is in possession of this hope keeps himself pure, even as Christ, whom we shall be like when he appears, is pure. The meaning is, we have a hope; this hope is to awake in the likeness of the Saviour; the possession of this hope leads one to keep himself pure, this being a condition precedent to its realization; the pattern for this purity is Christ, himself. The verb “ purifieth” (hagnizei, present active indicative), is a continuous act, keeps on purifying, an essential prerequisite to the maintenance of the hope which we have in him. Taught here, in the most emphatic fashion is, (1) the con­ditionality of our salvation; (2) the necessity of abstaining from every form of impurity; (3) the encouragement to faithfulness which hope affords; and (4) the example of purity which Christ himself supplies. This passage may not be legitimately cited to sustain the view that it is possible for a child of God to live above sin here. (1) Such a view is opposed to other statements by the same writer. (1 John 1:8 1 John 2:1.) (2) Such is a misapprehension of what is here taught. If this passage teaches that one can purify himself to the extent he is above sin, it teaches that every one who has hope in Christ can do so, in which case all who have hope in the Lord are above sin. We are purified by complying with the con­ditions on the basis of which the Lord forgives us: “ If we walk in the light as he is in the light we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanseth us from all sin. If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” (1 John 1:7-9.) This passage, instead of teaching us that it is possible to live above sin, actually teaches the opposite of this, by indicat­ing the means by which we overcome the effect of sin in our lives. By striving for the purity which the Lord possesses we reach for the goal which will be finally realized when he appears. 1 John 3:4 ---Every one that doeth sin doeth also lawlessness and sin is lawlessness.—Here, again, the connection with what has gone before, in the Epistle, is immediately apparent, and should not be overlooked. The theme of this section is set forth in 1 John 2:29 : “ If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one also that doeth righteousness is begotten of him. Verses 1-3, of this chapter, in the development of this theme, emphasize the fact that the doing lator, and one who violates the law of God is, of course, a sinner. The connection with the context thus becomes apparent: if we would sustain and preserve the hope which we possess, we must continue to purify ourselves. A failure to do so is to lapse into a life of sin; and a life of sin is lawlessness. 1 John 3:5 ---And ye know that he was manifested to take away sins; and in him is no sin.—Two additional reasons are thus ad­vanced why Christians are not to engage in the practice of sin: (1) Christ was manifested to take away sins; (2) in him, who is our example, there is no sin. The manifestation of Christ here referred to was his entrance into the world, in the flesh, the purpose of which was to “ take away sins.” (Matthew 1:21.) The article (the) appears before the word “ sins” in the Greek text, and the meaning is, Jesus came into the world to take away the sins of the world, all sin, not merely one sin here and another there. The design of the Lord’ s appearance was, therefore, in part, to take away sins. The verb take away is translated from arei, first aorist subjunctive of airo, occurring also in John 1:29. It conveys the idea of a burden or load which is lifted in order that it may not crush him upon whom it rests; and, as here figuratively used, it signifies the lifting and carrying away of sins that they may be upon us no more. Being in the aorist tense, the act is a once-for-all process, in which by one offering the Lord accomplished his purpose henceforth and forever. Implied in the word is the idea of atonement, reconciliation, expiation and sanctification, all of which the Lord accomplished in his death, though the primary meaning here is the bearing away of sin. The lesson the apostle desired to reach is that all sin must be shunned and voided for Christ came into the world for the purpose of removing sin from us, and to continue to participate therein would frustrate his pur­pose and thwart his plan for those for whom he suffered. Forms of the word thus translated occur in the Septuagint translation in Isaiah 53:11, and in Hebrew 10: 4, 11, in each of which the primary meaning “ to take away” is retained. In taking away sin, the Lord abolishes the guilt, the power, and the punishment thereof, thus making it possible for his children to entertain an assured hope of salvation. Such Paul must have had in mind when he wrote, “ Christ . . . gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a people for his own possession, zealous of good works.” (Titus 2:14.) In view of the fact that the Lord became incarnate in order that he might take away our sins, the proper regard for this should serve as a mighty incentive to all Christians to refrain from all wil­ful participation therein. (1) To engage in sin, in view of the design which led to his death, is to thwart the purpose and plan of the Lord and to render his sacrifice in vain. (2) As disciples of his, it is proper that we should follow such a course as would result in the furtherance of his purposes and plans for men. (3) To indulge in sin is to practice that which was the occasion for the ignominy and shame which were heaped upon the Lord at his crucifixion. (4) To persist in such practices in view of what sin did to him reveals a perverseness and depravity of heart wholly inconsistent with that which characterizes those who love and serve him. The second clause, “ and in him is no sin,” is, if literally rendered, “ and sin in him is not ” It is an emphatic and positive affirmation of the Lord’ s freedom from sin. Being himself ab­solutely free from sin, and without any admixture of wrong in him whatsoever, it is only as we “ purify” ourselves, (verse 3), and abstain from all sinful practices, that we are able to approach the perfect standard his life constitutes. That our Lord was wholly free from sin every moment of his life is a fact clearly taught in the sacred writings. Jesus declared it himself (John 7:18 John 8:46) ; and it was often affirmed of him (2 Corinthians 5:21; Hebrews 4:15 Hebrews 7:26 Hebrews 9:13). It follows, therefore, that those who would imitate him in manner of life today must strive for the same inherent purity. “ For hereunto were we called because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, that ye should follow his steps: who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: who, when he was reviled, reviled not again, when he suffered, threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously.” (1 Peter 2:21-23.) 1 John 3:6 ---Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not; whosoever sin­neth hath not seen him, neither knoweth him.—The ideas which this verse contains were favorite ones with the apostle, and are repeated, in one form or another, throughout his writings. The word “ abideth,” for example, occurs (in one of its various forms) in John 5:38 John 6:56 John 14:10 John 15:4-7 John 15:9; 1 John 2: 6, 10, 14, 17, 27; 3: 6, 25; 4: 12, 13, 15, 16. It was likely sug­gested to him by the Lord in the familiar and impressive statement of Joh 15:4-6 : “ Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; so neither can ye, except ye abide in me. I am the vine, ye are the branches: he that abideth in me, and I in him, the same beareth much fruit : for apart from me ye can do nothing. If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and they gather them and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.” The word “ abide” is translated from a word (Meno) which means to settle down and remain, as in one’ s permanent home. Here, in addition to its literal meaning, it denotes the intimate relationship which exists between the Lord and his disciples, the close and continuing connection which obtains between him and those who derive their life from him. Not only does the word itself suggest an abode in Christ; the tense necessitates this conclusion also, “ whosoever keeps on abiding . . .” “ Whosoever keeps on abiding in him sinneth not.” Here, too, the apostle gives utterance to an idea which is often expressed in one way or another in his Epistles. (1 John 2:24 1 John 3:9 1 John 5:18; 3 John 1:11.) (1) Whosoever abides in him sins not; (2) whoso­ever is begotten of God does not sin; (3) he that does evil has not seen God. These propositions are developed in much detail throughout the first Epistle; and the ideas which they contain were favorite ones with John. The apostle did not intend to af­firm that one who abides in Christ is not capable of commiting a single act of sin; such a concept would be in conflict with his af­firmation of the universal prevalence of sin, even among the saints (1 John 1:8); moreover, the designation of the means by which to overcome sin through the intercession of Christ (1 John 2:1), implies its possibility. Thus to teach it is possible or even probable that one will attain to a life of sinlessness here, is in con­flict with his own teaching in the instances cited, and must not be attributed to him here. The meaning of this verse, and indeed, all of those of similar import in the writings of the apostle John (e.g., 3: 9; 5: 18; 3 John 1:11), is to be sought and found in the significance which attaches to the tense of the verbs which set forth the action involved. The word “ tense” as applied to the Greek verb is misleading, if it be accorded its literal signification, for it is derived from the French temps, time, and originally the Greek tense had no reference to time, as such. This characteristic, so prominent in the English verb, is only incidental in the Greek, the tense of the Greek verb having to do with the state of the action, and not necessarily with the time when it occurred. Its function is to indicate the state of the action, accordingly as it is conceived of as an indefinite event, (aorist tense), an action in progress, (present tense), or a com­pleted action with existing results, (perfect tense). Other tenses, such as the imperfect, etc., are variation of one or the other of these types of action. In the English language the time element is the prominent feature of the verb, and we think of an act as either past, present, or future. The present tense, in Greek, indicates action in progress at the present time. It is thus distinguished from the aorist tense which is a single act indefinitely conceived of, without regard to time. The distinction between the present and the aorist tenses may be seen in the following manner: The Present Tense: (an act continuing) The Aorist Tense (a single act) In the passage under consideration, the verb sinneth not is the translation of ouch hamartanei, third person singular, of the pres­ent indicative active, of hamartano. Inasmuch as the chief char­acteristic of the Greek present tense is to indicate action in prog­ress contemporary with the time of speaking, whereas the English verb does not distinguish between such action in progress, and a single act occurring, the significance of the verb sinneth, as used by the apostle, does not fully appear in the translation. It can be brought to the attention of the English reader only by an expanded translation thus: “ Whosoever continues to abide in him, does not keep on sinning” (i.e., habitually as he did before his conversion). Had the apostle intended to convey the idea that one who abides in Christ is incapable of committing a single act of sin, he would have utilized the aorist tense. In such a case, however, he would have been in conflict with his own previous statements which assert the fact of sin in the lives of Christians, and the means provided for their removal. The meaning of the verse is, He who has taken up his abode in Christ, and settled down to a permanent existence in him, has terminated his former manner of life and has ceased the practices then characteristic of him. He no longer engages in habitual and persistent sin. That he has broken the hold of sin in his life, and no longer regularly yields to evil im­pulses as a manner of life, however, is far from asserting that there are never occasional lapses into sin through weakness or ignorance. (Cf. 1 Corinthians 9:27; Philippians 3:12.) For these inadvertent lapses, a plan has been provided. (1 John 2:1.) “ Whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither knoweth him.” The verb “ sinneth” here, as in the first clause of the verse, is in the present tense. Whosoever sins following his conversion dem­onstrates the fact that he has neither seen nor known the Lord. This passage, as translated, appears to teach that sinful conduct on the part of one who affects to be a child of God is evidence of the fact that such a one is not only not saved at the time, but never has been! This conclusion is obviously erroneous, because it is in conflict with other statements in the same Epistle, and by the same author. He had earlier said that Jesus is our Advocate when we sin, and that “ if we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” (1 John 1:7-9 1 John 2:1.) How is it possible to confess sins never committed? Why do Christians need an Advocate for them when they sin, if they never sin? The verb sinneth, as in the first clause, indicates a continuous practice. Whosoever keeps on sinning . . has neither seen nor known him. The verbs “ seen” (heoraken) and “ knoweth” (egnoken) are Greek perfects. The Greek perfect tense denotes action absolutely past, which lasts on in its effects. It is the function of the Greek perfect to indicate the result which follows the action, the action, meanwhile, dropping out of view. In this respect it differs greatly from the English perfect which keeps the action in view and in which the past idea predominates. When, for example, we say. “ I have known,” the mind instinctively at­tributes the time of knowing to the past; in this, the true function of the English perfect is seen. In the Greek perfect, however, the time element is lost sight of, and the force of the tense is to point to an existing state produced by the action which has already ter­minated. Thus, the significance of “ I have known,” regarded from the viewpoint of the Greek perfect, is, “ I know” (now). Thus, in the study of this verse if we keep in mind that the verbs seen and knoweth, as here used, express result, the meaning becomes clear. “ Whosoever continues to abide in him does not keep on living a life of sin; whosoever does keep on living such a life, does not see him or know him.” Obviously, one who has lapsed into a life of habitual sin, such as characterized him before his conversion, no longer sees (enjoys) God, nor knows (recog­nizes) God in his life. In the implication that one who abides in Christ sees the Fa­ther, we do not, of course, infer from this that it is possible for one to look upon, with physical eyes, the likeness of the great Jehovah. “ No man hath seen God at any time.” (1 John 4:12.) The seeing which is thus possible is to exercise the knowledge and in­sight which such a relationship allows— the perception possible to the faithful. To see in the New Testament is a figure often used of such spiritual insight. (John 1:18 John 6:46; Hebrews 2:8.) 1 John 3:7 ---My little children, let no man lead you astray: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous:—The address here is the same, and the same ones are addressed as in 1 John 2:1 and 1 John 2:18. The warning, “ Let no man lead you astray,” appears, in one form or another, often in the Epistles. (1 John 1:8 1 John 2:18 1 John 2:26 1 John 4:1-3.) These words have particular reference to men who sought to deceive the saints of that day by alleging that it is pos­sible to live a life of habitual sin, and yet have the approval and approbation of God. Such views were progapated by false and heretical sects of the time, and many were deluded and led into a life of sin by them. (See under “ Design of the Epistle,” in the Introduction.) These false teachers advocated the view that they pleased God without living a life of righteousness, and that what­ever might be the case with others who were without their alleged superior knowledge (gnosis), there was no need for them to work righteousness, because they were eternally saved by the grace of God, regardless of what their works might be. The effect of this teaching was to lead those who accepted it into a life of gross and unrestrained indulgence, and that in the name of religion! To counteract such teaching the apostle laid down the maxim that “ He who doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he (Christ) is righteous,” i.e., the man who does righteousness is righteous, and no other is. It is a positive affirmation that character and conduct cannot be separated. It matters not how much one may assert his righteousness; it is of little consequence to what extent one may declare his love for the Lord; the acid test is, does he do righteousnessf If yes, he is a righteous man; if no, his claims are false. Here, as in 1 John 2:29, the doing of righteousness is not a condition precedent to righteousness, but evidence that such salvation exists. However tempted we may be to cite these passages in support of the scriptural doctrine that obedience is essential to salvation from past, or alien, sins, such is an unwarranted use of them. It is never allowable to take passages from their context and use them in support of a proposition even though the proposition we seek to prove is taught elsewhere in the scriptures. A passage should never be used in any sens$ other than that for which it was orig­inally written by the sacred writer. The use of texts out of their contexts, so common to denominational preachers, has led people to the conclusion that it is possible to prove anything by the Bible. It is well to remember that “ a text, taken from its context, becomes a mere pretext.” It was John’ s design to show here that the doing (practice) of righteousness is the only test of a righteous (ap­proved) person, whatever his claims may be. Long ago Luther truthfully said, “ Good works of piety do not make a good pious man, but a good pious man does good pious works . . . fruits grow from the tree and not the tree from the fruits.” The verb “ doeth” in this verse, as often elsewhere in the Epis­tles of John (e.g., 1 John 2:29 1 John 3:4 1 John 3:7 1 John 3:9, etc.), is a present active participle in the Greek text (poion), and signifies to keep on doing. As occasional lapses into sin through weakness, inadvertence, or ignorance do not demonstrate that one has never been saved, so isolated and infrequent acts of righteousness (outward conformity to some of God’ s laws) do not justify the conclusion that such a one is a righteous man. To be righteous, one must practice right­eousness as a settled habit in life. Such a one, the apostle, affirms, is a righteous man; no other is. “ Even as he is righteous” is a reference to Christ. “ Even as” does not signify that one attains to the same righteousness as that Christ possesses; it means that Christ constitutes the model or pattern of righteousness toward which all of his followers are ever to strive. As he is righteous, so are we to seek to be; and such righteousness is attained through right-doing. (Psalms 119:172; Acts 10:34; Matthew 3:14.) The right-doing essential to such righteousness includes the duties and responsibilities of the Chris­tian life. 1 John 3:8 ---He that doeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning.—He who lives a life of habitual sin is of the devil; he demonstrates his relation to satan by his conformity to the character which the devil possesses. The devil has sinned (has been sinning, ap’ arches hamartanei, present active indicative) from the beginning, i.e., from the first sin which resulted in his becoming the devil. Being the first sinner, the devil is the source of sin, the fountain from which it springs, the father of all those who practice it. “ Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father it is your will to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and standeth not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own; for he is a liar, and the father thereof.” (John 8:44.) Inasmuch as the devil is the original sinner, and since he has persisted in sin with­out interruption from the occasion of the first sin, it follows that whoever sins thus persistently partakes of the character of him who is their spiritual father. Such being the pattern of his exist­ence, those who conform thereto must be regarded as his off­spring and imitators. But here, again, we must not confuse mere occasional lapses into sin with a life of persistent and willful transgression. (1) To affirm that this passage teaches that it is possible to live a sinless life here is to (a) ignore the significance of the terms employed and (b) to put the writer in conflict with himself in other passages in the same Epistle. (1 John 1:7-9 1 John 2:1.) (2) Such a claim is refuted by the sober consciousness of all thoughtful persons who, though it may have been years since they have engaged in willful sin, are aware of defects of character, and the like, which occas­sionally lead them inadvertently into sin. (3) The wisest, greatest, and best characters of whom we read in the . scriptures never laid claim to sinlessness in this life, but, on the contrary, exhibited the weaknesses-common to humanity, and often confessed them with penitence and shame. (Cf. the lives of Abraham, David, Peter, and Paul.) (4) It must not be overlooked in the consideration of this passage that the evil contemplated is that which flows uninter­ruptedly from an evil heart, and is deliberate, willful, and persist­ent. The steady stream of pollution unmistakably reveals that the source is equally corrupt. It follows, therefore, that the type of sin under contemplation here is that which is habitual. Those who live as the devil lives must be regarded as belonging to the devil; in exhibiting the traits and characteristics of the devil, they evidence the fact that they are his children. Here, incidentally, is additional proof of the personality of the devil— a fact often taught in the scriptures, (a) He exists; (b) he has existed from the beginning; (c) he is the spiritual progen­itor of all who sin as he does; and (d) false teachers are his agents in seeking to seduce and lead astray the saints. 1 John 3:8 ---To this end was the Son of God manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil—“ To this end” indicates the purpose for which the Son of God was manifested (appeared in the world), that he might “ destroy” (bring to naught) the “ works of the devil.” The “ works of the devil” include his plans, purposes, designs, schemes, aims, and ends which he hopes to accomplish. These Jesus came to “ destroy” (luso), literally, to weaken, deprive of power, abolish in principle. Included among the works of the devil are not only sins, but the consequences of sin— pain, sorrow, misery, and death. Christ has abolished death “ and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel.” (2 Timothy 1:10.) The eventual triumph over death will be realized in the resurrec­tion : “ But when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is thy victory? O death, where is thy sting?” (1 Corinthians 15:54-55.) There, too, will all sorrow, pain, and misery be forevermore terminated: “ And I heard a great voice out of the throne saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he shall dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God him­self shall be with them, and be their God: and he shall wipe away every tear from their eyes; and death shall be no more; neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain any more: the first things are passed away.” (Revelation 21:3-4.) 1 John 3:9 ---Whosoever is begotten of God doeth no sin, because his seed abideth in him; and he cannot sin, because he is begotten of God.— The familiar rendering, “ Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin,” of the King James’ Version, has given place to the American Standard rendering, “ Whosoever is begotten of God doeth no sin,” and here, as often elsewhere, the Standard rendering is the preferable one, though it, too, as we shall later see, does not fully and adequately convey the meaning of the text. (1) The phrase “ begotten of God” is a decided improvement over “ born of God” (gegennemenos ek tou theou), for gegen- nemenos, from gennao, means to beget. (2) Correctly translat­ed, the scriptures never refer to a “ birth of God.” (3) It is absurd to predicate the act of birth of a masculine personality exclusively. We are not, however, from this to infer that the reference here, or in the numerous other instances where the phrase occurs, signifies an embryonic or prenatal state. Obviously, here and in 2: 29 and 5: 18, the reference is to children of God. While the context establishes the fact that children of God are contem­plated, accuracy of translation necessitates the rendering “ begotten of God” rather than “ born of God.” Whosoever is begotten of God “ doeth no sin.” (“ Doeth no sin” is translated from the phrase, hamartian ou poiei, present active indicative of poio, does not keep on doing sin (as a life habit.) The reference here is to persistent, continuous, willful sin, such as that contemplated in 3: 6, and the remarks there (which see) apply with equal force here. But why does the one begotten of God refrain from habitual and persistent indulgence in sin? Because his seed remains in him and he cannot sin. Whose seed? God’ s. What is God’ s seed ? The word of God: “ The seed is the word of God.” (Luke 8:11.) In whom does this seed abide or remain? In the child of God. What does the word “ abide” signify? That the word of God has made its home, as it were, in the heart of the one begot­ten. Is this a scriptural concept? “ Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom” (Colossians 3:16), which we translate more vividly, “ May the word which Christ speaks to you have in your hearts in all its fullness its home.” What is the result of such ? The child of God cannot sin. Does this mean that it is impossible for a child of God, under any circumstances, to commit a single act of sin? No. The phrase “ Doeth no sin” does not adequately convey the meaning of the original text. Here, as in 3: 6, in order to discover the full significance of the verb doeth, it is essential to take into consider­ation the tense thereof, a better rendering of which would be, “ worketh no sin.” (See comments on 1 John 3:6.) What rea­sons have we for concluding that it was not the intention of the apostle to teach that it is impossible for a child of God to commit a single act of sin? (1) Such a conclusion is in conflict with 1 John 1:7-9 1 John 2:1, and many other passages in the scriptures. (2) The words “ he cannot sin” cannot be correctly construed to mean that one cannot commit a single act of sin after being begotten of God. Why is it alleged that such a conclusion is in conflict with what the apostle taught elsewhere? Because he affirmed, in the references cited, that children do sin, and he moreover revealed the conditions on which they may be forgiven. Why is it thought that the phrase “ he cannot sin” may not be correctly interpreted to mean that it is impossible for a child of God to commit a single act of sin ? “ And he cannot sin” is trans­lated from the phrase “ kai ou dunatai hamartanein. Hamartarein is a present active infinitive, the force of which is, “ he cannot con­tinue to live a life of sin” (as before). But why cannot he continue to live such a life ? The seed, which is the word of God, and which is in him, forbids it. How did David recognize and apply the principle taught here? “ Thy word have I laid up in my heart, that I might not sin against thee?" (Psalms 119:11.) How did Jesus resist the seductions of Satan? By relying on the same power. Suppose one is tempted to steal. Such a one remembers that the Word says, “ Thou shalt not steal.” So long as this injunction remains in the heart and governs the life, one cannot steal. “ It is written” is as effective in resisting the blandishments of Satan today as it was when the Lord utilized it on the mount of temptation. Why, then, cannot one thus begotten persist in sin? (1) The seed (the word of God), which forbids it, is in him, controls his life, and directs his energies. (2) A life of sin is inconsistent with the spiritual parentage of the one thus begotten. But does this mean that it is never possible for one possessed of this nature to sin? No. All, through weakness, error, ignorance, and inadvertence, occasionally sin; but children of God do not work sin as a life principle, for its author— Satan— they have repudiated and his nature abandoned. When, in such instances, sin occurs, it is a momentary lapse; it is due to an imperfect hold­ing of the word in the heart; it is recognized as contrary to the higher impulses of the person thus sinning, and it is confessed and put aside with shame. Paul and John are in strict harmony in their teaching on the difference between such occasional lapses into sin and a life wholly devoted to it. The former wrote, “ What shall we say then ? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. We who died to sin, how shall we any longer live therein? Or are ye ignorant that all we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him through baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life. For if we have become united with him in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resur­rection; knowing this, that our old man was crucified with him, that the body of sin might be done away, that we should no longer be in bondage to sin.” (Romans 6:1-6.) We are thus no longer to continue in sin, for (a) we have died (separated ourselves) from the practice thereof; (b) we have risen from the baptismal grave to walk a new life; (c) the body of sin has been done away; (d) we have been delivered from the bondage of sin. The careful dis­tinction which the inspired writers make between a life of contin­uous and habitual sin and the infrequent deviations of children of God who, while they ever reach upward toward a nobler life, now and then falter through weakness or error, may be seen by a com­parison between Romans 6:1, “ Shall we continue in sin” (epimeno- men tei hamartiai, present active subjunctive) and Romans 6:15, “ Shall we sin” (hamartesomen, first aorist active subjunctive), “ Shall we commit a single act of sin?” (because we are not under law, but under grace). Carefully and pointedly the apostle to the Gentiles make it clear that even isolated acts of sin were not to be indulged in on the assumption that the grace under which we live, instead of the law, would make provision for such. Properly interpreted, neither 1 John 3:9 nor any other scrip­ture, countenances the view that it is impossible for a child of God to live above sin in this life; and theories to this end, whether drawn from this passage or some other, are clearly erroneous. 1 John 3:10 ---In this the children of God are manifest, and the chil­dren of the devil:—That is, in the matters immediately pre­ceding. We indicate by our manner of life our parentage. The word “ manifest” means to make known, to reveal. Children of God and children of the devil are readily distinguished from each other by the fact that the former abstain from a life of unrelieved sin, whereas such a life is ever characteristic of the latter. The nature exhibits itself in the individual and reveals who is his father. As a life of constant and continuous sin justifies the conclusion that such a one is a child of the devil, so a life of righteousness is evidence of the fact that such a one is a child of God. “ Ye know that every one also that doeth righteousness is begotten of him.” (1 John 2:29.) “ Every one that doeth sin doeth also lawless­ness; and sin is lawlessness.” (1 John 3:4.) 1 John 3:10 ---Whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.—The first clause of this verse relates to what had just been said; the second expands it and makes it applicable not only to the spiritual, but also to the social side of life. The love under consideration here is that which one brother in Christ should have for another and where it does not exist, there is an absence of divine parenthood. We are taught here that he who does not love his brother actually has no brother to love, for in his failure to comply with this normal and natural principle, he demonstrates that God is not his Father. In refusing to love one of God’ s family, he simply excludes himself from the family itself! 1 John 3:11 ---For this is the message which ye heard from the begin­ning, that we should love one another:—“ For,” i.e., with ref­erence to what had just been written, “ Whosoever doeth not right­eousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.” John’ s readers had heard this “ message” from the beginning of their acquaintance with Christianity, since this was a cardinal principle of the movement itself. (John 13:34-35.) It is called a message from a word which, in the New Testament, signifies things announced in order that they may be done. It is referred to here as a message, instead of a commandment, though such it was, and is, because it was announced in words, and conveyed by messengers. See further on this in the comments on 1 John 2:9. 1 John 3:12 ---Not as Cain was of the evil one, and slew his brother.—This statement is put in contrast with that of verse 11, and Cain is offered as an example of what children of God are not to do. The meaning is, We should love one another, and not be as Cain was, who was of the evil one, and slew his brother. (Genesis 4:1­17.) Those who do righteousness are “ of God” ; Cain, who did not obey the commandment to love, was “ of the evil one,” i.e., the the devil. He demonstrated the fact that he was of the devil by killing his brother Abel. The word translated “ slew” here (spha- zo) means, literally, to butcher, to slit the throat with a knfe; and from this it may be inferred that this was the manner in which Cain took the life of Abel. If the word is to be taken in its literal import, this conclusion follows, though it is, of course, possible that it is used figuratively to kill, and thus without any indication of the method by which the murder took place. 1 John 3:12 ---And wherefore slew he him? Because his works were evil, and his brother’ s righteous.—The question, “ Wherefore slew he him?” is immediately answered, “ Because his (Cain’ s) works were evil, and his brother’ s (Abel’ s) were righteous. The reason for God’ s rejection of Cain’ s offering and his acceptance of Abel’ s, though not detailed in the Genesis record, is made clear in the reference thereto by the writer of Hebrews: “ By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, through which he had witness borne to him that he was righteous, God bearing wit­ness in respect of his gifts; and through it he being dead yet speaketh.” (Hebrews 11:4.) Cain’ s offering was “ of the fruit of the ground,” Abel’ s “ of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof.” (Genesis 4:3-4.) “ And Jehovah had respect unto Abel and his offering; but unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect.” Inasmuch as Abel made his offering “ by faith,” it fol­lows that the Lord had specified the nature and the type of offering to be made, since faith comes by hearing God’ s word. (Romans 10:17.) Cain’ s offering was rejected because it was in violation of express instructions from Jehovah. Though not stated in the Mosaic account, it is implied in the following statement: “ And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell. And Jehovah said unto Cain, why art thou wroth ? and why is thy countenance fallen ? If thou doest well, shall it not be lifted up? and if thou doest not well, sin coucheth at the door; and unto thee shall be its desire; but do thou rule over it.” (Genesis 4:5-7.) Resentful because his brother’ s offering was accepted and his own rejected, and filled with envy at Abel because his brother enjoyed the approbation of Jehovah while he smarted under the rebuke which he had received, “ it came to pass that when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother and slew him.” (Genesis 4:8.) In this terrible deed, Cain acted from envy, he was influenced by the evil that was in him, and he was directed by Satan whose servant he was. In citing this well-known Old Testament instance of the first murder, it was evidently the apostle’ s design to show the extent to which one is led when under the influence of envy, bitterness, and hate. His reasoning appears to have followed this pattern: Cain murdered his brother; there­fore Cain hated his brother; hate is a characteristic of those who are children of the devil; therefore, Cain was of the devil. (Verse 12.) One who haies his brother identifies himself as of the same spirit as Cain, d d likewise demonstrates that his works are evil. Basic in every difficulty and dispute between brethren today is the ab­sence of brotherly love. Whatever may be the immediate occasion which prompts such, each difficulty and dispute may, in principle, be traced to the resentment which the evil feel toward the good. Why did Cain murder Abel? Because his works were evil, and Abel’ s works were righteous. LOVE AND HATE (1 John 3:13-24) 1 John 3:13 ---Marvel not, brethren, if the world hateth you.—“ Marvel not,” i.e., do not be surprised or astonished that the world hates you. The hatred of the good by the bad is nearly as old as the race; hence, it is not a thing to be surprised at, however much it may be regretted. This disposition was exhibited by Cain in the early morning of the race; and man’ s subsequent history has been filled with similar examples. Jesus, in teaching the disciples the obligation of love, referred to this attitude: “ These things I com­mand you, that ye may love one another. If the world hateth you, ye know that it hath hated me before it hated you. If ye were of the world, the world would love its own; but because ye are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.” (John 15:17-19.) It is significant that only here, in the Epistle, does John refer to his readers as “ brethren/’ the address being elsewhere, “ little children,” “ beloved,” etc. The designation “ brethren,” literally, brothers, was especially appropriate here, in view of his discussion of brotherly love. 1 John 3:14 ---We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brethren.—The connection which this verse sustains to the context in which it appears is very close, and must not be disregarded if the meaning of the text is to be deter­mined. Love of the brethren is that which distinguishes between the children of God and the children of the devil. (Verse 10.) The obligation of Christians to love one another is definite and positive, and has been taught them from their earliest acquaintance with Christianity. (Verse 11.) The feeling of hate which the world evidences toward the good is ever present, and is, therefore, to be expected, however much it may be regretted. (Verses 12, 13.) But, in spite of this, children of God have the blessed assur­ance of knowing that they have passed “ out of death into life” because “ they love the brethren.” They thus have more about which to rejoice than to regret in this fact, since they are in life while the world remains in death. “ Death” is the status of the unregenerate; “ life,” of the good. These terms, opposites in their reference to the condition of the good and the bad, are often used in this fashion in the scriptures. (Ephesians 2:1 Ephesians 2:5; Colossians 2:13.) Children of God “ have passed” (migrated) from the spiritual death which formerly characterized them (and that which yet charac­terizes the world) into the life which is obtained through union with Christ. “ He that hath the Son hath the life; he that hath not the Son of God hath not the life.” (1 John 5:12.) The pro­noun “ we” with which the verse begins is in the emphatic position in the sentence: whatever the world may do, or feel, toward us, we (in contrast with those of it) know (have certain, definite knowledge) that we have passed from a state of death into life because we love the brethren. Just here care should be exercised in avoiding an obvious and common misinterpretation of this text. It was not the apostle’ s purpose to affirm, nor did he affirm, that love of the brethren is the (or even a) condition of salvation from past, or alien, sins. Brotherly love is here declared to be the condition, not of our salvation, but of the certainty of our knowledge of it. It affords the evidence by which we may know that we have passed out of death into life. The test is human, not divine; it is one we are to apply to ourselves for the purpose designated. It is such a test by which the individual and (as John 13:34-35 shows) the world about him may determine the reality of his profession. “ We know that we have passed out of death into life because ... we have been baptized ? Because . . . we meet on the first day of the week ? Because ... we give liberally of our means? However important these matters are, in their respective spheres, it remains that such do not constitute the test here set out. “ We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brethren” “ By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples . . .” (John 13:35.) Why? Because you say you are? Because there is outward conformity to the ceremonials of Christianity? Because you be­lieve that you are? These are not the tests which the Lord or­dained. “ By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one for another” This does not mean that love alone is the basis of our accept­ance before God. What it does mean is that love is the base on which all other virtues rest; where it exists, the others may be implied; yea, they must exist. He who loves his brother will not only discharge his whole duty to him; he will be led, by the same considerations which prompt such love, to love God, and so to comply with all the requirements which such a relationship in­volves. 1 John 3:14 ---He that loveth not abideth in death.—In the absence of love, the state in which one dwells is death. As the presence of love signifies life, so its opposite, hate, indicates death. The reference is not to future death; it already exists and will reach its con­summation in the next life. “ He that believeth on him is not judged: he that believed not hath been judged already, because he hath not believed on the name of the only begotten Son of God.” (John 3:18.) The absence of love is not the cause of his death, but the sign of it by which it is evidenced to others. “ He that loveth not” is, literally, the not loving man; and “ abideth” suggests a state into which one has settled down permanently. The death is spiritual death— separation from God and all that is good. 1 John 3:15 ---Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer:—The phrase “ he that loveth not” (ho me agapon) is followed by “ who­soever hateth” (pas ho mison), thus indicating that the two are of identical meaning: it was the design of the writer to show us that in the absence of love there is hate; there can be no middle ground. Not loving is hating; it is impossible to avoid one or the other of these opposites. In the teaching of the apostle, love and hate, as life and death, light and darkness, mutually* exclude each other. He who has not the one must be regarded as possessing the other. It follows, therefore, that the only protection against hate in the heart is love. The affirmation of the text is that he who hates his brother is a murderer. This does not mean that he has committed the act of murder; or, that he is as guilty as if he had committed the act of murder; or, that God will hold him responsible for the act of murder. What is meant is, he has exhibited the disposition and spirit of a murderer; he has allowed passions to arise in his heart which, when carried to their ultimate ends, result in murder. The reason such a one does not commit murder is not that he lacks the disposition or desire; the restraint which prevents it is not inward, but outward. Either the opportunity is lacking, or the courage or the means with which to accomplish it wanting. He refrains from the overt act, not from restraint which he himself has imposed, but a restraint from others. Murder is simply hate expressed in an overt act; and when it does not issue in this fashion, it is due to other causes than those which reside in the heart of the hater. If hate does not result in murder, the reason is to be sought, not in the hate, but in the lack of opportunity or means, or courage, of the hater. It was this which prompted the Lord to forbid that which leads to hate. In his explanation of the commandment, “ Thou shalt not kill,” he said, “ Ye have heard that it was said to them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: but I say unto you, that every one who is angry with his brother shall be in danger of the judgment; and whoso­ever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the coun­cil; and whosoever shall say. Thou fool, shall be in danger of the hell of fire.” (Matthew 5:21-22.) Unnecessary anger and words of provocation are thus shown to violate, in spirit, the command to do no murder, since such often leads to it. Cain, who slew his brother Abel (1 John 3:12), affords an example of the fruits of hate; and the devil, who was a murderer from the beginning (John 8:44), became such by sowing the seeds of hate in those whom he seduced. 1 John 3:15 ---And ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.—Obviously, spiritual life and spiritual death cannot abide in the same soul. Where hate is, there is death; where there is death, there can be no life. He who entertains hatred for another, whether it follows its normal course and results in murder, or from outward restraints imposed, stops short of the overt act, it still remains that such a one is utterly incapable of possessing life. Several phrases of similar import are discernible in the context. He is not of God who loveth not his brother. (Verse 10.) He that loveth not abideth in death. (Verse 14.) He who hates his brother has no life abiding in him. (Verse 15.) Thus, to be not of God, to abide in death, and to be without eternal life in the sense here intended, is the same. (1) In view of this, how impor­tant it is that we search our hearts diligently and purge from them every semblance of bitterness, hate, and envy. (2) How we should guard with ceaseless vigilance our own hearts lest such evil dis­positions possess us. (3) How grateful we should be that we have fallen under the influence of the glorious gospel of Christ, which enables us to subdue the feelings of hate and bitterness and envy, and to triumph over the dispositions of the flesh and carnal mind. 1 John 3:16 ---Hereby know we love, because he laid down his life for us:—Every word in this verse is of the utmost importance and justifies the most minute and careful study. “ Hereby” is, literally, “ in this,” (en touto), i.e., in that which is about to be stated. “ Know we” (egnokamen, perfect active indicative of ginosko, from an investigation of the facts we have come to possess certain knowledge of) “ love/’ what it is, its nature, its sacrifices, its extent, and its design. This knowledge we have come to appre­hend, for the reason that Christ laid dawn his life for us (huper hemon), in our behalf, for our protection. The verb “ laid down,” is, significantly, the same mode of expression as that which the Lord utilized in his narrative of the shepherd and the sheep: “ I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd layeth down his life for the sheep.” . . . “ Therefore doth the Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I may take it again. No one taketh it away from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have the power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again.” (John 10:11 John 10:17-18.) The meaning is, we have become acquainted with love; we know what it is from having seen it displayed in Christ in his death for us. The preposition “ for” here (huper) indicates the purpose of the death of Christ, and sheds much light on the nature and effects thereof. The picture in the preposition is of one who sees, for example, another who has fallen, wounded, in grave danger, and about to perish, and who rushes to him, stands over him, fights in his behalf, and enters the fray in his stead. This, and more, Jesus did for us in his death, on the cross. He took our place; he suf­fered the penalty of law to be executed in his own person; “ him who knew no sin he made to be sin in our behalf; that we might become the righteousness of God in him.” (2 Corinthians 5:21.) We thus have, in both the Father and the Son, a clear demonstration of love, in all that it is and does. (John 3:16 John 5:13; Romans 5:8.) 1 John 3:16 ---And we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.—In view of what Christ and God have done for us, we (the children of God) ought (are morally obligated) to lay down our lives (die) for the brethren (our brothers and sisters in Christ). The mean­ing is, Christ's death was the greatest possible proof of love; if, therefore, we imitate him as we ought, the same evidence of love which prompted him to die for others will be seen in us. “ This is my commandment, that ye love one another, even as I have loved you. Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.” (John 15:12-13.) This, of course, does not mean that there is the same efficacy in the death of one Christian for another as there was in the death of Christ for the world; nor was it the writer’ s design to compare the effects which follow such sacrifices. The subject is love; the comparison which is drawn is designed to demonstrate what love is; and the example of Christ’ s sacrifice is offered for our emulation. Under what circumstances it is the duty of one child of God to die for another is not stated; but in any instance, we may assume, when more good would be accomplished for him by dying than by living. In any case, where a brother’ s welfare depends on such a sacrifice, love prompts it, without regard to the cost that might result. The contextual force of the apostle’ s teaching is clear: Cain is an example of hate; Christ, of love. Cain killed his brother Abel because of selfish­ness ; Christ died for all men because of his unselfishness. If we are to avoid the hate which motivated Cain, we must adopt the love which influenced Christ. The willingness to give what one has, even his life, for the sake of others, is of the essence of true love. 1 John 3:17 ---But whoso hath the world’ s goods, and beholdeth his brother in need, and shutteth up his compassion from him, how doth the love of God abide in him?—In an argument from the greater to the less, the apostle shows, in the application of the principle taught in the verse preceding, that if a brother’ s welfare should require that we give up our life for him, we surely ought to make those smaller sacrifices involving only material things. A refusal to make such comparatively minor sacrifices is to demon­strate that the love of God does not abide in us. The “ world’ s goods” here is, literally, “ the life of the world” ton bion tou kos- mou); and the “ world” contemplated is not the order of evil often set forth by this term (1 John 2:15), but the material sphere in which we live. The “ life” of the world is not the higher spiritual life (zoe), but the organic life (bios), which is sustained by the things of the world. The meaning is, He who has in his possession the necessary means to sustain life and who sees his brother in need yet refuses to be touched by a feeling of sympathy for his unfortunate condition or be moved to supply the things needed, how does the love of God abide in him ? The question is rhetorical for emphasis; its significance is, the love of God does noi abide in him. The “ love of God” here is not God’ s love for us, but our love for him. Here, as often elsewhere in the Epistle, and, indeed, throughout the sacred writings, we are taught the important lesson that it is impossible to separate theory and practice. Theology and religion are inseparable handmaids; theology without religion is an empty shell; religion without theology simply does not exist. Our obligation to our less fortunate brethren is clear and unmis­takable; we have the example of Christ (Matthew 20:28); we have the admonition of the inspired apostle (Galatians 6:10); only through compliance therewith do we exhibit the religion which is both pure and undefiled (James 1:27). 1 John 3:18 ---My little children, let us not love in word, neither with the tongue; but in deed and truth.—These words contain a summary of the ideas developed by the apostle in the verses im­mediately preceding. It was not his purpose to condemn affection­ate speeches, nor did he forbid us to express our love for others in word. The meaning is, “ Let us not love in word only, neither with the tongue alone, but let us also love in deed and truth.” It is an admonition to exhibit our love in such fashion as to demon­strate its reality. As the Lord forbade words of hypocrisy in the sermon on the mount (Matthew 6:5), so, here, John forbids the mere babble of brotherly love, when neither the word nor the tongue is attended by the fruits of brother love. 1 John 3:19 ---Hereby shall we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our heart before him:— Hereby, i.e., by what has just been said, we are enabled to know that we are of the truth, and have the means by which to assure our hearts before him. If our love is not merely in word or in tongue, but truly in deed and truth, in this (en touto) we shall know (come to possess the knowl­edge) that we are of the truth. “ Of the truth” is, in significance, the equivalent of the phrase, “ of God,” so often occurring in the Epistle. These words of the apostle were likely an echo of the Lord’ s affirmation before Pilate: “ Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.” (John 18:37.) Possessed of this informa­tion, we “ shall assure our heart before him.” The word “ assure,” from the verb peitho, means to still, persuade, placate; and the meaning here is, the knowledge of the reality of the love which we possess for others enables us to quiet the fears which arise in our own hearts and restrain the questionings which confront us from imagined deficiencies of life and conduct. 1 John 3:20 ---Because if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things.—If, in spite of the assur­ances provided, we yet suffer the uneasiness which springs from the realization of our own weaknesses and the consciousness of our own imperfections, let us remember that God is greater than our heart; he knows all things; and he will deal with us, not according to our conscience, but in harmony with the eternal and unchangeable principles of right. Knowing all things, he knows us better than we know ourselves, and he will deal with us ac­cordingly. Let us then not be disturbed by the promptings of conscience, but conform, as far as possible, to the standard of right, with the assurance that he will approve our course at the last day. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/zerrcbc/ 1 John 3:2. In beginning this verse with the word beloved, the apostle does so in the same sentiment that caused him to use the term little children; it is a term of endearment. Now signifies he is speaking of the condition in this life before he shall appear. Being a son of God is a spiritual relationship which does not make any change in our personal appearance. That is because we must retain our fleshly body while we live in this world. What we shall be pertains to what can be seen as the connection in the verse shows, and John is referring to what our appearance will be after the coming of Christ. He says what that. will be doth not yet appear. Yet he does know (by inspiration) that when Jesus comes we shall be like hint. But the apostle did know even as he was writing, what the appearance of Jesus was when he was on the earth, for he appeared as a man with a fleshly body. Hence He will be changed and John was not instructed as to what the new form would be in appearance. Another thing of which he was certain was that when he shall appear we shall be like him. If that is the case then we shall be alike since "things equal to the same thing are equal to each other." Then if the saved ones are all alike there will be no distinction between them. This is fatal to the carnal notion that we will recognize our "loved ones" (family relations) in heaven. There will be no male nor female nor other personal distinctions and hence no recognition of one person as to whether he is my father or your brother or the husband of this or that woman: all bodily or personal distinctions are for this life only. 1 John 3:3. Hath this hope means the hope of seeing Jesus and being like him. With such an incentive it is expected that all who have become the sons of God will cleanse themselves of impurity in life and strive to be like his Son. 1 John 3:4. Since committeth is a key word in verse 9 I shall leave my comments on it until that verse is reached. Sin is the transgression of the law. It should be observed that John does not say transgression is the only thing that constitutes sin; it is the only phase of the subject being considered at this place. 1 John 3:5. In him is no sin. This is what is meant in John 14:30 where Jesus says the prince of this world (Satan) cometh "and hath nothing in me." No sacrifice could have atoned for the sins of the world if attempted by a person who was himself tainted with sin. 1 John 3:6. Abideth signifies a continuous life in Christ and not a wavering from side to side. Such a person sinneth not which is akin to the word committeth as to its ending which will be explained at verse 9. A person cannot abide in Christ until he first comes into Him, then if he continues in that relation it can be said that he is abiding in Him. By the same token if a man sinneth it is proof that such a person has not yet made his acquaintance with Christ. 1 John 3:7. Little children is general and is used as explained at chapter 2:1. They are again warned against being deceived which evidently refers to the antichrists who are mentioned in the preceding chapter. The first he stands for the faithful follower of Christ and the second he means Christ himself. Doeth and is righteous are related and will receive some more light at verse 9. 1 John 3:8. Committeth and sinneth will be explained by the comments on the next verse. Is of the devil refers to the practice of sin which was introduced into the world by the devil. From the beginning means the beginning of mankind on the earth. Not that he had not sinned before that, for he had, by reason of which he was cast out of heaven (Luke 10:18). But John is here concerned only with the devil's first attack upon man as the rest of the verse indicates. We know that the Son of God was manifested in the world to destroy the works of the devil, therefore the word beginning can apply only to the beginning of man on the earth. 1 John 3:9. The two key words in this verse are commit and cannot. Words, like people, "Are known by the company they keep," which is another way of saying that the meaning of words may be learned by their connection or by the use that is made of them. The first word is from POIEO and Thayer uses three pages of his lexicon with definitions and explanations, which indicates the wide scope of its meaning. Among his comments on the word are, "To follow some method in expressing by deeds the feelings and thoughts of the mind; carry on; describing a plan or course of action." Robinson gives as one explanation, "What one does repeatedly, continuedly, habitually." One of Webster's definitions is, "To pledge; to bind; as, to commit oneself to a certain course." The Englishman's Greek New Testament translates the word by "practice." All of these definitions and translations show the word has no reference to what a man does occasionally or incidentally, but it means what he makes a practice of. The term "practicing physician" does not mean a man who occasionally gives a dose of medicine to a friend. If a man "retires" from the occupation of a carpenter he may occasionally drive a nail or saw a board, yet we would not say he -has gone into the occupation again. Likewise a man who becomes a child of God ceases to commit sin as a "practice," but that does not mean he will never do anything that is wrong. (See the comments at chapter 1:7, 8.) We are certain an inspired man would not contradict himself, so John would not use the word commit in this verse to mean an occasional sin, when he taught in chapter 1:7 that even a man who "walks in the light" needs to be cleansed from sin by the blood of Christ. Cannot is from , which means morally unable and not that it is physically impossible. We will consider some other passages where the same word is used. Matthew 5:14 says "A city that is set on a hill cannot be hid." Yet all of us know that during the war many cities and other important places were actually hid by camouflage. In Mark 2:19 Jesus says of certain persons that "they cannot fast"; does this mean they actually could not refrain from eating? Luke 11:7 says the man who had retired but was asked to give a friend some bread replied, "I cannot rise and give thee." We know the man did not lack the physical ability of getting out of bed. And so the word in our verse does not mean that the child of God has come to the place where he is physically unable to do any wrong, but that he is morally restrained from it, just as a good man who is asked to join another in some crime would reply, "0 no, I couldn't do anything like that." Besides, to say a man has reached a condition where it is impossible for him to do anything wrong, would be like taking from him the necessity of watching his step, and would also make it unnecessary for him to seek the services of the Intercessor. The principle on which all these things are said of the child of God is the truth that he is born (begotten) of God. He has been conceived and born of a parentage that is spiritual and hence that holy characteristic is constantly in his spiritual person to urge him in the right course of life. 1 John 3:10. In this refers to the practice of sin as explained in the preceding verse. Doeth is used in the same sense as the word commit (or com-mitteth), meaning the continual or general manner of life. The children of the devil may occasionally perform some act that is good in itself but their life as a whole is devoted to the service of Satan. 1 John 3:11. From the beginning means from the start of man's existence on the earth. The message is the teaching that we should love each other. 1 John 3:12. This verse confirms the comments on the preceding one as to when the beginning occurred. The case of Cain and Abel is the first one in the divine record that pertains to the subject of love. Cain would not have slain his brother had he loved him. John's explanation of the cause of the lack of love is that his own works were evil while those of his brother were righteous. It seems strange that such a circumstance would cause the hatred. The basic or remote cause actually was envy which gave him a feeling of spite. 1 John 3:13. Marvel not means not to be surprised or wonder at it, because such an attitude is to be expected. Jesus taught the same thing as recorded in John 15:18-19, and it is also taught in 1 Peter 4:12. The world will hate a faithful disciple of Christ on the same principle that Cain hated his brother. The righteous life is a constant rebuke to the unrighteous ways of the world and causes it to hate the righteous people. 1 John 3:14. The absence of love for the brethren is proof of one's being still out of the body of Christ. Those who actually enter the spiritual body will necessarily have a fellow feeling for the members. The act of entering the body is equivalent to passing from death unto life. John says we know in the sense that we have the direct evi-dence, namely, our mutual relation to each other in Christ. The last sentence of the verse is merely the reverse of the forepart. With this verse before us we may conclude that genuine evidence of brotherly love is not just the sentimental feeling, but it can be claimed only after a person has passed from death unto life. There will be more said on this subject when we come to chapter 5:2. 1 John 3:15. Cain slew his brother because he hated him, so that the poison of murder was in his mind before he talked with him. Others may have the same kind of hatred in their heart but do not have the opportunity of carrying it out. The Lord can read such a mind and hence will regard that man as a murderer. Ye know that no murderer, etc. The Old Testament condemned a murderer and required that he be punished with death (Genesis 9:6 and many other passages). John is repeating the same condemnation except that he applies it to murderous intent as well as the actual deed. 1 John 3:16. The words of God have been supplied by the translators. The passage means that the Lord gave direct evidence of His love in that he laid down his life for us. This is a beautiful contrast with the man who hates his brother. Such a person not only does not make any sacrifice for another, but takes the other man's life from him. We ought to lay down our lives for the brethren. This cannot necessarily mean that we can literally die for the sake of another, except where the other person's life is in danger and we might lose ours in protecting him. The passage refers to the interest or devotion we would manifest for our brethren even to the extent of making great and trying sacrifices. (See Romans 16:4.) 1 John 3:17. In this verse the apostle gives a simple example (on the negative side) of what it means to be devoted to the interests of others. Bowels is used figuratively because people in old times thought that was the seat of the finer sentiments of the mind. John uses it to mean that when a man closes his sentiments of compassion against such an unfortunate creature as this, he cannot truly claim the love of God. 1 John 3:18. This verse means for our love to go farther than words; to be proven by our actions. It is a summing up of the preceding verse. 1 John 3:19. Nothing can give a disciple any stronger confidence than to know that he is proving his love by actions that benefit the brethren. He thereby manifests his relationship with the truth of the Lord which requires us to show practical love. 1 John 3:20. Our heart refers to our mind with its various attributes. Having been instructed to show our love by helpful works, if we do so we will feel assured in connection with the subject. If we fail to do our known duty we will have "a guilty conscience" and be self-condemned. If our own knowledge of neglect causes us to feel condemned, we may be sure that God will condemn us also because He knows our hearts. 1 John 3:21. This verse is virtually a repetition of the preceding one, except that it is considering a person who has carried out the teaching of practical love. 1 John 3:22. Because we keep his commandments is the condition on which we will receive what we ask. Keeping the commandments includes the obligation of consulting the scriptures to learn what would be right for us to receive. It also includes our doing the things that please Him. 1 John 3:23. Believing on Christ and loving the brethren (with practical love) sums up the qualities of an obedient child of God. That is because belief in Christ means more than a mere profession. It includes a working faith that will carry out the teaching in James 2:18, to show our faith by our works. 1 John 3:24. Dwelleth in him, and he in him. The matter of dwelling is a mutual affair between the Lord and his people. Since the subject is a spiritual one it is possible for "two persons to be at the same place at the same time"; it means they are dwelling with each other. Spirit which he hath given us enabled the apostles to speak with knowledge on the affairs of the kingdom. Guy N. Woods Commentary On 1st John 4SPIRIT OF TRUTH AND SPIRIT OF ERROR (1 John 4:1-6) 1 John 4:1 ---Beloved, believe not every spirit, but prove the spirits, whether they are of God;—The fervent address of love with which this verse begins, “ beloved,” occurs three times in this chap­ter, verses 1, 7, and 11, and indicates the tender warmth of affec­tion characteristic of the writer for those addressed. To it a warning is appended with reference to false teachers which then abounded. Such were the “ spirits” referred to, and often else­where alluded to in the Epistle. (E.g., 2: 18, 22, 26 ; 4; 5, etc.) The sense of the admonition is, therefore, “ Refrain from believing every teacher who claims to be from God, but prove (test) them and see whether or not they really are of God.” This warning was especially needful at the time because Asia Minor generally, and Ephesus particularly, was rampant with magic and mysticism, heresy and error, and the advocates of each cult claimed super­natural direction and aid. Affecting to be led by the power of God, they sought to support their theories in the same fashion, and by means of the same claims as false teachers today. The readers of the Epistle were thus admonished to “ prove” the spirits (dokimazete ta pneumata) run an assay on them, as a metallurgist does his metals, and determine whether they were of God. This, they were able to do, either by exercising miraculous power in the discernment of spirits (1 Corinthians 12:4-11), or by com­paring the claims of these men with the known teaching of the Holy Spirit through properly accredited representatives. (See the comments on 1 John 2:27 ff.) There was undoubtedly a wide diffusion of spiritual gifts during the miraculous age of the church in order to supply the deficiency obtaining in the absence of an infallible, documented report of the Spirit's teaching such as we have in the New Testament today. It is significant that it was John's readers who were to make the test and not some ecclesias­tical dignitary or official head. Here, by implication, is positive proof of the falsity of the claim to infallibility by the pope of Rome and the consequent denial of the right of private judgment in matters religious as is done in the Catholic Church today. 1 John 4:2 ---Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesseth that Because many false prophets are gone out into the world.— The reason for the injunction delivered in the earlier clauses of this verse. These false prophets are referred to by John in 2: 18 as “ antichrists,” and the Lord, during his public ministry, warned that such would appear: “ And many false prophets shall arise, and shall lead many astray.” (Matthew 24:11.) It was, therefore, a time of crisis; and the welfare of the cause of Christ and the sal­vation of their own souls were dependent on the immediate repu­diation of these deceivers and antichrists. Such still abound, and the injunction is equally applicable to us today. Men still affect to be led by the Spirit of God; still claim to be representatives of the Most High; yet attempt to propagate their doctrines on the basis of supernatural aid. These we are to prove (try, test) by the infallible standard we possess— the New Testament. It mat­ters not how pious or religious a teacher may affect to be, he is worthy of belief only when his teaching is in complete harmony with the word of God. If it is not in harmony therewith, he ought to be, he must be, speedily repudiated. To do otherwise is to imbibe the poison of unbelief; it is to espouse false doctrine; it is to become a party to the propagation of error. “ If any one cometh unto you, and bringeth not this teaching, receive him not into your house, and give him no greeting: for he that giveth him greeting partaketh in his evil works.” (2 John 1:10-11.) Because Satan ever attempts to counterfeit the work of the Lord, false prophets have ever abounded. (Luke 6:26; Acts 13:6; Revelation 16:13.) We must be constantly watchful, we must exercise ceaseless vigilance lest we, too, succumb to their allurements and surrender to their seductions. 1 John 4:2 ---Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: every spirit that con­fesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:—The test by which certain false teachers then prevalent might be dis­cerned and identified is here indicated: “ Every spirit that confess­eth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God.” Conversely, any man who denied that Jesus had come in the flesh was not of God. Numerous false doctrines regarding the nature of Christ were then being propagated. Some of these questioned his deity; others, his humanity. The apostle thus provided a test by which false and true teachers might be distinguished in the matters then confront­ing the church: those who confessed that Jesus had come in the flesh were of God. (a) Those who acknowledged such, confessed the deity of Jesus by admitting that he was the Christ, and thus the Messiah of the Old Testament prophets; (b) in confessing that he had come in the flesh they repudiated the doctrine of the Docetic Gnostics who denied this. These men denied the humanity of Jesus by alleging that he only appeared to have a body of flesh but, in reality, did not. Thus, in acknowledging both the humanity and the deity of Jesus one vindicated his claim to the Spirit’ s direc­tion. Paul similarly said, “ Wherefore I make known unto you, that no man speaking in the Spirit of God saith, Jesus is anathema; and no man can say, Jesus is Lord, but in the Holy Spirit.” (1 Corinthians 12:3.) The verb “ is come” in this verse is translated from a Greek perfect, thus indicating past action with existing results. The in­carnation was past as to its occurrence, but its effects— benefits and blessing— yet remain, and will continue to do so throughout time and eternity, involving the sum of all that Christianity has vouchsafed to man. This confession embraces the basic truth on which Christianity rests, the foundation stone on which the church is built. (Matthew 16:13-20.) To deny it is the mark of the false teacher; to acknowledge it, with all that this involves, is to vindi­cate one’ s claim to the truth. It thus supplies an infallible test: and by it the true may be separated from the false. 1 John 4:3 ---And every spirit that confesseth not Jesus is not of God: and this is the spirit of the antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it cometh; and now it is in the world already.—This is a negative statement, embodying the same truth as that which is pos­itively put in verse 2, with the additional information that to refuse to confess both the deity and the humanity of Jesus is to manifest the spirit of the antichrist. (See comments on 1 John 2:22, for the identity of the antichrist.) Warnings had been given that such would appear; and now they were there. Though these false teachers were not the antichrist primarily designated in this fash­ion, they exhibited the spirit of the antichrist, in their opposition to Christ and his teaching. In this sense, all false teachers, in­cluding those in the world today, are of the antichrist. They are of the antichrist in that they are opposed to the teaching of Christ, his church, and his people; and though they pretend to be of him, they have, in reality, arrayed themselves against him. The fact that they teach much that is true does not justify their claim of being of the Lord; the error which they teach and the opposition which they exhibit establish their true spirit— the spirit of the antichrist. The Catholic Church teaches many things that are true; but this monstrous ecclesiasticism is so formidably arrayed against the truth and the cause of the Lord that it is on the side of Satan, and so of all the denominational and sectarian world. It is the spirit of the antichrist to do as they do, and all who manifest this spirit derive it from the same source. It originates from the love of error and from an unwillingness to abide in the truth. It is indeed possible for one to have the spirit of truth, i.e., a love for truth while in error; and, conversely, to have a spirit of error while holding much truth. The former repudiate, with­out hesitation, error as they learn the truth; the latter, though holding much truth, are often motivated by the same spirit as that which characterizes the world. Those of this class are sometimes met with in the church. Prejudice is not a peculiarity of the denominational world alone. 1 John 4:4 ---Ye are of God, my little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you than he that is in the world.—“ Ye” is in emphatic position in the Greek text which, literally rendered, is: “ Ye out of God are, little children ...” a clause indicative of John’ s love for them \ 1 John 4:1. The spirits means those men who profess to be speaking by inspiration, such as John mentions in the closing verse of the preceding chapter. The false teachers used that claim to obtain attention from the uninformed. The brethren are warned not to believe every man who makes such a claim, but first try them which means to test and examine them by the rule that is given in the next verse. 1 John 4:2. Nobody denied that a person lived on earth by the name of Jesus Christ, but some denied that He was divine in a body of flesh. That was equivalent to saying that He was not the divine Son of God. That would also mean that Christ had no authority or saving virtue. It was generally known that a person was predicted to come into the world to fulfill the law and the prophets, and to effect a plan of salvation on the merits of His blood. But it was denied by some that the person known as Jesus Christ was the expected one. Hence if a man acknowledged the divinity of Christ it was evidence that he was inspired by the Holy Spirit. Paul teaches this also in 1 Corinthians 12:3 where he says, "No man can say Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost" or Spirit. 1 John 4:3. This verse merely sets forth the opposite of the preceding one, and completes the rule by which the brethren may try the spirits, thus avoiding the misfortune of being misled by the antichrists and other false teachers. 1 John 4:4. The disciples had overcome them (the antichrists) because they were the children of God. He will care for those who trust in Him, and that will insure them the victory over the enemy because God who is in them is greater than the "wise men" of the world who were trying to seduce them. 1 John 4:5. They (the antichrists) are of the world, which means they are interested in worldly practices. That is why they are opposing Christ because he condemns their evil ways. But the people of the world will hear their false teaching because it encourages their unrighteous life. 1 John 4:6. We has special reference to John and the other apostles because they had been inspired to write the truth. To know God means to have come into close fellowship with Him by obedience to the word that was given by the Spirit. All such persons would logically be inclined to hear the apostles. The conflict between truth and error still is the concern of the apostle. That conflict is determined by whether a man is of God or of the world. 1 John 4:7. The apostle again comes to the subject of love which seems to have been very near to him. He has a sound reason for such interest in that subject, namely, love and God are inseparable. For that reason if a man is born (begotten) of God he is sure to exhibit love also since it is the family trait of God's children. 1 John 4:8. On the basis of the affirmative as shown in the preceding verse, if a man does not have love as a predominant factor in his life, it is proof that he has not yet become acquainted with God. 1 John 4:9. This verse corresponds with John 3:16. 1 John 4:10. The example of love was set by the Father and not by man. That is why we have the brief but comprehensive statement in verse 19. 1 John 4:11. If God was willing to love us first even when we were in sin, we ought to love each other since no one of us is any more worthy than another. 1 John 4:12. No man hath seen God literally, but we may exhibit evidences of spiritual knowledge of Him by having love for the brethren. If we do so it will cause God to dwell in us or in our midst spiritually. His love is perfected or made complete in us when we follow His example of loving the children of God, 1 John 4:13. This is the same in thought as chapter 3:24; see the comments there. 1 John 4:14. John and the other apostles could testify, because they had seen the evidences that the Father has sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world. 1 John 4:15. See the comments at verses 1-3. 1 John 4:16. Known and believed. There is no conflict between these words as might be concluded because of the difference technically between them. The things that were known were the evidences, and what they believed was based on those evidences, namely, that God had a great love for man. The latter part of the verse has been explained in a number of the preceding verses. 1 John 4:17. Love made perfect means it is complete, and God made it Possible for man to have that perfect (or complete) love, to give them boldness in view of the judgment day. As he is. so arc we. To be confident with reference to the judgment, we must be on good terms with God in this world. That can be accomplished only by manifesting that unselfish love that was first shown by the Lord for us. 1 John 4:18. The Bible does not contradict itself, and when it appears that it does there is always an explanation for it. We know we are commanded to fear God (1 Peter 2:17), but our present verse says that perfect love will cast out fear. The explanation is very simple which depends on the meanings of the original Greek word phobos. Thayer gives us two definitions of the word as follows: "1. fear, dread, terror," and "2. reverence, respect." As we have seen frequently before, the particular meaning of any word must be determined by the connection in which it is used. The connection here shows John is using it in its had sense which would made it read, "There is no dread or terror in love." If we love God and manifest it by loving our brother, we will not have any dread at the thought of meeting God in the judgment. 1 John 4:19. This is commented on at verse 10. 1 John 4:20. John has previously made this same charge, but he adds a logical reason for it here. It certainly is as easy to love a brother who is with us and whose fellowship we can enjoy, as it is to love God whom we cannot see now and must love on the basis of faith. 1 John 4:21. On the basis of the reasoning in the preceding verse, John commands the disciples not to attempt loving God it they will not love the brethren also, for their profession of love will be rejected. Guy N. Woods Commentary On 1st John 5TESTS OF FAITH AND LOVE(1 John 5:1-12)It is fatal to correct exegesis to ignore, as is so often done, the context here, and the theme under consideration by the apostle in this section of the Epistle. Unfortunately, many in total disregard of the context, lift the first clause of 1 John 5:1 from its setting, and cite it in support of views which were never in the writer's mind. It should be remembered that the chapter and verse di­visions were no part of the original composition of the Apostle and are, therefore, to be disregarded in the study of the Epistle. At the close of chapter 4, John was enjoining the duty of brotherly love. One who loves God must, as a necessary conse­quence, love his brother. Who is one*s brother? Answer: “ Who­soever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is begotten of God: and whosoever loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him. Hereby we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and keep his commandments.” (1 John 5:1-2.) The thought, developed here, is this: He who believes that Jesus is the Christ is begotten of God; one begotten of God is a son of God; those who love him who begets— God— must necessarily love him who is begotten— one’ s brother. How do we know that we love those who have been thus begotten? Answer: (1) be­cause we love God; and (2) because we do God’ s commandments. 1 John 5:1 ---Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is begotten of God:—“ Whosoever believeth,” is, literally, “ Whosoever continues to believe,” (pas ho pisteuon), i.e., whose faith is firmly fixed and abiding in the proposition that Jesus is the Christ. It is, obviously, not a speculative belief; it is not simply or solely in­tellectual assent to the truthfulness of the proposition; it is such persuasion of the truth of the matter that the one exercising it is influenced to, and actually does act upon, the principle involved, and becomes obedient to him who is the object of the faith exer­cised. It is faith which includes obedience, since such is the only kind of faith that avails: “ But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith apart from works is barren? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, in that he offered up Isaac his son upon the altar? Thou seest that faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect: and the scripture was fulfilled which saith, And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness; and he was called the friend of God. Ye see that by works a man is justified, and not only by faith . . . For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, even so faith apart from works is dead.” (James 2:20-26.) Inasmuch as faith, apart from works, is barren; and since the faith under contemplation here is such that results in sonship, it must follow that it includes obedience to the commandments on the basis of which one becomes a child of God. (Galatians 3:26-27.) No other faith avails. It was not the design of the apostle here to announce a condi­tion of salvation, nor were the words of this verse addressed to alien sinners. It was his purpose instead to supply the test by which one might determine whether one is a child of God. One claims to be a son of God. Is he, really? The test is: Does he believe (with all such belief involves) that Jesus is the Christ? Only those who thus do, measure to the divine standard of what is required to be a child of God. The proposition, “ Jesus is the Christ,” was such as effectively sifted out the heretics with refer­ence to whom John was writing. See the comments on 1 John 4:15. Some denied that Jesus was Christ, thus repudiating his deity; others, said that Christ was not Jesus, hence denying his humanity. Still others maintained that his fleshly body was merely an apparition, thus denying his reality. To confess that Jesus is the Christ is to acknowledge his deity, his humanity and his reality. It was therefore just such a test as would reveal the true believers and expose the heretics which then plagued the church with their false teaching. Those who truly believed this proposition were begotten of God. (For an explanation of the phrase, “ begotten of God,” see the comments on 1 John 3:9.) 1 John 5:1 ---And whosoever loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.—“ Whosoever loveth,” of this clause is exactly parallel with the “ Whosoever believeth,” of the first clause of the verse, and embraces the same individuals. It is the same idea as that already advanced by the apostle in 1 John 4:20, where see the comments. The reasoning of the apostle here is in the logical form of a sorites, an abridged series of syllogisms in a group of propositions arranged in such fashion that the predicate of the first becomes the subject of the second, the conclusion uniting the subject of the first proposition with the predicate of the last. The order follows: 1. To believe that Jesus is the Christ is evidence that one is begotten of God. 2. To be begotten of God necessitates loving God. 3. To love God requires one to love God's children. 4. Those who love God's children have been begotten of God. 5. Therefore, to believe that Jesus is the Christ requires one to love God’ s children, and evidences the fact that one is begotten of God. But how are we to know that we truly love God's children? 1 John 5:2 ---Hereby we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and do his commandments.—“ Hereby,” i.e., test to be supplied, we are able to know that we love the children of God. What is the test? When, (1) we love God; and (2) keep his commandments! Here is additional and cor­roborative evidence of the correctness of the interpretation above. There, it was pointed out that the faith by which one accepts the proposition that Jesus is the Christ, the evidence of sonship, must include obedience. There, faith is declared to be the test of sonship; here, love of God and obedience. It follows, therefore, that the love and obedience of this verse are embraced in the faith of that. So intimately associated is love for God and man that as 1 John 4:20 teaches that love for brethren is a token and neces­sary condition of our love for God, so here the relationship is re­versed and this passage teaches that our love for God, exhibited in the keeping of his commandments, is proof of our love for his children. We thus learn that love of God and love of the brethren are inseparable duties, and each becomes the test of the other. But why is such a test offered or needed? Is not one capable of knowing whether he loves his brother or not? In what way does the fact that one loves God and keeps his commandments supply evidence that one loves his brother? One may entertain affection for others from many considerations not related to religion, such as kinship, friendship, business relations, etc.; but such do not af­ford the motives for the love under contemplation here. This love is such an emotion which springs from a heart filled with good wishes for others, genuine regard based on a common parentage, common interests, common responsibilities and a common reward. How may we know that we possess such? When (1) we love God, and (2) do his commandments, one of which is to love one another! “ A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another; even as I have loved you.” (John 13:34.) 1 John 5:3 ---For this is the love of God, that we keep his command­ments: and his commandments are not grievous.—In what way is it possible for us to exhibit and demonstrate our love for God? By keeping his commandments. The verb “ keep” in the text is present active subjunctive; it is the love of God that we keep on keeping his commandments! Here is the acid test of love for him. Do we persist in keeping his commandments and in doing his will to the extent of our ability? If such be characteristic of us, we have the evidence of our love for him. If such be lacking, whatever may be our pretensions thereto, they are weighed in the balance and found wanting. These commandments from a kind and benevolent Father are not grievous, (bareiai), heavy, burdensome, distressing. Love lightens them, makes them easily borne. A nine year old lad, struggling to carry his crippled five year old brother smiled and said, “ He’ s not heavy; he’ s my brother!” Love truly lightens the load, makes us anxious to assist those of our brethren who struggle under heavy burdens. “ Bear ye one another’ s burdens and so fulfil the law of Christ.” (Galatians 6:2.) 1 John 5:4 ---For whatsoever is begotten of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that hath overcome the world, even our faith.—To indicate to us why the commandments of God are not grievous, (weighty, galling, burdensome), these words were penned. The argument of the apostle follows this pattern: The commandments of God are not burdensome for, despite the difficulties, the hardships, the privations necessarily suffered as Christians, all such will eventually result in victory; those who triumph over all such, conquer the world; and hence, none need fear failure or contemplate defeat. For the meaning of the phrase, “ begotten of God,” see the comments under 1 John 3:9. For an explanation of the word “ world,” as here used, see under 1 John 2:15. We have here, as often elsewhere in the scriptures, evidence of the conquering power of faith. It is faith which enables men to resist temptation, to avoid the entanglements of the world, to re­ject false teachers and the doctrines of men. It was faith which guarded the ancient worthies, enabled them to triumph over the seductions of Satan, and filled them with determination to serve the great Jehovah whatever the difficulties, obstacles, impediments in their way. Chapter 11, of the Book of Hebrews, is Inspiration’ s Hall of Fame. Enshrined in that memorial are the records of grand old men out of an ancient past, worthy patriarchs, prophets, priests and kings who, through faithfulness and courage, earned for themselves imperishable honor, and serve for all succeeding ages as examples of undying faith and tremendous courage. They overcame the world. They overcame the world by their faith. They thus serve as worthy examples for our emulation. The verb “ overcometh,” is in the present tense, (nikai ton kosmon), and thus denotes a continuous struggle. There is con­stant victory only because there is continuous struggle. The faithful one continues to overcome because “ his seed” (the Word of God, Luke 8:11), continues to abide in him. (1 John 3:9.) 1 John 5:5 ---And who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the son of God?—It may be asked, What is involved in the proposition which one must believe in order to overcome the world? The answer is: “ Jesus is the Son of God” Here, again, attention is fixed on both the humanity (Jesus) and the deity (the Son of God) of the Lord. The two natures, the human and the divine, were united in one personality. Those who accept this proposition (with all that it implies), over­come the world, by escaping its guilt, its pollution, its power, and in large measure, its presence. 1 John 5:6 ---This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not with water only, but with the water and with the blood.—This verse, and the ones immediately following, have been rightly regarded as the most difficult of the Epistle; and they have given rise to a vast number of interpretations through the years since the apostle John penned these words. Their im­portance deserves and demands the most careful consideration. An analysis reveals that (a) one came; (b) the one who came was Jesus Christ; (c) Jesus Christ came by water and blood; (d) he did not come by water only, but with the water and with the blood. Essential to the understanding of this passage are the answers to the following questions: (1) What coming of the Lord is referred to here? (2) What is meant by his coming “ with the water,” and “ with the blood” ? There appears to be little doubt that the “ coming” under consideration here was his advent into the world. In coming into the world, he came with the water and with the blood. Why did the writer cite his coming in this fashion? From verse 8, we learn that it was for the purpose of establishing witnesses to the fact of his coming, the witnesses be­ing water and blood. It seems clear, therefore, that the reference to the water is an allusion to his baptism; and that of the blood to his death. He came with water at his baptism (Matthew 3:15) ; with blood, in his death on the cross (John 19:34). To these facts, the Spirit bears witness. (Verses 7, 8.) The Spirit was manifested at the Lord’ s baptism; the Spirit recorded and thus bore witness to both his baptism and his death. Some have seen in the “ water” and the “ blood,” of this passage, a reference to the blood and water which flowed from the “ riven side” of the Saviour on the cross. (John 19:34.) There, however, the order is (1) blood; (2) water; but here, (1) water; (2) blood. Moreover, it was the design of the writer to point out historical facts in the life of the Lord established by the testimony of the Spirit and designed to serve as evidence of his coming. It seems unaccountable that as proof of his coming the evidence would be limited to events oc­curring almost at the moment of death. We conclude, therefore, that the water here refers to his baptism; the blood to that shed in his death— the first witness being at the beginning of his public ministry, the other at its close. These two instances in the life of our Lord were doubtless cited, because in the first, his baptism, he publicly received acknowledgement from heaven as the Son of God; and there entered formally upon his public ministry; and on the cross his work was terminated, and the announcement made, “ It is finished.” (John 19:30.) If it be asked, Why the repeti­tion, “ not by water only, but with the water and with the blood,” the answer must be found in the desire of the writer to emphasize both witnesses, and perhaps to distinguish him clearly from John the Baptist, who baptized in water only. (John 1:26.) 1 John 5:7 ---And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is the truth.—The Spirit here referred to is the Holy Spirit; the function which he is said to perform is that he bears witness; that to which he witnesses is the deity of Jesus; his testi­mony is reliable because the Spirit is the truth (i.e., of the essence of truth); and that to which he bears testimony were the matters primarily under consideration in the verse preceding this— the water and the blood. As indicated both here and in the verses which follow, the Spirit becomes the third witness to the identity of the Lord, the first and second being the water and the blood. The Spirit bore'witness to Jesus at his baptism by descending in the form of a dove and lighting upon him. (Matthew 3:15.) John the Baptist accepted this as a token of the Spirit’ s witness to Christ, when he said, “ I have beheld the Spirit descending as a dove out of heaven; and it abode upon him. And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize in water, he said unto me, Upon whomsoever thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and abiding upon him, the same is he that baptizeth in the Holy Spirit. And I have seen and have borne witness that this is the Son of God.” (John 1:32 John 1:34.) See additional note at the end of the chapter. 1 John 5:8 ---For there are three who bear witness, the Spirit, and the water and the blood: and the three agree in one.—The Spirit (the Holy Spirit, the third person in the Godhead), the water (of baptism) and the blood (which flowed from the Lord's side on the cross), are here declared to bear witness, i.e., to testify. That to which they bear witness is the deity of Jesus, the lordship of him who was baptized in Jordan and from whose side the blood flowed. These three— the Spirit, the water and the blood— agree in one, i.e.. their testimony harmonizes, and points to the same end. The Spirit is mentioned first, because he is the only living witness, and the testimony of the water and the blood depend on the revelation of the Spirit. As there are three divine persons in one God, so there are three witnesses on earth testifying. The testimony which these witnesses give is constant; the Spirit’ s revelation in the scriptures speaks to all generations; the act of baptism, for nearly twenty centuries, has been picturing the central fact of redemption— the burial and resurrection of Christ — and the blood is that which makes redemption possible. (Hebrews 10:1-4.) Compare 1 John 5:10; Romans 6:1-6; 1 Corinthians 11:23-29. Wherever the people of God assemble on the Lord’ s day, there is, in the Lord’ s supper which they observe, a memorial of the blood which was shed. (For additional notes and an explanation of the variation in the text here and that which is characteristic of the King James’ Version, see the “ Additional Note” at the end of the chapter.) 1 John 5:9 ---If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for the witness of God is this, that he hath borne witness concerning his Son.—This is an argument a fortiori, styled in logic a tninori ad majus, reasoning from the less to the greater, a conclusion which, when compared with some other, is even more necessary. We do accept the testimony of men; thus we should the more readily accept the testimony of God which is greater. That to which particular reference is made is the witness which God has borne concerning his Son. The mean­ing is, We ordinarily believe the testimony of men; inasmuch as God is infinitely greater and better than the best of men, we are logically bound to accept his testimony; and since he has testified that Jesus is the Son of God, this we ought to believe. 1 John 5:10 ---He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in him:—Literally, “ He that keeps on believing in the Son,” (ho pisteuon eis ton huion), “ continues to have (echei) the wit­ness in him, i.e., in himself. We have earlier seen that one of the witnesses to the reality of the Christian religion is the Holy Spirit. (Verse 8.) This Spirit, whose abiding presence is in all be­lievers (Acts 5:32; Romans 8:9; Galatians 4:6), is thus an ever-present witness to the facts on which faith rests. The word, the instru­ment of the Spirit, is the basis of our faith; this faith supplies us with confidence that the witness is true; and this confidence is ever with us. We thus have a continual witness to the reality of that to which we have committed our lives. 1 John 5:10 ---He that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he hath not believed in the witness that God hath borne concerning his Son.—To reject the deity of Jesus— the Sonship of the Lord— is to make God a liar; for, to this fact he has testi­fied in his word. He who does not believe this testimony implies, in the rejection of it, that all God has said of his Son is false. Thus, to deny the deity of Jesus is not only unbelief; it is a studied insult to the veracity of God! Inasmuch as the Christian religion is founded on the truth of the proposition that Jesus is the Christ, to reject this is to repudiate all that God has said. Such a one has rejected prophecy, miracle, the character and life of the Lord, the resurrection, the marvelous spread of Christianity, and every other proof that may be adduced in support of the cause for which Jesus died. 1 John 5:11 ---And the witness is this, that God gave unto us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.—God gave us testimony; the testimony which he gave is with reference to eternal life; this eternal life to which he testified is in his Son. This testimony is abundant: John 10:10 John 14:6 John 17:3. To this end Paul also testified: “ For ye died, and your life is hid with Christ in God. When Christ, who is our life, shall be manifested, then shall ye also with him be manifested in glory.” (Colossians 3:3-4.) The man­ner in which this life is possessed is indicated in the verse which follows: 1 John 5:12 ---He that hath the Son hath the life; he that hath not the Son of God hath not the life.—Only those who have the Son have the life; and since having the Son is conditioned on faithful­ness and devotion to him, it follows that the life here contemplated is conditional. It is in this sense only that one has eternal life here. Eternal life is not a present possession of the Christian: it is a promise: “ There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or mother, or father, or children, or lands, for my sake, and for the gospel’ s sake, but he shall receive a hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions: and in the world to come eternal Uje” (Mark 10:29-30.) “ In hope of eternal life, which God, who cannot lie, promised before times eternal.” (Titus 1:2.) One does not hope for that which he already has. (Romans 8:24.) “ And this is the promise which he promised us, even the life eternal.” (1 John 2:25.) Those passages which apparently as­sert the possession of eternal life here, e.g., John 5:24 John 6:47 John 17:3, etc., are to be understood as referring to it in prospect, and not in reality. The believer has eternal life in prospect and promise, but not in realization. He possesses life, as he possesses the Christ, who is the life, i.e., the source, the origin, the pre­server of life. The believer however, may cease to believe; he may forsake him who has the life. “ Having damnation because they have cast off their first faith.” (1 Timothy 5:12 AV.) “ But shun profane babblings: for they will proceed further in ungodli­ness. And their word will eat as doth a gangrene: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus; men who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already, and over­throw the faith of some!* (2 Timothy 2:16-17.) “ He that hath not the Son hath not the life.” He may have money, fame and fortune; intelligence, education and talent; in­fluence, reputation and honor; but, if he has not the Son, he has not the life! He who would have life, must have the Son; there is no substitute.SECTION FOUR (1 John 5:13-21) OBJECT IN WRITING(1 John 5:13-15) 1 John 5:13 ---These things have I written unto you, that ye may know that ye have eternal life, even unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God.—In a general sense, the entire Epistle was written with the design here indicated, though it ap­pears probable that the reference is, particularly, to that of the immediate context, e.g., 5: 1-12. These words are very similar to those occurring in John 20:31. For the manner in which one possesses eternal life here, see the comments on verse 12. The meaning here is, John wrote; he wrote that men may know that they have eternal life; those who have eternal life in prospect and promise (2: 25), or those who believe (literally, keeping on be­lieving (tots pistetiousin eis) in the name of the Son of God. The “ name," as here used, sums up the characteristics which make up the personality of Christ. 1 John 5:14 ---And this is the boldness which we have toward him, that, if we ask anything according to his will, he heareth us:— See 1 John 3:21, and the comments there. The conjunction, and, with which this verse begins, associates the ideas which it contains with the verse preceding, and the meaning is: We have the promise of eternal life; the realization of this assures and gives us con­fidence; this confidence expresses itself, for example, in the as­surance we have that if we ask anything according to his will, he hears us. His will is set out in the sacred writings; to ask ac­cording to his will, is to ask in harmony with what he has taught regarding prayer. Jesus recognized this condition, and hence prayed: “ My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass away from me: nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt.” (Matthew 26:39.) The Father wills for us only that which is for our good. If we, through ignorance, greed, avarice or some other evil motive, ask for that which we should not have, the Father, in kindness, with­holds it. “ Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: for every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. Or what man is there of you, who, if his son shall ask him for a loaf, will give him a stone; or if he shall ask for a fish, will give him a serpent? If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your chidren, how much more shall your Father who is in heaven give good things to them that ask him ?” (Matthew 7:7-11.) 1 John 5:15 ---And if we know that he heareth us whatsoever we ask, we know that we have the petitions which we have asked of him.—The assurance which we have that God does indeed answer the prayers of his faithful children encourages us to ask, and enables us to know that we receive the things for which we ask. If we know that God hears our prayers we know that the peti­tions which we make are granted, though we may not be able to see them supplied in the particular way we had expected. The Father sometimes says, Yes!, by saying No! That is, he answers a prayer for our good by denying the petition made but by sup­plying, in his wisdom, our need otherwise. Three times Paul besought the Lord to remove the thorn from his flesh; and though this was denied him, the prayer was answered in a fashion which Paul was himself later to approve. (2 Corinthians 12:7-10.) THE SIN UNTO DEATH(1 John 5:16-17) 1 John 5:16 ---If any man see his brother sinning a sin not unto death, he shall ask, and God will give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: not concerning this do I say that he should make request.—The connection be­tween this statement and the verse which precedes it is close, and should be carefully considered in determining the significance of this passage. We have boldness (confidence) toward the Father. (Verse 14.) This boldness prompts us to make our petitions with the assurance that if we ask according to his will, he hears us. Though we are unable to "see” the answer to our prayers, in some instances, the confidence which we have in him enables us to know that "we have the petitions which we have asked of him.” (Verse 15.) As an instance of this, if we see a "brother sin a sin not unto death,” we are encouraged to ask in his behalf, as­sured that God will give us life for “ them that sin not unto death.” We are not, however, from thence to infer that God will give us life for “ them that sin unto death.” There is such a sin; and though we are not forbidden to pray in behalf of one thus sinning, we are not commanded to do so, and there is no assurance that God will hear and answer our petition if we do. This passage is not to be confused, as is often done, with Matthew 12:31-32,—“ the sin against the Holy Spirit.” Here, reference is to a brother who sins; there, the Pharisees were primarily in the mind of the Saviour, these being the ones particularly ad­dressed. (Matthew 12:14-24.) “ Any man,” of the first clause is to be understood only of those who are members of the body of Christ and approved of God; it follows, therefore, that the “ brother” contemplated as sinning is an erring child of God. The rendering of the King James* or so-called Authorized Version of the New Testament reads, “ If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death he shall ask . . .,” The American Standard Version, however, has it thus: “ If any man see his brother sinning a sin not unto death, he shall ask . . .” This ap­pears, at first glance, to mean that if one sees a brother in the actual commission of sin, he may ask and God will forgive such a one while sinning. Such a conclusion is alike repugnant to reason and revelation; opposed both to scripture and to our own sense of the fitness of things, and is obviously false. Jesus said, “ Except ye repent, ye shall . . . perish.” (Luke 13:3.) There is no offer of amnesty to the rebellious and impenitent. We may be sure that John did not intend that such a conclusion should be drawn from his words here. Why then, the present active participle Or, im hamartanonta (sinning) here? The participle agrees gram­matically with adelphon (brother), and with the cognate accusative hamarttan (sin); it is a sinning brother who stands, as it were, before our very eyes. This is, therefore, not to be construed to mean that the brother is engaged in sin at the moment prayer is made in his behalf. An analysis of the passage reveals, (1) a child of God can sin; (2) there is a sin not “ unto death” ; (3) we are instructed to pray for those thus sinning, with the assurance that our prayers will be heard and answered; (4) there is a sin “ unto death” ; (5) for those guilty of such it is useless and futile to pray. What is the sin thus contemplated? (a) It is obvious that no single sin, contemplated as an overt act, was in the apostle’ s mind. Correctly rendered, the passage does not designate the sin, or even a sin, but mere sin, sin in essence, sin abstractly considered, (b) The sin was such that a brother could discern it, i.e., identify it: “ If any man see . . ” (c)The death referred to was not bodily death, the loss of physical life; but spiritual death, separation from God and all that is good. (d)It was such a sin as only children of God could be guilty of. Any interpretation that is correct must take account of each of these considerations, and embrace them. (1) The sin contemplated here is not such as is usually classified as capital, i.e., such sins as idolatry, murder, adultery, blasphemy, etc. (2) The effects of it were visible and obvious— such as could be seen. (3) It was pos­sible for one who prays to distinguish between the sin unto death, and the sin not unto death. To what type of sin then, did John refer ? There is much about sin and its forgiveness in the first Epistle of John. Its fact, in the lives of all Christians, is affirmed (1 John 1:8-10), its origin indicated (1 John 3:8), the means by which it may be avoided revealed (1 John 3:9). In the event of sin in one’ s life, there is “ an Advocate, with the Father, Jesus Christ, the righteous” (1 John 2:1), and the promise that “ if we confess our sins, he is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:8). The apostle’ s teaching on the theme is thus abundant, and the significance thereof clear. It is susceptible of being reduced to logical form: The Lord will forgive every sin, of whatever nature, that a brother confesses. (1 John 1:8.) There is, however, a sin which the Lord will not forgive. (1 John 5:16.) Therefore, the sin which the Lord will not forgive, is simply a sin, any sin, all sin that a brother will not confess! If this conclusion does not follow, it is because either the major or minor premise of the syllogism is defective. The major premise is that the Lord will forgive every sin a brother confesses. This is stated in 1 John 1:8. The minor premise is obviously implied in 5: 16. It follows, therefore, that since the Lord will forgive every sin, of whatever nature, that a brother confesses and turns away from; and as there is a sin which the Lord will not forgive, the conclusion is irresistible that the sin which the Lord will not forgive is a sin which a brother will not confess. The context cor­roborates this view. If my brother sins, and manifests penitence, I not only may, it is my duty to, pray in his behalf: ‘‘ Confess there­fore your sins one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed.” (James 5:16.) If, however, my brother exhibits stubborn impenitence and persistent rebellion, following the com­mission of his sin, it is useless to petition the Father in his behalf. The sin unto death is thus a disposition of heart, a perverseness of attitude and an unwillingness of mind to acknowledge one’ s sin and from it turn away. Such a disposition effectively closes the door of heaven in one's face. 1 John 5:17 ---All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death.—Here, sin is negatively defined. Sin is unrighteous­ness. God’ s commandments are righteousness. (Psalms 119:172.) A failure, therefore, to keep God’ s commandments, is to be guilty of sin in his sight. A positive definition of sin is set out by the apostle in 1 John 3:4 : “ Sin is lawlessness.” Sin thus consists of doing (a) that which is wrong; and of (b) neglecting to do that which is right. The former we classify as the sin of commission; the latter, the sin of omission. “ Unrighteousness" is that state or condition which is opposed to righteousness. It is a general term indicative of the absence of righteousness for whatever cause.DIVINE (1Joh 5:18-21) 1 John 5:18 ---We know that whosoever is begotten of God sinneth not; but he that was begotten of God keepeth himself, and the evil one toucheth him not.— Verses 18, 19 and 20, each be­gins with the verb “ we know" (oidamen). Compare also, 1 John 3:2 1 John 3:14 1 John 5:15. It is a term which indicates full persuasion and com­plete confidence. For the meaning of the phrase, “ begotten of God," see the comments on 1 John 3:9. For the meaning of the verb “ sinneth not,” see the notes on 1 John 3:6. For the manner in which one who is begotten of God keeps himself from sin, see on the phrase, “ and his seed remaineth in him, and he cannot sin" (1 John 3:9.) The “ evil one/’ of this passage is the devil. See notes on 1 John 3:8. 1 John 5:19 ---We know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in the evil one.—“ Of God" is, literally, “ from God” ; being begotten of him, we are his offspring. (1 John 3:10 1 John 4:6.) The word “ world” here is not the material universe in which we live, but the race of wicked men about us. These, be­cause they Have abandoned themselves to a fife of sin, are in the “ evil one.” The evil one— the devil— is the prince of this world, the ruler of its citizens. (Ephesians 2:2; 1 Peter 5:8; Ephesians 6:11; Colossians 1:13.) 1 John 5:20 ---And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ.—“ come,” of the first clause is in the present tense, but it has the force of the perfect, has come, and such is its significance here. By supplying us with credible testimony, the Father has enabled us to know him, to accept him as true, and thus also to accept his Son Jesus Christ, and to be in him. (Romans 6:3; Galatians 3:27.) 1 John 5:20 ---This is the true God and eternal life.—To know— to have an understanding of the true God, and to be in his Son, Jesus Christ,— is to have the assurance of eternal life. (1 John 2:25.) These words are an echo of those in his prayer in the shadows of Gethsemane. “ And this is life eternal, that they should know thee the only true God, and him whom thou didst send, even Jesus Christ.” (John 17:3.) And thus, at the close of the Epistle, the apostle re-emphasizes that with which it began: the eternal life which has been manifested: “ That which was from the beginning, that which we have heard, that which we have seen with our eyes, that which we beheld, and our hands handled, con­cerning the word of life (and the life was manifested, and we have seen, and bear witness, and declare unto you the life, the eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us.” ) (1 John 1:1-3.) This is the paramount theme of both the Gospel and the epistle of John. 1 John 5:21 ---My little children, guard yourselves from idols.—Idolatry was rampant in the land and age when John wrote, and the danger exceedingly great that some of the saints would suc­cumb to the seductions and allurements of the worship which at­tended it. They were thus admonished to be evermore vigilant against any effort which would involve them in this awful evil. Though the apostle must have had primarily in mind graven images, those fabricated by men, we must not overlook the fact that anything is an idol which supplants the place of deity in our hearts whether persons, property or pleasure. NOTE ON 1 John 5:7 Those familiar with the King James' or “ Authorized” Version of the scriptures will have noticed a variation in the text in the Version on which these notes are based at 1 John 5:7. The King James' Version has the words, “ And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth,” in verse 6, and in the verse which follows, this statement, “ For there are three that bear rec­ord in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” The American Standard Version,— the translation followed in this Commentary— omits entirely the words, “ for there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one,” and ad­vances from the sixth verse to the seventh, the words, “ and it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is the truth.” While obviously not within the scope of such a work as this to enter into a detailed examination of the critical questions in­volved, it is believed that the reader of this commentary would appreciate a brief review of the facts in order that he might be in position to form some opinion in the matter, and to this end the details are set out in abridged form for those who may be in­terested. The Greek text, from which present-day translations are made, is determined by ancient manuscripts, versions and early writings of the so-called “ Church Fathers,” some of which extend almost to the apostolic age. With reference to the major portion of the sacred writings— perhaps ninety-nine per cent or more— there never has been the slightest doubt as to their apostolic origin; the readings thereof are supported by overwhelming evidence from all of the original and reliable sources. In a few instances, however, spurious readings have crept in, readings which lack such universal support as that regarded essential to eliminate all doubt as to their genuineness and reliability. In proportion as such a reading is found to be missing from ancient documents on which the text is founded, doubt arises as to its authenticity; and when it is dis­covered to be wanting from a respectable number of such sources it is regarded as spurious— that is, an inserted passage, without in­spiration or divine authority. With reference to that portion omitted from the American Standard Version, the most conservative scholars have, on weigh­ing the evidence which obtains regarding it, unhesitatingly rejected it. The grounds on which this conclusion is reached are as follows: The verse does not appear in any of the Uncial Greek Manuscript, these being the one most important source in de­termining the text.It appears, for the first time, in a Cursive Manuscript, trans­lated in the fifteenth or sixteenth century. It is omitted in all of the ancient Versions, including the Vulgate by Jerome, though interpolated in modern editions of this work. The so-called Greek Fathers do not have it, even when producing texts in support of the doctrine of the “ Trinity,” un­accountable on the supposition that it was then a part of the sacred text. Many of the “ Latin Fathers” omit it. It first appears in the Latin writers at the end of the fifth century. Historically, the words appear to have been originally in­cluded in an exegesis by Cyprian, and to have made their way, via a copyist, into the margin of the text, and then, later, into the text itself. In view, therefore, of the overwhelming manuscript evidence against the insertion of the verse, it is properly omitted from the American Standard Version, and all New Testament Greek texts today. It would never have found its way into the “ Received Text,” (basis for the older translations), had not Erasmus promised to insert it if it could be found in any Greek manuscript; and discovering that it was in the late Codex Britannicus, in keep­ing with his commitment, put it in the Complutensian edition of 1514. The most conservative scholars have referred to this act of Erasmus as “ stupidity,” and the effort itself, “ mere caprice.” There is, therefore, not the slightest ground for assuming that these words were a part of the original composition of the apostle John, or entitled to a place in the sacred text; nor is there any loss whatso­ever in yielding them up as spurious, since nothing is taught in them not abundantly taught elsewhere in the New Testament. 1st John Chapter Five Verse 1 Throughout this epistle, John repeatedly emphasized the three tests: faith, obedience and love. All three were stressed in 1 John 2, and most of 1 John 3 was devoted to obedience and love. 1 John 4 emphasized faith and love. The three go together, however, as is evident throughout this letter. In the opening paragraph of this chapter (1 John 5:1-5), "faith" (or belief) occurs in1 Joh 5:1 John 5:4-5; "love" occurs in 1 John 5:1-3; and "obey" (keep his commandments) occurs in 1 John 5:2-3. Faith in Jesus Christ as the Son of God, however, is established upon testimony, the testimony of three witnesses, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood; and the second paragraph (1 John 5:6-12) lays strong emphasis upon these. Another paragraph is related to boldness in prayer (except in cases where "sin unto death" is present) (1 John 5:13-17); and the letter is concluded by a brief summary and exhortation (1 John 5:18-21). Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is begotten of God: and whosoever loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him. (1 John 5:1) Whosoever believeth ... also implies obedience or fidelity, there being no intimation whatever in a statement like this that mere faith, or faith only, is equivalent to the new birth. "Believeth" in this place, as frequently in the New Testament, is a synecdoche for a number of closely related actions involved in conversion. That Jesus is the Christ ... Christianity is grounded in the absolute proposition that Jesus of Nazareth was (is) the Dayspring from on High, God incarnate in human flesh, the promised Messiah of the Hebrews, the "seed of the woman" (Genesis 3:15) who would crush the head of the serpent, whose "goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting" (Micah 5:2). That incarnate deity identified in the New Testament as "Jesus Christ" is man's unique Saviour, and only those who manifest an obedient faith in him can receive the inestimable privilege of the new birth. Is begotten of God ... has the meaning of "is born of God," that is, has received the new birth, being raised "to walk in newness of life" (Romans 6:3-5). Whosoever loveth him that begat loveth also him that is begotten ...In other words, whosoever loves God, being himself a child of God, loves not God alone but all of God's other children also. John's argument here is a type of compound syllogism called "sorites," but with some of the steps omitted. The entire argument would be something like this: Everyone with obedient faith in Christ is a child of God. Every child of God loves the Father. Therefore, everyone with obedient faith loves God. Everyone that loves God loves God's children. Therefore, everyone with obedient faith loves the children of God. Verse 2 Hereby we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and do his commandments.John echoed here the teachings of the Master who declared that, "If ye love me, ye will keep my commandments" (John 14:15). Love of God, therefore, is the type of regard for the Father that issues in keeping his word and obeying the commandments that he gave. The same is true of love for the brethren. "It is practical and active, and expresses itself in deed and in truth, in sacrificial service."[1] "True Christian love, therefore, is that which proceeds from love to God, and leads us to obey all his commandments."[2] Both with regard to love, as here, and with regard to faith, John's usage of either term always carried inherently the concept of obedience. [1] John R. W. Stott, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Vol. 19 (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1964), p. 173. [2] James Macknight, Macknight on the Epistles, Vol. VI (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, reprint, 1969), p. 103. Verse 3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.There is no need here to defend John with the declaration that, "he was not a legalist";[3] or to oppose him by alleging that Paul's teaching is opposed to this. It is not opposed to it in any manner; although it is quite true that some of the alleged teachings of Paul are denied by this passage. For example, the notion that, "In Paul's terms Law of Christ means freedom from law,"[4] is nothing but a popular error. Not only John and Paul, but Christ and all of the holy apostles constantly reiterated the fundamental thesis of the New Testament that the people who do the will of God will be saved; and the people who do not do it will be lost. The verse before us is in perfect harmony with the whole New Testament. If people believe that they can bypass this fundamental truth by means of some theological device, they are mistaken. And his commandments are not grievous ... Wilder suggested that this is contrary to Jesus' words regarding the strait gate, the narrow way, etc.; and it is possible that many have wondered just how to take the words here. There are at least three ways in which John's words are profoundly true: (1) As compared with the onerous burdens of the Law of Moses, called by the apostles themselves "a yoke of bondage which neither we nor our fathers were able to bear" (Acts 15:10), the Law of Christ is one of incredible freedom. (2) For that soul who is truly born again, the Lord's commandments are in complete harmony with the natural impulses of his new life in Christ. As Sinclair said: Were we perfect, we should not find them commands at all, for they would be our natural impulses. The more sincerely we serve God, the more enjoyment we shall derive from obeying him. Only to those whose inclinations are distorted, perverted and corrupted by sin can God's laws seem irksome.[5](3) Despite the fact of there being genuine obligations in Christian service, called by Jesus himself "my yoke" (Matthew 11:19), it is in the nature of those precious obligations that they make all other burdens lighter. Christ's service is the "yoke," the carrying device, which enables the wearer to carry unavoidable burdens of life which otherwise would be impossible and would destroy him. See a fuller illustration of this in my Commentary on Matthew, pp. 161,162. Concerning this whole verse, Barclay said, "John reverts to an idea that is never far from the surface of his mind. Obedience is the only proof of love."[6] We might add that it is likewise the only proof of faith. [3] Leon Morris, The New Bible Commentary, Revised (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1970), p. 1268. [4] Amos N. Wilder, The Interpreter's Bible, Vol XII (New York: Abingdon Press, 1957), p. 291. [5] W. M. Sinclair, Ellicott's Bible Commentary, Vol. VIII (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1959), p. 490. [6] William Barclay, The Letters of John and Jude (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1976), p. 103. Verse 4 For whatsoever is begotten of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that hath overcome the world, even our faith.Whatsoever is begotten of God ... We might have expected John to write "whosoever" etc., but he was speaking not so much of individuals here, as of the new birth. "It is not the man but his birth from God which conquers."[7] The new birth gives one entry into the kingdom of God (John 3:5 f). In order to enter, one must be born of water and of the spirit, that is, be baptized into Christ and receive the Holy Spirit. For a more complete discussion of this, see in my Commentary on James, pp. 83-88. The victory that overcometh the world ... How daringly incredible must such a claim as this have appeared to unbelievers who might have been aware of it! "The world" of that era was the domain of the Caesar's. To all outward appearances, imperial Rome must have looked like the victor. There was not a force on earth (except that of which John wrote) which could stand against Rome, all the nations of the known world of that day being merely the slaves and vassals of the tyrant on the Tiber. Between that organized oppression and the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ there could be no neutrality; either Christ was Lord and would prove himself so to be, or the self-appointed "Gods" of the imperial purple would win the field. Moreover the conflict was very near to being joined when John wrote these words. The terrible persecutions would soon begin under Nero and would last intermittently for nearly 250 years. Eusebius tells us of the final outrage that occurred in the reign of Galerius Augustus: Christians were flogged until the flesh hung from their bones ... salt or vinegar was poured in their wounds ... their flesh was cut off bit by bit to feed waiting animals ... they were eaten piecemeal by starved beasts ... their fingers were pierced with sharp reed under their nails ... their eyes were gouged out ... they were suspended by a hand or foot ... some had molten lead poured down their throats ... they were beheaded, beaten to death with clubs or crucified ... some were torn asunder by being tied to bent branches of trees (This quotation is from Eusebius by Will Durant, who complained that this could not be verified by pagan sources). Why should pagans have admitted such deeds? There can be no doubt whatever of the truth of these records[8]Durant stated that the persecutions mentioned above lasted for eight years, involving the death of at least 1,500 people and the brutal abuse of many thousands more; but: As the brutalities multiplied, the pagan population was stirred ... good citizens expressed themselves against the most ferocious oppression in Roman history ... the people turned against the government ... many pagans risked death to hide or protect Christians ... (and then it happened!) In Galerius, suffering from a mortal illness, convinced of failure, and implored by his wife to make his peace with the undefeated God of the Christians, promulgated an edict of toleration, recognizing Christianity as a lawful religion, and asked the prayers of the Christians in return for "our most gentle clemency!"[9]Durant summed up the terrible conflict that lasted nearly a quarter of a millennium with the words, "Caesar and Christ had met in the arena, and Christ had won!"[10] History demonstrated the truth of what the apostle John wrote in this verse. [7] J. R. Dummelow, Commentary on the Holy Bible (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1937), p. 1057. [8] Will Durant, Caesar and Christ (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1944), p. 652. [9] Ibid. [10] Ibid. Verse 5 And who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?It was the basic, fundamental conviction of Christians regarding who Christ was (and is) that fed the springs of their courage and determination. They did not believe, merely, that Christ was some great and wonderful teacher, but that he Was God come in the flesh, the lawful ruler of heaven and earth, the Holy One who would at the last day raise all the dead who ever lived and appoint every soul his everlasting destiny. The very expression "Son of God" carries with it the idea of equality with God; and so the Jews of Jesus' day understood it. For example: Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him ... because he said that God was his Father, making himself equal to God (John 5:18). Christ confessed under oath that he was the Son of God (Mark 14:62), and the Pharisees mad that the crime for which they demanded his crucifixion (John 19:7). Knowing that he would be put to death for this claim, Jesus carefully avoided making it until he would choose to do so before the Sanhedrin, except in circumstances where his enemies were powerless to use it as the basis of a legal charge of blasphemy. Thus, he spoke freely to the woman at the well of Samaria (John 4) and to the man healed of congenital blindness (John 9), flatly declaring to the latter that he was indeed the Son of God (John 9:35-37). In those two cases, the woman being a Samaritan, and the erstwhile blind man having been thrown out of the synagogue, neither could be recruited by the Sanhedrin as a witness against Christ. By far the favorite designation of himself, on Jesus' part, was "Son of Man," by which he meant everything that Son of God means; but the occasional use of "Son of Man" in the Old Testament to mean any ordinary person (Psalms 8:4) prohibited the Sanhedrin from making a charge based on the title "Son of Man," despite the fact that Christ and his followers, as well as his enemies, perfectly understood that Jesus used the title in the sense of Dan 10:16, where the title is suggested for one who is divine. For fuller discussion of these two titles, see in my Commentary on James, pp. 54-56. Verse 6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not with the water only, but with the water and with the blood.From the times of Tertullian, the more discerning scholars have referred these words to the baptism of Christ in water (as the Greek reads here), and to his crucifixion (aptly described as his coming "in the blood"). Some have seen a reference here to John 19:34; and, as Bruce stated it, "I should not care to deny this."[11]It undoubtedly refers to all of these events; and, even beyond this, it undoubtedly suggested to the apostle the two grand ordinances of the Christian religion: baptism and the Lord's Supper, as indicated by his specific reference to them two verses later. However, the matter at hand in this verse related to the heresy of the Cerinthians who admitted that Jesus was the Christ after his baptism, but denied that he was the Christ in his crucifixion. Again from Bruce: From their point of view, Christ came by water, but not by blood. Therefore, John emphasized that he came "not with water only, but with the water and with the blood"; with the clear meaning that Jesus was proclaimed as the Son of God as truly in his death as he was in his baptism.[12]John's refutation of that heresy was as precise and devastating as any that could have been given. [11] F. F. Bruce, Answers to Questions (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1972), p. 133. [12] Ibid., p. 134. Verse 7 And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is the truth.It is not possible to tell exactly what the apostle had in mind here. He could have been referring to the witness of the Holy Spirit descending in the form of a dove and alighting and remaining upon him at the time of Jesus' baptism, thus witnessing to the divinity and Godhead of Jesus; or, he might have reference to his own inspired testimony. It should be remembered that he was one of the Twelve to whom Jesus promised that the Spirit would guide them into all truth (John 16:13). As Orr noted, "The present tense might be significant here";[13] and that would seem to make the second alternative the preferable view. ENDNOTE: [13] R. W. Orr, A New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1969), p. 619. Verse 8 For there are three that bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and the three agree in one.There are three that bear witness ... Note the use of the present tense, contrasting with the past tense of1 Joh 5:6, a fact that indicates the three agreeing witnesses as giving their testimony at the time of John's writing and continuously thereafter. The Spirit ... There is no doubt regarding the identity of this witness, the same being the inspired testimony of the holy apostles of Jesus Christ as revealed in the New Testament; and apart from that New Testament, there is no other authentic written source of the historical events which are the foundation of Christianity. Of the many claims in our own times regarding people claiming to "have the Spirit," not any one of them, nor all of them put together has ever produced a single line of intelligible teaching regarding the holy religion of Christ. In a lesser sense, of course, the earnest of the Holy Spirit given to all believers in Christ on condition of and subsequent to their repentance and baptism imparts the blessed fruit of love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, etc. (Galatians 5:22). And the water ... At the time John wrote, the baptism of Christ could hardly have been spoken of as "witnessing" anything. It was a past event, by a whole generation; and John here spoke of the water as "witnessing" in the present tense. How could this be true? The grand initiatory rite of the Christian religion is a continual witness in all generations of the essential facts of the gospel; namely, the death, burial, and resurrection of the Son of God. The very form of the ordinance with its burial and resurrection to "walk in newness of life" was designed for that very purpose; and how Satan does hate it! This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/zerrcbc/ 1 John 5:2. In 1 John 3:14 it is stated that we know we have passed from death unto life because we love the brethren. But that passage does not deal with the question of how to know that we actually do love the brethren, while the present. verse does tell us how, namely, that we love God and keep his commandments. And so a man's mere assertion that lie loves the brethren is not to be accepted. He cannot truthfully make the claim unless he has obeyed the commandments, including repentance, baptism and the others which God has given in the New Testament. 1 John 5:3. Our love for God is proved only by keeping His commandments. Grievous means heavy or burdensome and it certainly should not seem burdensome to obey the commands of the One whom we love. Verse 4. The world means the evil practices of mankind. (See the comments on chapter 2:15.) If a man truly loves God of whom he was begotten, the love he has for his Father will induce him to overcome the evil practices of the world. That is because his love is directed by his faith that was produced by the word of God. 1 John 5:5. This is the same as the preceding verse except it states how and when one is born (begotten) of God. That is when he believes in Jesus as the Son of God as was stated in verse 1. 1 John 5:6. The pronouns this and he refer to Jesus as the Son of God. The verse deals with three items that testified to that claim. He came means his introduction to the world especially into the public ministry. The water refers to his baptism because it was then John the Baptist said he learned that Jesus was the one who was to come after him. The Spirit also is mentioned because lie appeared in the form of a dove in connection with the voice of God that acknowledged the Son. The blood was in evidence when Jesus shed it on the cross, thus concluding the long blood line that began with Adam and ran down through the ages. (Read Luke chapter 3.) 1 John 5:7. Most translations omit this verse on the ground that it is not in the oldest Greek manuscripts. I will make remarks similar to what were said at chapter 2:23. The passage does not add anything that is different from the other passages on the same subject, nor will anything be lost if it is left out. With these comments I shall proceed with the next verse. 1 John 5:8. This verse differs from verse 6 as to date only; each has to do with the threefold testimony for the divinity of Christ. However. verse 6 pertains to the time of His stay on the earth, while this one is continuous and applies to what has been going on since Christ left the earth. The testimony of the Spirit is that which is recorded in the New Testament and written by the inspired men. The water is in evidence every time a person is baptized, because there is no way to account for the continuation of this plain ordinance other than the fact that it originated in the time of Christ. The blood testifies every time the Lord's supper is observed in which is the fruit of the vine, for Paul says (1 Corinthians 11:26), "As often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup. ye do show the Lord's death till he come." Three agree in one means they all bear testimony to one fact, namely, Jesus is the divine Son of God. 1 John 5:9. If we receive the witness of men means that we do receive such witness. It is as if he said "since we receive such witness," etc. It is true treat human testimony when confirmed is an established rule of mankind in dealing with each other. The apostle is making the point that we should receive the testimony of God, for it is much greater than mere human testimony. That which God gives establishes the fact that Jesus is His Son. 1 John 5:10. Hath the witness in himself. Not that he produced it by his own mind, but it is testimony that can be received by the mind and hence can be retained there. (See Hebrews S:10.) Made him a liar. When a man rejects a statement made by another he thereby makes that man out a liar. Otherwise if the other person is not regarded as a liar, there would be no pretext for the first one to disbelieve him. All of this pertains to the declaration of God that Christ is his Son. 1 John 5:11. Record is from the same word as "evidence." John means that in giving to us the evidence of the Son-ship of Christ, we are thereby given assurance that we may have eternal life through Him. 1 John 5:12. The foregoing important truths are summed up in the conclusion that to have life one must have the Son by sincere belief in Him as the source of that life. 1 John 5:13. Written unto you that believe again sets forth the idea that not all of the apostolic writings are given as new information. The purpose for repeating it is stated that yo. may know or that they may have their faith for eternal life confirmed. 1 John 5:14. The proviso according to his will is important and shows that we are not at liberty to make just any kind of wild request and expect God to grant it. 1 John 5:15. This verse explains what it means to be heard for our prayers. When we have the petitions (granted) then we know that they were scriptural or God would not have granted them. 1 John 5:16. Sin unto death. Not that the man has reached the state of eternal death but is healed unto it; his conduct is in that direction. The condition described in Hebrews 6:4-6 is a clear case of this kind of sin; let the reader see the comments at that place. Paul says it is impossible for another person to renew that kind of sinner to repentance. It would therefore be inconsistent to engage in a prayer service with a brother who has gone so far in deliberate sin that he could not be induced to repent by anyone else. John says he would not ask anyone to pray for such a brother. The kind of sin that is not unto death would be like that mentioned in Galatians 6:1 where the brethren are told to work for the restoration of the one overtaken. He shall ask sounds as if John means for the brother discovering sin in another to do the praying for him, when Peter told Simon to pray for himself. That it true but it is also true that brethren can pray together on behalf of the erring one. Then if he repents the Lord will grant him life (forgiveness) for his sins. (See James 5:15-16.) The pronouns may be a little confusing the way they are used. The first he means the man who sees his brother sin, and the second he means the Lord from whom all forgiveness must come. (See Ephesians 4:32 as to the source of forgiveness.) 1 John 5:17. All unrighteousness is sin. (See the comments at chapter 3:4.) John makes this statement that it might not seem he is underestimating the seriousness of any sin. He wishes only to show that not all sins are as fatal as others; that there is such a sin not unto death. 1 John 5:18. See the comments at verse 1 for the meaning of born and begotten. For the verse in general see the comments on chapter 3:9. 1 John 5:19. We means those who have been begotten of God. Whole world lieth in wickedness. World means the inhabitants of the earth as it does in chapter 2:15. The italicized words mean the same as "all that is in the world" in chapter 2:16, which explains why the world is said to lie in wickedness. 1 John 5:20. The word know is frequently used by inspired writers to mean a strong assurance, not that it is intended to take the place of faith. It is true that the apostle John could use the word in its technical sense concerning Christ. That is because he was with Him in person during all of his personal ministry. He also knew that Christ had given him the (inspired) understanding which he promised, for just before leaving this world Jesus told his apostles he would send the Spirit upon them which would guide them into all truth (John 16:13). The true God is said in contrast with the false ones that were worshiped by many people. He also is the source of eternal life in that He gave his only begotten Son into the world for that purpose. 1 John 5:21. Little children is explained at chapter 2:1. Even the best of disciples need to be cautioned against evils that we would not ordinarily expect them to commit. John tells his readers to keep themselves from idols which is one of such warnings. Paul told the brethren in Corinth to "flee from idolatry" (1 Corinthians 10:14).