NOTES ON 1 JOHN — — — — 1-4. Introduction 1. ὃἦνἀπ ʼ ἀρχῆς ] What the writer has to announce about the Word of Life, the revelation of life, is no new discovery. The revelation began with creation. It was continued in the history of the nations and the People, in the work of Prophets, Psalmists, Legislators. It culminated in the earthly life and teaching of Jesus of Nazareth. The mystery, which is as old as creation, was gradually revealed, till it was completely manifested in Jesus the Christ, the Son of God. The words περὶτοῦλόγουτῆςζωῆς necessitate some such interpretation of the phrase. It cannot refer to the eternal, pre-existent nature of the personal Word, though in the writer’ s conception this is no doubt included. The whole message of God’ s revelation, as it has been gradually unfolded, is the object of the writer’ s ἀγγελία . The mystery which he takes his part in “ revealing” is concerned with the eternal reality underlying the phenomena apparent to sense-perception and needed to explain them. What he has to say is one stage in its unveiling; his words are part of a process of teaching which began when “ God said, Let there be light.” Cf. Rothe, p. 18; part of his note may be quoted or paraphrased. “ The thought of an original being, which has its object in itself, is indeed the most abstract thought to which human consciousness can reach; but yet it lies close to hand, and no one can dispense with it who examines attentively himself and his surroundings. That which falls under the cognizance of sense-perception shows itself to the careful observer to be untrue. But every intelligent man must feel the desire to find somewhere an existence which has not come into being, but which is from eternity, and to be able to rest on this. This the Apostle has found. He cries triumphantly to his readers that he knows of a Being, transcending all that is transitory, the ground of what is temporal and finite. Such a reality can only be found in so far as it is revealed under material forms and enters into the world of matter. In Christ the writer claims to have found this eternal reality, which transcends the limits of the sensible and material. What he has seen in Jesus and heard from Him is to himself indubitable evidence of the truth of his claim.” This passage, which is really a paraphrase in more modern terms of thought of the Johannine conception of ζωή , does not, of course, explain by strict grammatical exegesis the meaning of the opening phrases of this Epistle, but it is an admirable expression of ideas which may reasonably be connected with them, and as such it deserves full consideration. ἀρχῆς ] Anarthrous. Cf. John 1:1, John 1:6:64, John 1:16:4; Genesis 1:1. That which is regarded by us as “ beginning.” The anarthrous use of the word makes it denote “ character, according to man’ s apprehension,” rather than a definite fact or point of time. The parallels in Genesis and the Prologue of the Gospel exclude the possibility of a reference merely to the beginning of the Christian dispensation. For the writer’ s use of ἀρχή , cf. note on 2:7. ὃἀκηκόαμεν ] The author justifies his claim to be able to announce “ that which was from the beginning” on the fact that a revelation of it has been made under the conditions of time and space, so that it has become intelligible to finite understanding. The perfect has its full force. A revelation has been made in terms which men can understand, and the results are abiding. What the writer and his contemporaries have heard and seen remains with them, so that they can make it known to others who have not themselves had the same privileges. The “ hearing” may perhaps include the whole revelation, of the nature of God and His relation to the world, from the beginning. But if it is not confined to the earthly life of Jesus Christ, that is what the writer has prominently in view.ἑωράκαμεντοῖςὀφθαλμοῖς ] The revelation has been made through nature and through man. All the human powers of perception are necessary to grasp its fulness, and can be used for that purpose. The τοῖςὀφθαλμοῖς emphasizes the personal experience of the writer, and those whom he associates with himself by the use of the first person plural. The terms used in this preface can only be interpreted naturally as a claim on the writer’ s part to have been an actual eye-witness of the earthly life of Jesus Christ. It is not impossible to suppose that the writer uses them metaphorically of a spiritual vision, the completeness of which can best be described under the metaphors of sense-perception. Such an interpretation, however, is forced and unnatural in the extreme. Clemen’ s confession (ZNTW vi. 281, 1905), that he can suggest no really satisfactory explanation of the words αἱχεῖρεςἡμῶνἐψηλάφησαν on these lines, is significant. Nothing but absolute necessity could justify their reference to “ spiritual” perception. If on other grounds it is impossible to suppose that this Epistle, or other writings which cannot easily be separated from it, could have been written by an eye-witness of the life of Christ on earth, we should, of course, be compelled to accept this forced interpretation of the words; unless we admitted that the writer has put forward a false claim. But it is well to recognize that such a course is of the nature of a desperate expedient. Such a claim might naturally be met with the ironical words of Philo (de Decalogo, p. 195), ὦοὗτος , ἃμήτ ʼ εἶδεςμήτ ʼ ἤκουσας , ὡςἰδών , ὡςἀκούσας , ὡςπαρηκολουθηκὼςἅπασιν , ἀφικόμενόςμοιμαρτύρησον , which Windisch (Handbuch zum NT. iv. 2, p. 105) quotes to illustrate the phraseology of this passage. There can be no doubt as to what is the natural interpretation of the writer’ s words. These considerations hold good also against Karl’ s idea of ecstatic vision (Johanneische Studien, p. 3). The hypothesis that the writer when using the first personal plural identifies himself (?) and his readers with the Christian body, some of whom had actually seen the “ Lord,” is open to less objection, but is not really satisfactory. This use of the plural is quite natural in the passage which has sometimes been quoted from Irenaeus (v. 1:1), “ per auditum nostrum uocem eius percipientes.” Irenaeus is emphasizing the fact that the Incarnation was the only means of teaching men the truth about God. In the Introduction to Book V. he has reminded his readers that the Church tradition goes back to Christ Himself. And Christ alone could teach men, in that as God He knows the things of God, and as man He can explain them intelligently to His fellow-men. Here the writer is contrasting his position with that of his readers. He will hand on to them what he and his fellows have seen and heard, that they too, though they have not seen, may believe and share his joy. See Briggs, The Messiah of the Apostles, p. 464; Findlay, Fellowship in the Life Eternal, pp. 87-89.The passages quoted from Tacitus, Agricola, c. 45 (Mox nostrae duxere Heluidium in carcerem manus), and Augustine, Ep. 88, 8 (nostri oculi ab armatis uestris calce et aceto extinguuntur), are not quite parallel. Tacitus, a member of the Senate, but absent from Rome at the time of the incident to which he refers, can naturally, addressing the public in a highly rhetorical passage, identify himself with the disreputable action of the body to which he belongs. Augustine, speaking as a Catholic, and addressing Donatists, can with equal propriety say, “ We suffer persecution at your hands.” But here the writer, speaking as a Christian to Christians, is emphasizing what he and others with whom he identifies himself, have to give to the Christians to whom he writes. “ What we have seen and heard we tell you, that ye may share our joy.” The “ we” are clearly distinguished from the whole body of Christians. ὃἐθεασάμεθα ] The “ message” has so far been viewed in its permanent results. It has been “ heard” and “ seen” so that those who first received it have it as an abiding possession which they can impart to others. Now the facts of its reception are presented in such a way (by the use of the aorist) as to emphasize their character. The different tenses are used with reference to the same object under different aspects. Emphasis is first laid on the results, then on the method. The aorist presents its object as a complete fact, or series of facts regarded as one whole, having a definite character. The witness is not only abiding, it is also satisfactory in kind. It rests on complete and intelligent use of adequate opportunities. There is no reason for restricting the object of the two aorists to the disciples’ experiences after the Resurrection. Such a distinction must have been more clearly marked if the writer intended his readers to grasp it. The special reference of ψηλαφᾶν to Luke 24:39 , or to the incident recorded in John 20:26-29, where the word is not used, appears to be very doubtful. It is simpler to suppose that the same object is described in different ways, corresponding to the natural distinction in meaning between the perfect and aorist. But see Westcott, and comp. Ign. Smyr. iii. Cf. also Tert. Adv. Prax. xxv., de An. xvii., de Pat. iii. ἐθεασάμεθα ] If βλέπειν is to “ look,” and ὁρᾶν to “ see,” θεᾶσθαι is to “ behold,” intelligently, so as to grasp the meaning and significance of that which comes within our vision. Cf. Matthew 6:1; [Mk.] 16:14; Luke 7:24; John 1:14, John 1:38, John 1:4:35, John 1:11:45; Acts 1:11; Romans 15:24; 1 John 4:12, 1 John 4:14. In the LXX the word occurs only eight times, and in the later books; cf. 2 Chronicles 22:6, and especially 2 Mac. 3:36 ἅπερἦνὑπ ʼ ὄψιντεθεαμένος . The word nearly always suggests careful and deliberate vision which interprets, rightly or wrongly, its object. The witnesses have not only seen and remembered. Their “ seeing” was of such a character as to enable them to appreciate rightly the significance of what they saw. καὶαἱχεῖρεςἡμῶνἐψηλάφησαν ] Cf. Luke 24:39, already quoted, and the note on ἑωράκαμεν . The Lord’ s command in Luke, and the incident recorded by the writer in his Gospel, illustrate the meaning of the words. But their reference is wider than to any definite events between the Resurrection and the Ascension.ψηλαφᾶν is to grope or feel after in order to find, like a blind man or one in the dark; hence to handle, touch. The idea of searching sometimes disappears altogether. It may also be used in the sense of “ examine closely.” Cf. Polyb. viii. 18. 4 (quoted by L and S.), πᾶσανἐπινοίαν : Genesis 27:12, μήποτεψηλαφήσῃμεὁπατήρμου (of Isaac): Deuteronomy 28:29, ἔσῃψηλαφῶνμεσημβρίας : Isaiah 59:10, ψηλαφήσουσινὡςτυφλοὶτοῖχον : Ps. 113:15, χεῖραςἔχουσικαὶοὐψηλαφήσουσι : Job 20:10 (A), αἱδὲχεῖρεςαὐτοῦψηλαφήσουσινὀδυνάς . Here it naturally suggests all the evidence available for sense-perception other than hearing and sight. Possibly it emphasizes the reality of that with which they had been brought into contact, in opposition to the Docetism which may have characterized the views of the writer’ s opponents. It certainly marks the intimate character of their personal intercourse with the Lord. Their opportunities included all that was necessary to make their witness ἀληθινή as well as ἀληθής , satisfactory in kind as well as accurate so far as it went. They were competent witnesses who spoke the truth. Cf. John 19:35. περὶτοῦλόγουτῆςζωῆς ] Dr. Westcott’ s phrase “ the revelation of life” probably gives most accurately the meaning of the words: the whole message which reveals, or which gives life. Compare John 6:68, ῥήματαζωῆςαἰωνίου , and John 3:34, τὰῥήματατοῦθεοῦ . The exact meaning of the genitive is doubtful. As a rule, when λόγος is followed by a genitive, not of a person, the genitive expresses the contents of the message. Cf. Matthew 13:19 , Acts 13:26 , 14:3, 20:32 , 15:7 ; 1 Corinthians 1:18 ; 2 Corinthians 5:19 ; Ephesians 1:13 ; Philippians 2:16 ; Colossians 1:5 ; 1 Thessalonians 2:13 ; 2 Timothy 2:15 ; Hebrews 6:1 ; Revelation 1:3 . On the other hand, where ζωῆς is added to a noun as a qualifying genitive it generally, though not always, denotes “ life-giving,” or some cognate idea. Cf. John 5:29 , 6:35 , 48, 68 (ῥήματα , cf. 63), 8:12 ; Acts 2:28 (ὁδούς , = Psalms 16:11), 3:15 , 5:20 ; Romans 5:18 , 6:4 ; Philippians 2:16 , 4:3 ; 2 Timothy 1:1 , James 1:12 ; 1 P. 3:7 ; Revelation 2:7 , 10 , 3:5 , 11:11 , 16:3 , 17:8 , 20:12, 15, 21:27, 21:6 , 22:1 , 2 , 14, 19 , 17 . But the two meanings are not mutually exclusive. The message which announces life gives life (cf. John 5:39).περί ] What the writer has to announce concerns the word of life. He does not claim to handle the whole message. He has something to tell about it. On the bearing of this preparation as the meaning of the whole verse, see the note on ὁἦνἀπ ʼ ἀρχῆς . 2. For the use of parenthesis to emphasize or explain a specially important word, cf. John 19:35. In this parenthesis the emphatic word is ἐφανερώθη , which is repeated at the end of the verse. The writer and his circle could bear their witness about the word of life, because the life had been manifested, to men and under conditions which made it possible for men to apprehend its nature. The reference is in quite general terms. ἡζωή is never used to express the being of the (personal) Logos, or pre-existent Christ. According to Weiss, φανεροῦν never denotes the becoming visible of that which was before invisible, but the making clear of what was hitherto unknown (he compares John 2:11, John 3:21, John 7:4, John 9:3, John 17:6). But the distinction is hard to maintain in view of the Johannine usage of verbs of sight to include the understanding of that which falls under the ocular vision (cf. John 3:3). φανεροῦν may be used of all processes of making known, whether intellectual or sensible. ἀπαγγέλλομεν ] It is doubtful whether a distinction can be maintained between ἀπαγγέλλειν , “ to repeat with reference to the source from which the message comes,” and ἀναγγέλλειν , “ to report with reference to the persons addressed” (ver. 5). See ver. 3, ἀπαγγέλλομενκαὶὑμῖνἵνακαὶὑμεῖςκ .τ .λ . τὴνζωὴντὴναἰώνιον ] For the double article, cf. 2:25, and ver. 3, ἡκοινωνίαἡἡμετέρα : John 10:11, ὁποιμὴνὁκαλός . The idea is first put forward generally, and then more particularly defined. It is strange to find it stated (Weiss, Comm. p. 28) that αἰώνιος is always used in the N.T. in the sense of endless duration, or even that ζωὴαἰώνιος denotes in S. John (as in S. Paul) “ our everlasting further life (ewiges weiterleben) after the death of the body” (Karl, p. 6). It would be truer to say that it never has the sense of endless duration. On the other hand, it does not denote what is supra-temporal. It can only mean “ belonging to the age” of which the writer is speaking or thinking, and so comes to mean possessed of the characteristics of that age. If the “ age to come” is supra-temporal, then αἰώνιος denotes that the subject which it qualifies has this characteristic.“ Spiritual” probably suggests its meaning most clearly in popular language. The words which it is used in the N.T. to qualify are: πῦρ , ζωή , κόλασις , κρίσις , ἁμάρτημα , σκηναί , χρόνοι , θεός , βάρος , δόξης , οἰκιά , ὀλεθρος , παράκλησις , κράτος , δόξα , ἐλπίς , σωτηρία , κρίμα , λύτρωσις , πνεῦμα , κληρονομία , διαθήκη , βασιλεία , εὐαγγέλιον . Of the 71 instances of its use in the N.T., 44 are passages in which it qualifies ζωή . Its meaning is best considered in the light of this fact. It is noticeable that in the Johannine Gospel and Epistles, where it occurs 23 times, it is never used in any other connection. ἥτις ] The life manifested in Christ, to which His personal disciples could bear witness on the strength of what they had seen and heard, is eternal, inasmuch as it is in union with the Father that it attains to its true realization. The distinction between ὅς and ὅστις , which disappears altogether in late Greek, can still, as a rule, be traced in the New Testament, where in all probability ὅστις is never a mere substitute for the relative. It either suggests a reason for what has been stated before, as here, or it introduces the designation of a class to which the antecedent belongs. (Cf. Matthew 7:26, Matthew 13:52.) πρός ] Cf. John 1:2, ἦνπρὸςτὸνθεόν , and Dr. Westcott’ s note on the differences of meaning between πρός and other prepositions denoting relations. Expressed in simpler language, the particular force of πρός would seem to be that it suggests a relation realized in active communion and intercourse. Cf. Mark 6:3, οὐκεἰσὶναἱἀδελφαὶαὐτοῦὧδεπρὸςἡμᾶς ; 9:19. The true life of the Son was realized in union and communion with the Father. By means of the Incarnation it was manifested to men. 3. ὃἑωράκαμενκαὶἀκηκόαμεν ] Resumption. The announcement rests on eye- and ear-witness. The difference in order, if it is not purely a matter of rhythm, may perhaps throw more emphasis on the earthly life of the Incarnate Logos, in which what was seen naturally takes precedence of what was heard, as contrasted with the wider description of revelation in ver. 1, where hearing must come before seeing. The treatment of minute differences in this Epistle, and in the Johannine writings generally, is a difficult question. There can be no doubt that very often they are either deliberate, and intended to convey some slight change of meaning, or the outcome of the exact train of thought which has led to the particular expression.καὶὑμῖν ] To find in these words a proof that the writer is addressing a circle of readers different from those among whom he began his Apostolic work, and therefore a special appropriateness in their use by one who had changed the sphere of his activity from Palestine to Asia Minor, is forced. (Cf. Zahn, Einleitung in das NT. p. 566, “ frü her an anderen Orten … jetzt im Kreise der Gemeinden, an welche Deu_1 Jo. gerichtet ist” ; trans. 3. p. 358.) Such a thought could not have been conveyed to his readers by so obscure a hint. It is always dangerous to read into the words of this Epistle the things which any particular theory of its authorship make it desirable to find there. On the other hand, the words do not “ show the readers of this Epistle to be those who are the hearers of all his Apostolic preaching” (Weiss, p. 30). Their more probable significance is suggested by the following καὶὑμεῖς . What the eye-witnesses have heard and seen they announce to others as well, in order that they too may share the fellowship which Apostles and disciples have so long enjoyed. κοινωνίανἔχητε ] The exact phrase is found only in this Epistle in the N.T. The writer is rather fond of the use of ἔχειν with a substantive to intensify the meaning of a verb. Cf. his use of it with ἁμαρτίαν , χρείαν , παρρησίαν , ἐλπίδα , ζωήν , κόλασιν . As contrasted with the simple verb, which merely expresses the fact, it may perhaps suggest the sense “ to have and enjoy.” Κοινωνεῖν is always used of active participation, where the result depends on the co-operation of the receiver as well as on the action of the giver. Cf. Philo, Leg. ad Caium, § 4 (quoted by Grimm), τίςοὖνκοινωνίαπρὸςἈπόλλωνατῷμηδὲνοἰκεῖονἐπιτηδευκότι ; 1 Corinthians 10:16, οὐχὶκοινωνίατοῦσώματοςτοῦΧριστοῦἐστίν ; It does not properly denote a merely passive sharing, as μετοχή can express, though the words are sometimes used interchangeably; cf. 2 Corinthians 6:14, τίςγὰρμετοχὴδικαιοσύνῃκαὶἀνομίᾳἢτίςκοινωνίαφωτὶπρὸςσκότος ; see T. S. Evans in the Speaker’ s Comm. on 1 Corinthians 10:16. καὶ … δέ ] Cf. John 6:51, καὶὁἄρτοςδέ : 3 John 1:12, καὶἡμεῖςδὲμαρτυροῦμεν . It may be considered doubtful whether “ the καί emphasizes, while the δέ serves as connecting particle.” The use of καὶ … δέ would seem rather to develop and intensify a thought or idea. See Ellicott on 1 Timothy 3:10. “ Fellowship, I say; and remember that the fellowship of which we speak, and which we enjoy, is no less than fellowship with God and His Son.” Comp. John 17:11, John 17:20-23.μετὰτοῦπατρὸςκ .τ .λ .] Fellowship with God became possible when Christ revealed Him to men as the Father, with whom His children could enter into communication. Such fellowship, i.e. that which is possible between parent and child, is only realized in and through Jesus Christ, the man whom God sent to make Him known. The title ἸησοῦςΧριστός always emphasizes both ideas, of the historical life and human nature of Jesus of Nazareth, and of the Divine commission of God’ s Messiah. And the use of the title “ Son” emphasizes His capacity to make God known. The writer can conceive of no adequate knowledge of God which can be apprehended by man except in so far as it is revealed in a real human life, by one who is an only be gotten Son of God. Only a Son can reveal the Father. Only an only-begotten Son, who, so to speak, sums up in Himself all the qualities of His Father, which are completely reproduced in one heir, and not distributed among many children, is in a position to make such a revelation complete. The burden of the writer’ s message is summed up in the last verse of the Prologue to the Gospel, “ God hath no man seen at any time; God onlybegotten (or the only-begotten Son), who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him.” 4. ταῦτα ] The reference is most probably to the contents of the Epistle, “ already present to the writer’ s mind.” There are many instances in which it is a matter of dispute whether the writer, in using οὗτος , αὕτη , ταῦτα , τοῦτο , ἐντούτῳ , ἐκτούτου , διὰτοῦτο , etc., intends to refer to what has preceded or what follows. Both usages are found in the Epistle, but the reference forward would seem to be his prevailing custom. Sixteen instances may be noted where the reference is to what follows (preceded by καί , 1:4, 2:3, 3:23, 24; without καί , 2:6, 3:1, 8, 10, 16, 4:2, 9, 13, 17, 5:4, 2:14) as against seven where the reference to what preceded is at least probable (without καί , 2:22, 26, 4:6, 5:6, 13, 20; preceded by καί , 4:3). Here the reference is probably to what follows. The ταῦτα are not identical with the message described in ver. 3, nor are they contrasted with it. They are the part of it, or the things to be said in explanation of it, which it is expedient that the author should communicate in writing. Scriptio valde confirmat (Bengel). γράφομενἡμεῖς ] Both words are emphatic. The αὐτόπται have always borne their witness by preaching or teaching. Now there is much that the survivors, or survivor, must write down. In this context ἡμεῖς must mean “ we who have seen and heard,” whether the seeing and hearing are to be interpreted literally or metaphorically. And the literal interpretation is undoubtedly the most natural. The word contains no claim to Apostolical authority, unless, indeed, none but Apostles could rightly claim to be witnesses of what has been described in vv. 1-3. And it does not justify the view that at the time of writing many still survived who had seen the Lord. The conditions are satisfied if even one survivor only is speaking in the name of those of whom he is the last representative, especially if he is addressing Christians among whom the later survivors had spent their last years. It points quite naturally to the “ Johannine” circle at Ephesus, but it does no more than point. It offers no proof. The plur. γράφομεν does not occur again in the Johannine Epistles. ἵνα … ᾖπεπληρωμένη ] For the resolved tense, cf. John 16:24. And for the sense, cf. John 15:11, John 17:13, John 4:36, John 3:29. The writer’ s joy is increased the more his readers can realize the fellowship of which he has spoken, and to promote which is the object of his letter. ἡμῶν ] It is very difficult to decide between the readings ἡμῶν and ὑμῶν . The former is supported by better MSS, and the latter may possibly be affected by assimilation to John 16:24. On the other hand, ἡμεῖς is almost certainly the true text just before, and the reading ὑμῶν offers a pointed contrast, “ we who have seen must write, that you who have not seen may enter into full joy.” And it is a contrast which would not appeal to scribes. Perhaps, however, the ἡμῶν suits best the thought of the writer. He would not dissociate himself, and other teachers, from the common joy felt by all when his readers attain “ fellowship.” In the spiritual harvest, sower and reaper rejoice together. 2. εωρακαμεν ] pr. ο B 3 40: + καιακηκοαμπεν 40 | τηνζωην ] om. K | τηναιωνιον ] om. boh-cod. 3. ακηκοαμεν ] καιεωρακαμεν א harl. | και 1:0] om. boh-cod. απαγγελλομεν ]pr. και א kscr am. arm-codd. Thphyl.: καταγγελλομεν Ib 253ff (Greg. 2). καιυμιν א A B C P 7. 13. 40. 68. 180 harl. syrsch etp sah. arm. aeth. Did. Aug.] om. και K L al. pler. cat. vg. arm-codd. cop. syrp txt Dionys. Oec. Aug. καιυμεις ] om. και sah. syrsch. καιηκοινωνιαδε ] om. και boh-txt.: om. δε C P 13. 27. 29. 69. 81. 180 ascr vg. sah. arm. (uid.) syrp. αυτου ]om. sah. 4. γραφομεν ] scripsimus, am. harl.: γραφω K453 (62) arm-codd. boh-codd. ημεις א A B P 13 harl. sah.] υμιν Acorr al. fere. om. cat. vg. syrntr cop. arm. aeth. Thphyl. Oec. ημων א B L 31. 39. 40. 42. 57. 76. 78. 95. 98. 99. 100. 101. 105. 114. 177. 190. 1lect 13lect 14lect 3pe Rev_8 scr am. fu. harl. tol. sah. syrsch are Thphylcom Oeccom] υμων A C K P al. plu. vgcle demid. cop. syrp arm. aeth. Thphyltxt Oectxt. πεπληρωμενη ] + ενημιν C*. ινα ] ut gaudeatis et vg. (om. gaudeatis et am.). A. 1:5-2:27. First description of the two signs of fellowship with God, expressed negatively. First refutation of the twofold “ lie.” The “ ethical” and “ christological” theses presented one after the other, without any definition of their mutual relations. I. I 1:5-2:17. Walking in light the true sign of fellowship with God (ethical thesis). Refutation of the one “ lie.” 1. 1:5-2:6. The thesis maintained in two parallel statements (a) 1:5-10. The nature of God and the consequent relation of man to God 1:5-10. Having stated that his object in writing is to enable his readers to enter into fellowship, and that the mutual fellowship of Christians leads onwards to that higher fellowship with God in Christ on which indeed it is based, the writer proceeds to deduce from the nature of God the conditions under which fellowship with Him is possible. He does so by setting aside three false pleas often urged by those who claim such fellowship, the denial of the bearing of moral conduct on spiritual communion, of the responsibility for sinful action, of the actual fact of having sinned. With regard to the first two he states by way of contrast the provision made by God for overcoming the hindrances which would seem to prevent the possibility of fellowship with God, in the case of those who by their conduct or their confession refuse to shelter themselves behind such false pleas. The verses which follow contain a similar contrast, expanded into a different form in order to meet a difficulty which might be suggested by what has been said in this passage. 5. The nature of God. God is light, and therefore only those whose conduct can be described as “ walking in light,” can enjoy fellowship with such a Being. In form the opening of the Epistle is closely parallel to that of the Gospel. This verse corresponds to John 1:19, and it is introduced in exactly the same way . There also the idea of “ witness” is taken up from the middle verses of the Prologue, just as ἀγγελία here takes up the ἀπαγγέλλομεν of vv. 2, 3. καί ] The connection with what immediately precedes is not obvious. According to Dr. Westcott it must be found in the idea of fellowship. “ Fellowship must repose upon mutual knowledge” (p. 14). If we are to have fellowship with God and with the brethren, we must know what God is and what we are. False views on either subject must prove a fatal barrier to true fellowship. But see the preceding note. It would seem to be simpler to find the connection further back in the idea of the “ announcement.” He makes his announcement, contained in the letter he finds it necessary to write (ver. 4), with a special purpose which he has now stated. And the burden of the announcement is this, that God is light, and men must walk in light if they would enjoy His fellowship. ἀγγελία ] The simplest form of the word is chosen, as the writer wishes to describe its twofold aspect as a message from God to those whom he addresses, in the following words. It is an ἀπαγγελία from God Himself, ἣνἀκηκόαμενἀπ ʼ αὐτοῦ . It is also an ἀναγγελία meant for those to whom he writes . The word may also suggest that the message contains a conception of God which men could not have formed for themselves without His help. It is a “ revelation and not a discovery,” it is the message which has come from God to be delivered to men.φῶςἐστίν ] Anarthrous to express quality. God’ s nature is best described as “ light.” τὸφῶς would have suggested light in some particular relation, cf. John 1:5-9. φῶς describes His nature as He is, the description being true so far as it goes, though not complete. The primary idea suggested by the word in this context is “ illumination.” It is of the nature of light that it is and makes visible. God’ s nature is such that He must make Himself known, and that knowledge reveals everything else in its true nature. That this thought is present here is suggested by the following section (2:3 ff.). That God can be “ known,” and by those to whom the author is writing, is one of the leading ideas on which he lays special stress. But in view of the use of the metaphor of light and darkness in the Bible generally, and especially in S. John, and of the immediate context in this Epistle, it is impossible to exclude the ethical meaning from the signification of the word here. The context shows that this is the idea which he is most anxious to emphasize. The word must suggest the notes of Holiness and Purity as essential to God’ s nature. The conditions of fellowship on which he insists are closely akin to the Levitical “ Be ye holy, for I am holy, saith the Lord.” The full meaning, however, of what is contained in words is not limited to the sense in which they were probably used and understood by the writer and his first readers. Jesus’ revelation of God as “ Father” goes far beyond what was understood of it by the men of His own generation. For the more permanent meaning of the sentence, and the further ideas which it may be regarded as connoting, see Dr. Westcott’ s note (p. 16 f.); Findlay, p. 102. καὶσκοτίακ .τ .λ .] This is not a mere repetition of the sentence in negative form, in accordance with the writer’ s love of double expression by parallel clauses, positive and negative. And it probably does not merely emphasize the “ perfect realization in God of the idea of light.” It emphasizes rather the completeness of revelation. God is not the ἄρρητοςσιγή , or βυθός , of the more developed Gnostic systems, or the “ unknowable” God of the Gnostic thought which preceded those systems. Though complete knowledge of God is impossible, He can be truly “ known” here and now, under the conditions and limitations of human life. His nature is “ light,” which communicates itself to men, made in His image, till they are transformed into His likeness. From the ethical side, the words also emphasize the conditions of fellowship. Walking in darkness must exclude from the fellowship of Him “ in whom is no darkness at all.” Conduct is not the matter of indifference that in some of the teaching of the time it was made out to be. With the order of ideas here, λόγος , ζωή , φῶς , σκοτία (vv. 2, 5), comp. the same sequence in the Prologue to the Gospel (1, 2, 4, 5). και 1o] om. boh-codd. εστιναυτη א B C K L P 31. 40. 69. 105. 137 ascr cscr al. fere. 60 syrp txt Thphyl. Oec.] αυτηεστιν A 13 al. uix. mu. cat. arm. vg. syrsch et p mg. ηαγγελια א c A B K L al. fere. 70 Cat. Did. Thphylcomm Oeccomm vg. syrsch arm. aeth.] ηεπαγγελια C P 13. 31. 40. 69. 70. 73. 137 ascr al. uixmg sah. cop.(?) syrp Thphyltxt Oectxt: א * (sic). An obvious assimilation to a commoner word by careless scribes. απ ] παρ Ia 264 (233) O46 (154). και 20] om. boh-txt. αναγγελλομεν ] απαγγελλομεν 18. 40. 69. 98. 100. 137. 180. 57lect ascr. εναυτωουκεστιν א A C K L P al. pler. cat. vg. arm. syrp Or. Did. Aug.] ουκεστινεναυτω B 13. 31 aeth. boh. (uid.) Or. Caes. 6-10. The relation of man to God as determined by the fact that God is light. 6. This revelation of God is not made to satisfy speculative curiosity. It bears directly on practical life. If truly apprehended, it puts aside three false pleas often put forward by men to excuse their “ love of darkness.” The first of these pleas is the “ indifference of moral conduct to spiritual communion.” Fellowship with God is impossible where men “ walk in darkness.” The light transforms those who receive it. Those who continue to practise the works of darkness cannot be in fellowship with the light. To assert the opposite is to state what is contrary to the facts as we know them . Now that the revelation of God as light has been made by Jesus Christ, such language is a deliberate lie. And the actual conduct of those who make such a statement belies the claim they put forward to have fellowship with God. Their actions are not an expression in life of the moral ideal revealed by Jesus Christ. They “ do not the truth.” ἐὰνεἴπωμεν ] The form of the sentence introduces a not impossible, perhaps a not unlikely, contingency. And the use of the first person plural, where the writer is thinking of his τεκνία , with whom he is in spiritual fellowship, and with whom he identifies himself as “ compassed with infirmity” and not free from the dangers to which he knows them to be exposed, is an indication that the influence of his opponents had made itself felt both in thought and practice among those who were in the main still faithful to the “ truth” as he conceived it. Throughout the Epistle he writes under a pressing sense of danger. He is not wasting his weapons on purely hypothetical situations, of the realization of which he felt no serious apprehension. μετ ʼ αὐτοῦ ] the Father. The expression must have the same reference as the ἐναὐτῷ of the preceding verse. ἐντῷσκότειπεριπατῶμεν ] Cf. 2:11, ἐντῇσκοτίᾳπεριπατεῖ : John 8:12, περιπατήσῃἐντῇσκοτίᾳ : cf. John 11:9, John 11:10. The metaphor used by the Lord in the Gospel has already become part of the natural religious language of Christian.The use of περιπατεῖν of conduct is common in S Paul and S. John. In the Synoptic Gospels it is found only in Mark 7:5, περιπατοῦσιν … κατὰτὴνπαράδοσιν . Cf. Acts 21:21, τοῖςἔθεσινπεριπατεῖν . For the LXX usage, cf. Proverbs 8:20, ἐνὁδοῖςδικαιοσύνηςπεριπατῶ : Ecclesiastes 11:9, περιπάτειἐνὁδοῖςκαρδίαςσουἄμωμος : and for the use of “ walk” in connection with φῶς , Isaiah 2:5, δεῦτεπορευθῶμεντῷφωτὶκυρίου . For the false views combated in this verse we may compare Clem. Al. Str. iii .4. 30, τοιαῦτακαὶοἱἀπὸΠροδίκουψευδωνύμωςΓνωστικοὺςσφᾶςαὐτοὺςἀναγορεύοντεςδογματίζουσινυἱοὺςμὲνφύσειτοῦπρώτουθεοῦλέγοντεςαὑτούς , καταχρώμενοιδὲτῇεὐγενείᾳκαὶτῇἐλευθερίᾳζῶσινὡςβούλονται · βούλονταιδὲφιληδόνως · and 5:40, ἀδιαφόρωςζῆνδιδάσκουσιν : and later, πᾶςβίοςἀκίνδυνοςἐκλεκτῷ . Iren. 1. vi. 2, τὸπνευματικὸνθέλουσινοἱαὐτοὶεἷναιἀδύνατονφθορὰνκαταδέξασθαι , κἂνὁποίαιςσυγκαταγένωνταιπράξεσιν . σκότει ] The distinction can hardly be maintained in this Epistle between σκότος , “ the concrete thing called darkness,” and σκοτία , “ its abstract quality” (cf. 2:11); or, as Dr. Westcott defines it, “ darkness absolutely, opposed to light,” and “ darkness realized as a state.” The form σκότος occurs only here and in John 3:19 in the Johannine writings. οὐποιοῦμεντὴνἀλήθειαν ] Cf. John 3:21, ὁδὲποιῶντὴνἀλήθειανἔρχεταιπρὸςτὸφῶς , ἵναφανερωθῇαὐτοῦτὰἔργαὅτιἐνθεῷἐστινεἰργασμένα , where the thoughts of this verse find expression in a positive form. Compare also Nehemiah 9:33, ὅτιἀλήθειανἐποίησας : and for the opposite expression, Revelation 21:27, ὁποιῶνβδέλυγμακαὶψεῦδος : 22:15, ὁφιλῶνκαὶποιῶνψεῦδος . To “ do the truth,” or to “ do a lie,” are natural expressions in the Johannine system of thought in which ἀλήθεια has a far wider signification than that with which its modern connotation familarizes us. The Johannine usage corresponds with the meaning of the Hebrew א מ ת , which denotes reliability, faithfulness, and therefore, when it refers to what is spoken, truth. We may compare the phrases ע ש ׂ ֹ ה ת ס ד ו א מ ת , Genesis 24:49, Genesis 24:47:29; Joshua 2:14; 2S. 15:20; and ה ל ך ב א מ ת , 1 K. 2:4, 3:6; 2 K. 20:3; Isaiah 38:3. The “ truth” has no exclusive reference to the sphere of the intellect. It expresses that which is highest, most completely in conformity with the nature and will of God, in any sphere of being. In relation to man it has to do with his whole nature, moral and spiritual as well as intellectual. “ Speaking” the truth is only one part of “ doing” the truth, and not the most important. To “ do the truth” is to give expression to the highest of which he is capable in every sphere of his being. It relates to action, and conduct and feeling, as well as to word and thought. εαν ] + γαρ A. τωσκοτει ] τασκοτια Hδ 6 .7. “ Walking in the light,” i.e. the conscious and sustained endeavour to live a life in conformity with the revelation of God, who is “ light,” especially as that revelation has been made finally and completely in Jesus Christ, is the necessary condition of fellowship. Where this condition is fulfilled, fellowship is real. To claim it is no lie. Comp. “ The righteous … will live in goodness and righteousness, and will walk in eternal light” (Book of Enoch xcii. 4). αὐτόςἐστιν ] The contrast is significant. Men “ walk” in light, God “ is” in it. Findlay, pp. 100-102. μετ ʼ ἀλλήλων ] The strict antithesis to ver. 6, “ if we claim fellowship with God, while our conduct does not correspond to the claim, we lie,” would naturally be, “ if we walk in light we can claim fellowship with God.” This has led to the alteration of ἀλλήλων in some texts, αὐτοῦ or cum Deo being substituted for it. These readings are clearly attempts at simplification. The writer follows his usual custom. Instead of contenting himself with an exact antithesis, he carries the thought a step further. Fellowship among Christians “ shows the reality of that larger spiritual life which is life in God” (Wstct.). It is based on fellowship with God, and it is the active realization of that fellowship. As Christians enter into fuller fellowship with each other, the more fully they come to live the life “ in God” into which they have been born again. μετ ʼ ἀλλήλων cannot mean “ we with God, and God with us” (Aug. Ew. etc.), nor can it mean that we share with each other the Divine indwelling (Karl), though mutual fellowship is the first step in the path which leads to that. καί ] And where the endeavour to “ walk in light” is carried out (it depends on the exercise of man’ s will whether or not the endeavour is made), the removal of sin, which hinders fellowship with God, is possible in consequence of what the Son of God has gained for men by His human life, the power of which has been set free by death so as to become available for all men.τὸαἷμακ .τ .λ .] As Westcott has pointed out, the significance of “ blood” in Jewish thought is most clearly expressed in Leviticus 17:11. The blood “ atones” through the life which is said to be “ in” the blood. The power of Christ’ s life, freely rendered to God, throughout His life and in His death, and set free by death for wider service than was possible under the limitations of a human life in Palestine at a definite date, is effective for the gradual removal of sin in those who attempt to realize their union with God in Him. The use of καθαρίζει determines the sense to be the removal of sin rather than the cancelling of guilt. As ritual cleanness was the condition of approach to God under the Jewish sacrificial system, so the “ blood” of Christ cleans men’ s consciences for God’ s service and fellowship. See Briggs, The Messiah of the Apostles, p. 469. καθαρίζει ] In the Synoptists the word is used especially of cleansing from leprosy . In the Fourth Gospel it does not occur, but the adjective καθαρός is found in the Discourses of the Upper Room (13:10, 11, 15:3). In Acts it is used in the sense of “ pronouncing clean” (5:15, 11:9), and also (15:9) with τὰςκαρδίας : cf. 2 Corinthians 7:1; Ephesians 5:26; Titus 2:14; Hebrews 9:14, Hebrews 9:22, Hebrews 9:23, Hebrews 9:10:2; Test. Rub. 4:8. In the LXX it is found as the equivalent of ט ה ר and ה ק ה in the senses (1) to cleanse, (2) to pronounce clean. The present tense may point to the νίψασθαι , of which even ὁλελουμένος has frequent need in his walk through a soiling world (John 13:10). “ Docet hic locus gratuitam peccatorum veniam non semel tantum nobis dari, sed perpetuo in ecclesia residere” (Calvin). Ἰησοῦτοῦυἱοῦαὐτοῦ ] Cf. 4:15, 5:5; Hebrews 4:14 . As man He gained the power to help men. As Son of God His help is effective. πάσηςἁμαρτίας ] Sin in all its forms and manifestations; Matthew 12:31. Cf. James 1:2, πᾶσαχαρά : Ephesians 1:8, πᾶσασοφία : and for the singular, 1 John 3:4, 1 John 3:8, 1 John 3:9. The writer is apparently thinking of sin as an active power, showing itself in many forms, rather than of specific acts of sin. Weiss’ interpretation “ all sins,” i.e. not only of the pre-Christian period of a man’ s life, but also those committed in the course of Christian life, would require the plural. But in general sense it is correct, and rightly throws the emphasis on πάσης , sin in whatsoever form it may manifest itself. Karl’ s limitation of the meaning to sins committed before men became Christians , is not justified by the words used by the writer. And the reason suggested, that “ post-Christian” sins require also intercession (Johannische Studien, pp. 18, 82), is a curious instance of the perversion of an excellent principle, that of interpreting the Epistle by the help of the Epistle itself. δε ] om. 29. 66** harl. * boh-txt. | εστιν ] ambulat, boh-txt. μεταλληλων א Acorr B C K L P etc.] μεταυτου A*uid tol. Clem. Tert. Did.: cum Deo, harl. τουυιουαυτουιῡχῡ H 257 (33) Ia 192 (318). ιησου א B C P 29. 69 ** ascr fu. syrsch et p txt sah. boh-txt. arm. aethro Clem. Fulg.] + Χριστου A K L al. pler. cat. vg. boh-codd. syrp c* aethpp Tert. Aug. Bed. τουυιουαυτου ] om. aeth. Aug. (semel) Ic 174. καθαριζει ] καθαρισει 5. 106. 13lect 14lect Rev_2 scr: καθαριει 6. 7. 29. 66** Aug. (bis): purgabit, sah. cop. 8. The second false plea denies the abiding power of sin as a principle in one who has committed sins. To those who hold such a view, sin ceases to be of any importance. It is merely a passing incident which leaves behind it no lasting consequences. The plea rests on self-deception. It can only be maintained by those who shut their eyes to the teaching of experience, in themselves or in others. And they lead themselves astray. The consequences must be fatal unless men acknowledge their mistake and retrace their steps. ἐὰνεἴπωμεν ] For the general idea, cf. Proverbs 20:9, τίςπαρρησιάσεταικαθαρὸςεἶναιἀπὸἁμαρτιῶν , and 28:13, ὁἐπικαλύπτωνἀσέβειανἑαυτοῦοὐκεὐοδωθήσεται . ἁμαρτίανοὐκἔχομεν ] Cf. πίστινἔχειν , to have faith, as an active principle working in us and forming our character. To “ have sin” is not merely a synonym for to commit sins. This is necessitated by the contrast demanded by ver. 10 between ἁμαρτίανοὐκἔχομεν and οὐχἡμαρτήκαμεν .“ Sin” is the principle of which sinful acts are the several manifestations. So long as a Christian commits sins, sin is an active power working in him; and its power still remains after the forgiveness of sins which he received at his baptism. To deny this is to refuse to accept the teaching of experience.In the N.T. the use of the phrase ἁμαρτίανἒχειν is confined to this Epistle and the Fourth Gospel (9:41, 15:22, 24, 19:11). The meaning of the phrase in the Gospel has been raised as an objection to the interpretation given above. It is maintained that in the Gospel it has a quite definite sense, and that it “ specifically denotes the guiltiness of the sin” (Law, The Tests of Life, p. 130); and it is suggested that the meaning here must be, “ If we say that we have no guilt, no responsibility for the actions, wrong in themselves, which we have committed.” It is probably true that as compared with the simple verb the phrase accentuates the ideas of guilt and responsibility. And in the passages in the Gospel where the phrase occurs these ideas are prominent. But they are contained in the Hebrew conception of sin, emphatically developed in the teaching of the N.T., rather than in the one expression as opposed to the other. He who has committed sin is responsible for his action, just as much as he who “ has sin” and who feels, or should feel, in himself the presence of a power which manifests itself in his sinful acts. And though the idea of guilt is prominent in the use of the phrase in the Gospel, especially in 15:22, where the antithesis, “ Now they have no excuse for their sin,” must be noticed, it does not exhaust the meaning of the phrase as used there. Cf. 9:41, εἰτυφλοὶἦτεοὐκἄνεἴχετεἁμαρτίαν . If they had been as ignorant, and conscious of their ignorance, as the man whom they had condemned, they might have learned, and whatever “ sin” they had would have lost its power. But their refusal to see the truth when it was presented to them, and their insistence that they knew, in spite of this, gave their sin an abiding power over them. Henceforth it could prevent any possibility of their seeing the truth. And the same idea is present in ch. 15. The rejection of Christ’ s words by His opponents had given sin a power over them, which it could never have had but for their missing the opportunity of better things. As it was, they not only had “ sin” as an active power established in them and working its will, but they had no excuse to offer for its presence there (πρόφασινοὐκἔχουσινπερὶτῆςἁμαρτίαςαὐτῶν , which cannot mean “ they have no excuse for their guilt,” and which is not merely antithetical but adds a further point). This meaning is especially clear in ver. 24. The “ sin” which had got its hold, in consequence of their rejecting Him in spite of what He had done among them, had conceived and brought forth hate . And the phrase may possibly be used with something of the same meaning in 19:11, ὁπαραδιδοὺς … μείζοναἁμαρτίανἔχει , though in this case the simpler meaning “ the greater guilt” is more plausible. But even here the thought may be of the power which sin acquires over him who admits it. Sin could now work with more fatal power in the High Priest, who knew the relative power of God and of the Roman governor, and who incited him to his crime against justice, than in Pilate, who in spite of his greater power was more ignorant than the Jew. Even if the phrase meant no more in the Gospel than the denotation of the “ guiltiness of the agent,” it would not necessarily bear exactly the same meaning in the Epistle. The writer likes to put new meaning into the phrases he repeats. But probably, though the exact nuance may be different in the two writings, the fundamental idea expressed is the same. It is the special characteristic of the writer that he loves to use his phrases, of which his store is but scanty, with slightly different shades of meaning. ἑαυτοὺςπλανῶμεν ] The phrase, as contrasted with the simple πλανώμεθα , emphasizes the agent’ s responsibility for the mistake. The evidence is there; only wilful blindness refuses to accept it. We have no excuse for the sin which we “ have,” in spite of our denial of the fact. See Findlay, p. 106. πλανᾶν always suggests the idea of leading astray from the right path (cf. 2:26, 3:7; John 7:12; Revelation 2:20, Revelation 12:9, etc.). The mistake must have fatal consequences until we lead ourselves back into the way of truth.καὶἡἀλήθειακ .τ .λ .] The statement that we have not sin, shows that those who make it have not “ truth” working in them as an inner and effective principle. For the meaning of “ truth,” cf. note on ver. 6. It is more than the sense of truth, uprightness and honesty of self-examination and self-knowledge (cf. Rothe, ad loc.). It can be regarded both objectively and subjectively, either as something that can be done (ver. 6), an external standard in accordance with which actions must be shaped, or as an inner principle, working from within and moulding a man’ s inner life. ουκεστιν א B L al. pler. sah. syrp aeth. Tert. Oec.] post ημιν A C K P 5. 13. 31*. 65. 69. 137. 180 ascr Rev_2 scr cat. m 75 vg. syrp arm. Thphyl. Cyp. Lcif. Aug. Probably an accidental alteration, possibly due to Latin influence, and, at any rate, naturally maintained in Latin authorities. 9. The existence of sin, even in those who have entered the Christian community, is a patent fact. But it does not make impossible that fellowship with God which sin interrupts. In those who acknowledge the fact, God has provided for its forgiveness and removal. πιστὸςκαὶδίκαιος ] Not “ faithful because He is just,” and justice in His relation to men includes the necessity of His fulfilling the promises which He has made. The two adjectives are co-ordinate. God’ s faithfulness is shown in the fulfilment of His promises. He is just, in that, in spite of men’ s failures to fulfil their obligations, He remains true to the covenant which He made with them; and this includes forgiveness on certain conditions. It is probable that throughout the Bible this idea of faithfulness to His covenant in spite of man’ s unfaithfulness, is the primary signification of δικαιοσύνηθεοῦ . Cf. Hebrews 10:23, πιστὸςὁἐπαγγειλάμενος , and Romans 3:25, εἰςἔνδειξιντῆςδικαιοσύνηςαὐτοῦδιὰτὴνπάρεσιντῶνπρογεγονότωνἁμαρτημάτωνἐντῇἀνοχῇτοῦθεοῦ .ἵνα ] Defines the sphere in which the faithfulness and the justice are shown. In view of the usage of the writer, and the frequency of the definitive ἵνα in papyrus documents, it is difficult to maintain the “ telic” force of ἵνα throughout the N.T. It may be worth while to collect (roughly) the passages in the Johannine books where the “ telic” force has given way to the definitive: John 1:27, ἄξιοςἴναλύσω :2:25, οὐχρείανεἶχενἵνατιςμαρτυρήσῃ : 4:47, ἠρώταἵνακαταβῇ :5:7, ἄνθρωπονοὐκἔχω … ἵναβάλῃ :6:29, τοῦτόἐστιτὸἔργονἵναπιστεύητε 39, τοῦτοἐστὶντὸθέλημα … ἵνα … μὴἀπολέσω : cf. 40; 8:56, ἠγαλλιάσατοἵναἴδῃ :9:22, συνετέθειντο … ἵναἐάντιςαὐτὸνὁμολογήσῃΧριστὸνἀποσυνάγωγοςγένηται :11:50, συμφέρει … ἵναἀποθάνῃ :57, δεδώκεισαν … ἐντολὰςἵναἐάντιςγνῷ … μηνύσῃ : 12:23, ἐλήλυθενἡὥραἵναδοξασθῇ :13:1, ἦλθεναὐτοῦἡὥραἵναμεταβῇ : 2, βεβληκότοςεἰςτὴνκαρδίανἵναπαραδοῖ : 29, λέγειαὐτῷ … ἵναδῷ : 34, ἐντολὴνκαινὴνδίδωμιἵναἀγαπᾶτε : 15:12, αὕτηἐστὶνἡἐντολὴ … ἵναἀγαπᾶτε : 13, μείζοναταύτης … ἵνα … τὴνψυχὴν … θῇ : 16:2, ἔρχεταιὥραἵναπᾶςὁἀποκτείναςὑμᾶςδόξῃ : 7, συμφέρει … ἵνα … ἀπέλθω :30, οὐχρείανἔχειςἵνα … ἐρωτᾶ : 32, ἔρχεταιὥρακαὶἐλήλυθενἵνασκορπισθῆτε :17:3, αὕτηἐστὶνἡαἰώνιοςζωὴἵναγινώσκωσιν :15, ἐρωτῶἵναἄρῃς : 24, θέλωἵνα … ὦσιν :18:39, ἔστιδὲσυνήθεια … ἵνα … ἀπολύσω :19:31, ἠρώτησαν … ἴνακατεαγῶσιν : 38, ἠρώτησεν … ἵναἄρῃ . 1 John 2:27, οὐχρείανἔχετεἵνατιςδιδάσκῃ :3:1, ποταπὴνἀγάπηνδέδωκεν … ἵνακληθῶμεν :11, αὕτηἐστὶνἡἀγγελία … ἵναἀγαπῶμεν : 23, αὕτηἐστὶνἡἐντολὴαὐτοῦἵναπιστεύσωμεν :4:17, ἐντούτῳτετελείωται … ἵναπαρρησίανἔχωμεν : 21, ταύτηντὴνἐντολὴνἔχομεν … ἵνα … ἀγαπᾷ :5:3, αὕτηἐστὶνἡἀγάπη … ἵνα … τηρῶμεν :16, οὐ … λέγωἵναἐρωτήσῃ . 2 John 1:6, αὕτηἐστὶνἡἀγάπη , ἵναπεριπατῶμεν , αὕτηἡἐντολήἐστιν … ἵναπεριπατῆτε . 3 John 1:4, μειζοτέραντούτωνοὐκἔχωχαράν , ἵναἀκούω . Apoc. vi. 11, ἐρρέθηαὐτοῖςἵναἀναπαύσωνται :13:12, ποιεῖ … ἵναπροσκυνήσουσιν :13, ποιεῖσημεῖαμεγάλα , ἵναπῦρποιῇ … καταβαίνειν :15, ποιήσῃ [ἵνα ] … ἀποκτανθῶσιν :16, ποιεῖπάντας … ἵναδῶσιναὐτοῖς [καὶ ] ἵναμήτιςδύνηταιἀγοράσαι : 19:8, ἐδόθηαὐτῇἵναπεριβάληται . Though a few of them might possibly be interpreted differently, there is abundant evidence to establish the usage.ἀφῇ ] The determination of the meaning of this word from the sense of “ send away” is tempting but unsound. Those who can remember the light which was thrown, at least for themselves, on the whole subject of forgiveness, by F. D. Maurice’ s insistence on the view that ἀφιέναι means to “ send away,” and not to let off a penalty or to cancel a debt, will always be grateful for what he said on the subject. But though right in substance, it must be confessed that linguistically his interpretation cannot be defended. The application of the word to “ sin” is almost certainly suggested by the metaphor of the remission or cancelling of debts. At the same time it must be remembered that, as in the case of most metaphorical expressions which are used to emphasize some particular point of similarity, in respect of which comparison is possible, it is confusing to transfer all the associations of the metaphor to the new subject which it is used to illustrate. As applied to “ sins” it suggests the cancelling of the outstanding debt, the removal of that barrier to intercourse between man and God which is set up by sin. And the transaction must be real and not imaginary. God cannot treat it as non-existent, unless it has been actually or potentially removed or destroyed. ἀφιέναι is used in the N.T. in the sense of “ remission” in the following passages: with ὀφείλημα or ὀφειλή , Matthew 6:12, Matthew 18:32: with παράπτωμα , Matthew 6:14, Matthew 6:15; Mark 11:26: with ἁμαρτία or ἁμάρτημα , Matthew 9:2, Matthew 9:5, Matthew 9:6, Matthew 9:12:31; Mark 2:5, Mark 2:7, Mark 2:9, Mark 2:10, Mark 2:3:28, Mark 2:4:12; Luke 5:20-21; Luke 5:23-24; Luke 7:47-49; Luke 11:4; Luke 17:3-4; John 20:23; James 5:15; 1 John 2:12: with τὸδάνιον , Matthew 18:27; without a direct object (or subject), Matthew 12:32, Matthew 12:18:21, Matthew 12:35; Luke 23:34, also in Mark 11:25, Luke 12:10; with ἡἐπίνοιατῆςκαρδίας , Acts 8:22; with ἀνομία , Romans 4:7 ( = Psalms 32:1). The use of κρατεῖν in John 20:23 must be interpreted in the light of this usage of ἀφιέναι . It stands by itself in the N.T. καθαρίσῃ … ἀδικίας ] Cf. Jeremiah 40:8, καὶκαθαριῶαὐτοὺςἀπὸπασῶντῶνἀδικιῶναὐτῶνὧνἡμάρτοσάνμοι . In ἀφιέναι the metaphor is borrowed from the cancelling of debt, but the idea which the metaphor is used to illustrate is ethical. There is therefore no need to equate the meaning of καθαρίζειν to that of ἀφιέναι . It should certainly be interpreted in an ethical sense. πάσηςἀδικίας ] Cf. πάσηςἁμαρτίας . Injustice in whatever form it may manifest itself. ἀδικία denotes injustice, failure to maintain right relations with other men or with God. If God is faithful to forgive sins according to His promise, He is also “ just,” not only to fulfil the terms of His covenant, but also to provide for the cleansing or removal of those injustices of which men have been guilty in their relations with God or with other men. εαν ] + δε Ia 551 (216). ημιν ] om. arm-codd. sah. αμαρτιας (20) A B C K L P al. pler. m tol. vgmg Cyp. Hier. Aug. Thphyl. Oec.]+ ημων א C 5. 26. 68. 69. 98 ascr jscr vg. syrutr sah. boh- txt. arm. aeth. Dam. Aug. Hier.: ea boh-cod.: + πασας Ia 1402 (219). ημας ] om. C | αδικιας ] pr. αμαρτιαςκαὶ O46 (154). 10. The third false plea is the denial of the fact of having committed sin. Though a man may allow the abiding power of sin as a principle in those who have sinned, or the existence of sin in Christians after forgiveness, he may yet deny that he has himself sinned. To do so is to deny the truth of God’ s revelation. Apart from actual statements in Scripture (cf. Psa_13 (14.):3, 52. (53.):2), the whole plan of God’ s dealings with men is based on the assumption that all have sinned. To deny the fact in our own case is to make Him a liar, since it is implied in His whole message to us. His word can have no place in the development of our being. ἡμαρτήκαμεν ] have committed no act of sin, of which the consequences remain.ψεύστην ] Cf. John 8:44, John 8:55; 1 John 2:4, 1 John 2:22, 1 John 2:4:20. And for the exact phrase, 1 John 5:10. ὁλόγος ] Like the truth, the word can be viewed objectively or subjectively, an external message or an inward force effective and active in men. There is, of course, no reference to the personal Logos, though the word implies a more personal relationship than ἀλήθεια . It suggests the speaker. Cf. John 8:37, ὁλόγοςὁἐμὸςοὐχωρεῖἐνὑμῖν : Hebrews 4:12; James 1:21; 1 John 2:14. ουκεστιν ] post ημιν 69. 137 ascr arm. syrp arm. Thphyl. ημιν ] + habitans, arm-osc. A δ 4. Codex Alexandrinus. London. Brit. Mus. Royal Libr. I. D. v.-viii. (v.). L α 5. Rome. Angel. 39 (ol. A. 2. 15) (ix.). B δ 1. Codex Vaticanus. Rome. Vat. Gr. 1209 (iv.). א Ԡ א . δ 2. Codex Sinaiticus. Petersburg (iv.). C δ 3. Codex Ephraimi. Paris. Bibl. Nat. 9 (v.); 1 John 1:1 τους — (2) εωρα [κομεν ]. 4:2 εστιν — (3 John 1:2) ψυχη . P P. α 3. Petersburg. Bibl. Roy. 225 (ix.). Palimpsest. 1 John 3:2-1 του . 13 13 ( = 33gosp.). δ 48. Paris. Bibl. Nat. Gr. 14 (ix.-x.). m m. Liber de divinis Scripturis sive Speculum, ed. Weihrich. Vienna Corpus xii., 1887. The following verses are quoted: 1 John 1:2, 1 John 1:3, 1 John 1:8, 1 John 1:9, 1 John 1:2:9, 1 John 1:10, 21, 23, 3:1 John 1:7-10, 16-18, 1 John 1:4:1, 1 John 1:9, 15, 18, 1 John 1:5:1, 1 John 1:6-8, 1 John 1:10, 20, 21; 2 John 1:7, 2 John 1:10, 2 John 1:11. (b) 2:1-6. Further statement of the conditions of fellowship. Knowledge and obedience 1, 2 The remedy for sin (in the case of those who acknowledge that they have sinned, in contrast with 1:10). 3-5a. Obedience the sign of knowledge. 5b, 6. Imitation the sign of union. 1. The recognition of the universality of sin, from which even Christians are not actually free, might lead to a misconception of its true character. Men might easily pass too lenient judgments on its heinousness, and ignore the responsibility of those who give way to its promptings. If it is impossible for any one, even the Christian, to escape sin, why condemn with such uncompromising severity failures for which men cannot reasonably be held responsible? Why strive so earnestly against what is inevitable? The writer hastens to warn his readers against such conclusions. Sin is wholly antagonistic to the Christian ideal; his whole object in trying to set out that ideal more clearly is to prevent sin, not to condone it. His aim in writing is to bring about “ sinlessness” . And the Christian scheme includes means by which such an aim may be gradually realized. Whenever any one gives way to any act of sin, such as must interrupt the intercourse and fellowship between men and God, which it is the great aim of Christ’ s work to establish, the means exist by which this fellowship may be restored. Christians have an “ advocate” with the Father (πρός : cf. 1:2), who is able and willing to plead their cause, to present their case truly and completely, to transact their business, to speak for them, if non-legal phrases convey the meaning more clearly. And His mediation is addressed to one who is Father of both Advocate and suppliants, as eager as they can be that the fellowship should be restored, on the only terms on which such fellowship can be restored, the removal of the sin which has interrupted it.τεκνίαμου ] The “ Elder,” who is perhaps the representative of a generation which has almost passed away, naturally thinks of the younger generation to whom he is speaking as his “ children.” And when he wishes to emphasize the importance of the thought which he has to teach, he naturally falls into the language of affectionate endearment. Whether he is thinking of them as his “ sons in the faith,” who owe their conversion to Christianity to his ministry, is uncertain. We do not know the historical circumstances of the case with sufficient accuracy to determine. ταῦτα ] must refer to the contents of the whole Epistle, already present to the mind of the writer, rather than to the preceding chapter or any part of it, though to some extent the main teaching of the Epistle has been already declared in outline. ἵναμὴἁμάρτητε ] The aorist suggests definite acts of sin rather than the habitual state, which is incompatible with the position of Christians who are in truth what their name implies. Those who are bathed need not save to wash their feet; cf. John 13:10. καὶἐάν ] The sentence introduced by these words is not contrasted with the preceding, but added to it “ as a continuous piece of one message.” The writer’ s object is to produce “ sinlessness.” And this is not a fruitless aspiration after an ideal which cannot possibly be realized, for the means of dealing with the sin which he desires to combat are at hand. παράκλητος ] Most of the information which is of real importance in determining the meaning and usage of this word in the Johannine writings (it is not found elsewhere in the N.T.) is to be found in the notes of Wettstein and Westcott. The article on the word in Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible (iii. 665) gives a very clear summary of the evidence; cf. also Jü licher’ s shorter statement in the Encyclopaedia Biblica (iii. 3567). The passages where it occurs in the N.T. are John 14:16, John 14:26, John 14:15:26, John 14:16:7; 1 John 2:1. The meaning “ advocate” is clearly needed in the Epistle, it is possible in 15:26, and probable in 16:7. In 14:16, 26 it must have the wider and less technical meaning of one called in to help. As regards the use of the verb παρακαλεῖν , it has the sense of comfort in the LXX (cf. Genesis 37:35, where it is used with reference to Jacob) and in the N.T. (cf. Matthew 5:4, ὅτιαὐτοὶπαρακληθήσονται , where the influence of Isa 61:2, παρακαλέσαιπάνταςτοὺςπενθοῦντας , is clear). The use of παράκλησις in the sense of comfort is also well established . But its original meaning was to send for, summon to one’ s aid, corresponding to the Latin aduocare. The following passages are often quoted: Xen. Anab. i. 6. 5, Κλέαρχονπαρεκάλεσεσύμβουλον , ὃς … ἐδόκειτροτιμηθῆναιμάλιστατῶνἙλλήνων : Aesch. Ctes. 200, τίδεῖσεΔήμοσθένηνπαρακαλεῖν ; ὅτανπαρακαλῇςκακουργὸνἄνθρωπονκαὶτεχνίτηνλόγωνκλέττειςτὴνἀκρόασιν . With this corresponds the classical use of the word παράκλητος . It is used as an adjective; cf. Dion. Cass. xlvi.20, τὴνἀγορὰν … δούλωνπαρακλήτωνπληρώσας , but more often absolutely; cf. Demosthenes, de Falsa Legatione, 341, αἳτῶνπαρακλήτωναὗταιδεήσειςκαὶσπουδαὶτῶνἰδίωνπλεονεξιῶνεἵνεκαγίγνονται . Diogenes Laertius, iv. 7, Bion. πρὸςτὸνἀδολέσχηνλιπαροῦντααὐτῷσυλλαβέσθαι · τὸἱκανόνσοιποιήσω , ἐὰνπαρακλήτουςπέμψῃςκαὶμὴαὐτὸςἐλθῇς . The meaning of the word is thus clearly wider than that of “ advocate” in English. Though it is used specially in connection with the law courts, it denotes any friend called upon to give help, either by pleading or giving evidence, or in virtue of his position and power. Its Latin equivalent is “ aduocatus,” rather than “ patronus,” which corresponds more in meaning to our “ advocate.” The distinction is clearly defined by Asconius Pedianus, in a note on Cicero, in Q. Caecilium, “ Qui defendit alterum in iudicio, aut patronus dicitur, si orator est, aut aduocatus si aut ius suggerit, aut praesentiam suam commodat amico.” The form of the word is passive (cf. κλητός , ἐκλεκτός , ἀγαπητός , etc.). It must mean one who is called to the side of the suppliant, not one who comforts or consoles, or exhorts. The meaning “ comforter” or “ consoler” can attach to the word only in so far as that expresses the good office which he who is called in performs for the friend who claims his help. The usage of the Septuagint corresponds. In Zechariah 1:13, παρακλητικός is used to translate the Hebrew נ ִ ח ֻ מ ּ ִ י ם , ῥήματακαλὰκαὶλόγουςπαρακλητικούς . In Job 16:2, מ ְ נ ַ ח ֵ ם is translated by παρακλήτωρ . But it should be noticed that two of the later versions (Aquila, Theodotion) render it by παράκλητοι . Symmachos has παρηγοροῦντες , an indication that in later Greek the meaning of παράκλησις was beginning to influence that of παράκλητος .Philo’ s usage corresponds with the classical. The Paraclete is the advocate or intercessor; cf. de Josepho, c. 40, ἀμνηστίανἁπάντωνπαρέχωτῶνεἰςἐμὲπεπραγμένων · μηδενὸςἑτέρουδεῖσθεπαρακλήτου : de Vita Moysis, iii. 14, the High Priest is said rightly to bear the symbol of the Logos (τὸλογεῖον is the LXX expression for the breast-plate), ἀναγκαῖονγὰρῃντὀ͂νἱερώμενοντῷτοῦκόσμουπατρὶπαρακλήτῳχρῆσθαιτελειοτάτῳτὴνἀρετὴνυἱῷπρόςτεἀμνηστείανἁμαρτημάτωνκαὶχορηγίανἀφθονωτάτωνἀγαθῶν , where the parallel to the Johannine thought is clearly marked, whether the Cosmos or the Logos is to be regarded as the “ son perfect in virtue” who is used as Paraclete. In another passage usually quoted, de Opificio Mundi, c. 6, οὐδενὶδὲπαρακλήτῳ · τίςγὰρἦνἕτερος , μόνῳδὲἑαυτῷχρησάμενοςὁθεὸςἔγνωδεῖνεὐεργετεῖν … τὴν … φύσιν , Jü licher may be right in saying that the only feasible meaning is something like “ instructor,” “ adviser,” so far as concerns the duty which the Paraclete is needed to perform; but the point of the sentence is that God confers His benefits on nature Himself, without using the help or services of another. Cf. also In Flaccum, § § 3, 4. The word occurs as a loan-word in the Targum and Talmudic literature, in the sense of helper, intercessor, advocate. It is used in the Targum on Job 16:20 and 33:23 as a paraphrase of מ ל י ץ taken in the sense of “ interpreter.” The latter passage is especially interesting, as showing the late Jewish view of the need of angelic agency to “ redeem a man from going to the pit.” In the Talmud, פ ר ק ל י ט is used for “ advocate,” in opposition to ק ט י ג ו ר . “ He who performs one precept has gotten to himself one paraclete, and he who commits one transgression has gotten to himself one accuser” (Pirke Aboth, iv. 15; Taylor, p. 69). “ Whosoever is summoned before the court for capital punishment is saved only by powerful paracletes; such paracletes man has in repentance and good works; and if there are nine hundred and ninety-nine accusers, and only one to plead for his exoneration, he is saved” (Shab. 32a). The sin-offering is like the paraclete before God; it intercedes for man, and is followed by another offering, a thank-offering for the pardon obtained (Sifra, Megora iii. 3). These and other passages are quoted in the Jewish Encyclopaedia, s.v. (ix. 515). The same usage is found in early Christian literature, where the use of the word is independent of the Johannine use of the term; cf. 2 Clement. vi. 9, τίςἡμῶνπαράκλητοςἔσταιἐὰνμὴεὑρεθῶμενἔργαἔχοντεςὅσιακαὶδίκαια ; Barnabas, c. xx. καταπονοῦντεςτὸνθλιβόμενον , πλουσίωνπαράκλητοι , πενήτωνἄνομοικριταί . The connection of the word with the ordinary meaning of παράκλησις is found in Rufinus’ translation of the De Principiis; cf. ii. 7. 3, “ Paracletus uero quod dicitur Spiritus sanctus, a consolatione dicitur. Paraclesis enim Latine consolatio appellatur.” He goes on to suggest that the word may have a different meaning when applied to the Holy Spirit and to Christ. “ Videtur enim de Saluatore Paracletus dici deprecator. Utrumque enim significat in Graeco Paracletus, et deprecatorem et consolatorem.” Origen seems to have understood the word in the sense of “ intercessor.” Cf. Comm. in Joann. i. 38, τὴνπερὶἡμῶνπρὸςτὸνπατέραπροστασίαναὐτοῦδηλοῖπαρακαλοῦντοςὑπὲρτῆςἀνθρώπωνφύσεωςκαὶἱλασκομένου , ὡςὁπαράκλητοςκαὶἱλασμός .In Chrysostom it has the sense of “ comforter,” Hom. in Jo. 75, ἐπειδὴγὰροὐδέπωαὐτὸνἐγνωκόταςεἰκὸςἦνσφόδραἐπιζητεῖντὴνσυνουσίανἐκείνην , τὰῥήματα , τὴνκατὰσάρκααὐτοῦπαρουσίαν , καὶμηδεμίανδέχεσθαιπαραμυθίανἀπόντος · τίφησιν ; ἐρωτήσωτὸνπατέρακαὶἄλλονπαράκλητονδώσειὑμῖν · τουτέστιν · ἄλλονὡςἐμέ . In Cyril of Jerusalem the sense is not limited to that of “ comforting” ; cf. Catechesis, xvi. 20, Πσράκλητοςδὲκαλεῖται , διὰτὸπαρακαλεῖνκαὶπαραμυθεῖθαικαὶσυναντιλαμβάνεσθαιτῆςἀσθενείαςἡμῶν : Romans 8:26 being quoted in support, with the explanation of ὑπερεντυγχάνει "δῆλονδὲὅτιπρὸςτὸνθεόν ." The evidence of the old Latin Version is similar. In the Epistle “ aduocatus” is used, in the Gospel either “ aduocatus” or “ paraclitus.” This is not seriously affected by the evidence adduced by Rö nsch (Itala ü . Vulgata, p. 348), that “ aduocare” acquired the meaning of “ to comfort” (cf. Tertullian, adv. Marc. iv. 14, where the παρακαλέσαιτοὺςπενθοῦντας of Isaiah 61:2 is translated “ aduocare languentes.” “ Advocare” is a natural translation of παρακαλεῖν (cf. Tert. Pudicit. 13; Iren. III. ix. 3, v. xv. I, and the Vulgate of Isa 40:2, quoted by Rö nsch), and owes any connection with the idea of “ comforting” that it may have to that fact. Augustine’ s “ Paracletus, id est Consolator,” throws no light on the meaning and usage of the Greek word. The other versions do not throw much light on the subject. In Syriac, Arabic, Aethiopic, and Bohairic it is transliterated, and in the Sahidic also in the Gospel, while it has “ he that prayeth for us” in the Epistle. The Vulgate has “ Paracletus” in the Gospel and “ Aduocatus” in the Epistle. This, no doubt, influenced the modern versions. Wycliffe renders “ Comforter” in the Gospel and “ Advocate” in the Epistle; and Luther also has “ Trö ster” in the Gospel and “ Fü rsprecher” in the Epistle. Thus the evidence of early use supports the evidence of the form of the word, which is naturally passive. Its meaning must be “ one called to the side of” him who claims the services of the called. The help it describes is generally assistance of some sort or other in connection with the courts of law; but it has a wider signification also,— the help of any one who “ lends his presence” to his friend. Any kind of help, of advocacy, intercession, or mediation may be suggested by the context in which it is used. In itself it denotes merely “ one called in to help.” In the Epistle the idea of one who pleads the Christian’ s cause before God is clearly indicated, and “ advocate” is the most satisfactory translation. This sense suits some of the passages in which it is used in the Gospel; in the others it suggests one who can be summoned to give the help that is needed in a wider sense. There is no authority for the sense of “ Comforter,” either in the sense of “ strengthener” or “ consoler,” which has been so generally connected with it in consequence of the influence of Wycliffe and Luther, except Patristic interpretations of its meaning in S. John.The suggestion of Zimmern (Vater, Sohn, u. Fü rsprecher in der babylonischen Gottesvorstellung), that its use in Christian and Jewish thought may be connected with the Babylonian myth of the intervention of Nusku (the Fire God), who “ acts as the advocate of men at the instance of Ea and Marduk,” has not been favourably received. So far as concerns the Johannine use of the term Paraclete, far simpler explanations are to be found in its use in Philo and Rabbinic Judaism. In reality it hardly needs explanation. It was probably a common word, and the obvious one to use. Moulton and Milligan (Expositor, vol. X., 1910) quote the illustrations of its use, one from “ a very illiterate letter” of the second century a.d. where it has been restored (BU 601:12), καὶτὸνἀραβῶνατοῦΣαραπίωνοςπαρακλοςδέδωκααὐτῷ , where they suggest that it may mean “ on being summoned,” and an instance of the use of ἀπαράκλητος , OGIS 248:25 (175-161 b.c.), ἀπαρακλήτους . Deissmann (Licht von Osten, p. 243, n. 1) lays stress on the use of the word in Aramaic as a proof of its frequency in vulgar Greek. Its use in the Targums and Talmudic Literature is important. The extent of the author’ s acquaintance with Rabbinic thought is at last beginning to be recognized. ἔχομεν ] Augustine’ s comment is worth quoting, “ Maluit se ponere in numero peccatorum ut haberet aduocatum Christum, quam ponere se pro Christo aduocatum et inueniri inter damnandos superbos.” As frequently the writer identifies himself with the rest of the Christian Body. They actually possess and have experience of the means, which are potentially available for the whole world. And the need is felt by the whole Church, not because any of them might, but whenever any one does fall. The lapse of one is a matter which concerns the whole body . Ἰησοῦνχριστὸνδίκαιον ] As true man , He can state the case for men with absolute knowledge and real sympathy. As God’ s anointed messenger to men , He is naturally fitted for the task and acceptable to Him before whom He pleads. As δίκαιος He can enter the Presence from which all sin excludes. He needs no advocate for Himself. Comp. Book of Enoch 38:2, 53:6, where the Messiah is called “ the Righteous One.” αμαρτητε ] αμαρτανητε 14*. 69. 137 ascr Cyr. Dam. και ] om. boh-codd. εαντιςαμαρτη ] si peccetis, arm-codd. πατερα ] θεον arm. Eus. Did.: deum patrem, Tert. Cels. ad Vigil. ΙησουνΧριστον ] post δικαιον Ia 192 (318). Χριστον ] om. Ib 161* (173): + Dominum nostrum et boh-cod. δικαιον ] for και Ib 157 (29): om. Ib 62 (498): suffragatorem Cyp-cod. 2. αὐτόςκ .τ .λ .] “ Himself is a propitiation for our sins.” His advocacy is valid, because He can Himself bear witness that the only condition on which fellowship between God and man can be restored has actually been fulfilled, i.e. the removal of the sin by which the intercourse was interrupted. He is not only the High Priest, duly qualified to offer the necessary propitiation, but also the propitiation which He offers. The writer’ s meaning is most safely determined by reference to Old Testament theories of sacrifice, or rather of propitiation. In spite of the absence of direct quotations, there can be no doubt that the author of this Epistle is greatly indebted to the Old Testament. If the hand is the hand of a Hellene, it expresses the thought of a Jew. His mind is steeped in the thoughts of the Old Testament. Though he has lived among Greeks and learned to express himself simply in their language, and to some extent has made himself acquainted with Hellenic thought, he is really as much a stranger and a sojourner among them as his fathers were. He may have some acquaintance with Gnostic theories of redemption, which Greek thought had been borrowing from the East from at least the beginning of the century before Christ, his own thoughts on the subject are the outcome of his knowledge of the Scriptures. His views on propitiation therefore, as on all other subjects, must be considered in the light of the Old Testament.The object of propitation in Jewish thought, as shown in their Scriptures, is not God, as in Greek thought, but man, who has estranged himself from God, or the sins which have intervened between him and his God. They must be “ covered” before right relations can be restored between the Deity and His worshippers. This is the dominant thought in the sacrificial system of the priestly code. It is the natural outcome of the sufferings of the nation before and during the Exile which had deepened their sense of sin, and of Jehovah’ s estrangement from His people. The joyous sacrificial feast which the Deity shares with His worshippers consequently gives place, in national thought and feeling, to the ritual of the day of Atonement and the whole system of sin-, trespass-, and guilt-offering. Both ideas, the sacrificial feast which forms the ground of closer union between God and men, and the propitiatory offering by means of which interrupted relations can be restored, have, of course, their counterpart in Christian thought and teaching. But it is the latter which dominates the writer’ s thought here, in an age in which failure and disappointment are fast clouding the clearer vision of God. The dominant idea which is common both to the Old Testament type and the Christian counterpart is that of the absolute holiness of God, who dwells in the light to which no man can approach, till he has put away the sin which cannot enter the presence of God. So far as the means are concerned, the ceremonial has given way to the spiritual. The work of the Christ, who in His life and death freely and voluntarily offered Himself in complete surrender to the will of God and the work of righteousness, has made possible the removal of the sin which keeps men from God. So far as they attach themselves to Him their sins are covered, for the possibility of their final removal is assured. αυτος ] om. boh-cod. ιλασμος ] post εστιν A 68. 180 vg. syrsch Eus. Or. Cypr. Hil. Aug. δετωνημετερων ] I b 396 (-) I c 116. δε ] om. I c 364 (137) K δ 359. μονον ] μονων B 1. 21. 33. 37. 66. 80. 101* al. pauc. sah. boh-codd. (uid.) Or. 3. The author has stated that his object in writing is to produce sinlessness, and that if sin intervenes to interrupt the fellowship between man and God, there is a remedy (vv. 1, 2). He now proceeds to point out the signs of Christian life, as realized in knowledge of God and union with God. They are to be found in obedience and in Christ-like conduct. Knowledge of God includes, of course, much more than obedience to His commands, but its genuineness and reality can be thus tested. The writer can conceive of no real knowledge of God which does not issue in obedience, wherever the Divine will has been revealed in definite precepts.In the Johannine system, “ knowledge” is never a purely intellectual process.1 It is acquired by the exercise of all the faculties of intellect, heart, and will. Fellowship and acquaintance are its cognate ideas. It is developed in the growing experience of intercourse. This conception, which dominates the whole Old Testament idea of “ knowing God” and of God “ knowing” men (cf. Amos 3:2), is similarly developed in S. Paul’ s “ knowing God, or rather being known of Him” (Galatians 4:9). The stress laid in the Johannine writings on the true knowledge of God is certainly connected with the necessity which the author felt of combating certain stages of Gnostic thought. But to see in the language of this and other similar verses of this Epistle any necessary reference to the particular stage of second-century Gnosticism which immediately preceded the more definite systems of Marcion and Valentinus, is precarious. We know too little about the development of Gnostic ideas before Basilides to say either that the stage of Gnosticism implied in the Fourth Gospel had or had not been reached by the year 100 a.d. or before that date, or that a considerable number of years must have passed before the Church could have demanded so definite a break with opinions of this kind as is suggested in the Second and Third Epistles (cf. Schmiedel, Evangelium, Briefe und Offenbarung Johannis, pp. 38, 19). ἐντούτῳ ] points forward, as usually. Cf. note on 1:4. γινώσκομεν , ἐγνώκαμεν ] The tenses are significant. We learn to perceive more and more clearly that our knowledge is genuine through its abiding results in a growing willingness to obey. τὰςἐντολὰςαὐτοῦτηρῶμεν ] The phrase τηρεῖντὰςἐντολὰς is characteristic of the Johannine books, including the Apocalypse. It occurs in the Gospel 12 times, in the First Epistle 6, and in the Rev_6 . Elsewhere it is found only in Matthew 19:17, εἰδὲθέλειςεἰςτὴνζωὴνεἰσελθεῖν , τήρειτὰςἐντολάς . Cf. Mark 7:9 ; 1 Timothy 6:14, τηρῆσαίσετὴνἐντολὴνἄσπιλον . Cf. also Sifre, Deut. 48, quoted by Schlatter (Sprache u. Heimat des 4ten Evangeliums). “ When a man keeps the ways of the law, should he sit still and not do them? Rather shouldest thou turn to do them.” As opposed to φυλάσσειν (custodire), τηρεῖν (obseruare) denotes sympathetic obedience to the spirit of a command, rather than the rigid carrying out of its letter. We may contrast Mark 10:20, ταῦταπάνταἐφυλαξάμηνἐκνεότητόςμου . As knowledge is not confined to the intellect, so obedience penetrates beyond the latter to the spirit. It may be noticed that the Vulgate has obseruare in this verse, custodire in ver. 4, and seruare in 5, facts which suggest that no Latin rendering was felt to be an exact equivalent, or completely satisfactory rendering, of the Greek word τηρεῖν . In the Gospel seruare is the regular rendering. τὰςἐντολάς ] The various commands, or definite precepts, in which those parts of the whole θέλημα which are known to us have found expression. και ] om. Ia 397 fff (96). γινωσκομεν ] γινωσκωμεν A: cognoscemus boh-ed. τηρωμεν ] φυλαξωμεν א *: τηρησωμεν Hδ 6 . 4. The test is adequate, and may be applied with certainty; for there is no such thing as knowledge which does not issue in corresponding action. The man who claims to have knowledge of God which does not carry with it as its necessary consequence the attempt to carry out His will, thereby declares himself a liar. There is no room for self-deception. The falsehood, if not conscious and deliberate, is without excuse. For the converse thought, that the doing of the will leads to fuller knowledge, cf. John 7:17.ὁλέγων ] The verse is closely parallel to 1:6, 8, 10. The form of expression is more individualized than the conditional sentences used there. It is the direct and definite statement of the writer conscious of the fact that he is dealing with a real danger, and probably with a statement that has been actually made, by men against whose influence he is trying to guard his τεκνία . If there is no reason to see in it an attack on any particular Gnostic teacher, it clearly deals with statements which they have heard, and to which they have shown themselves ready to listen. Ψεύστηςἐστίν ] The falseness of the claim is the point which is emphasized. At the same time the form of expression chosen declares its inexcusableness. Contrast 1:8 . As compared with the verb , it may perhaps suggest that the statement is a revelation of the character of the man who makes it. “ The whole character is false” (Westcott). He who claims knowledge without obedience “ has” the sin which he has allowed to gain foothold. If light is seen and not followed, deterioration of character is the inevitable result. καὶ … ἐστίν ] The antithetical clause is not merely a repetition of the positive statement in a negative form. The “ truth” is regarded by the writer as an active principle working in a man. It is not concerned with the intellect alone. It corresponds to the highest effort of man’ s whole nature. Cf. John 8:32. ἐντούτῳ ] In such an one. In the Gospel and Epistles of S. John, when οὗτος refers back, it always denotes the subject or object, as previously described; cf. John 1:2 , v. 38, τούτῳὑμεῖςοὐπιστεύετε (one sent by God). οτι א A B 18. 25. 27. 33. 65. 66. 68. 69. 98. 101. 177. 180 ascr dscr jscr 57lect syrute Clem. Cyp. Lcif. Aug. Amb.] om. C K L P al. plu. cat. aethute Clem. Oec. και ] om. και A P 13. 27. 29 | εντουτω ] in Eo boh-codd.: om. א 19. η ] om. 21. 34. 56. 100. 192. Oscr Ψ . αληθεια )+ τουθεου א 8. 25 aeth.: + εναυτου 19a: + εναυτω 19 b. 5. Again the thought is carried further in the statement of the opposite. The whole word is substituted for the definite precepts, and knowledge gives way to love. Perfect obedience gains the whole prize. For love is greater than knowledge. ὃςδ ʼ ἂντηρῇ ] The statement is made in its most general form. Contrast the preceding verse, and 1:6 ff. The difference shows that the writer has in view definite “ Gnostic” claims. Knowledge is not the possession of a few “ pneumatic” individuals. In contrast with the claim of such an one, whose conduct shows the falsity of his claim, is set the possibility of obtaining the higher prize, the perfection of love, open to all who are willing to obey. The “ chance o’ the prize of learning love” is not reserved to the few who think that they “ know.” αὐτοῦτὸνλόγον ] The order of the words throws the emphasis on αὐτοῦ , which takes up the αὐτόν of the Gnostic’ s claim. The teaching of the God, whom he claims to know, is very different from the views expressed in his claim. The λόγος is the sum of the ἐντολαί , or rather it is the whole of which they are the parts. Love is not made perfect in a series of acts of obedience to so many definite commands. It reaches its full growth only when God’ s whole plan is welcomed and absorbed. The ἐντολαί offer adequate tests of the truth or falsehood of any claim to know God. But something more is needed before Obedience can have her perfect work. ἡἀγάπητοῦθεοῦ ] The love of God has been interpreted in three ways, according as the genitive is regarded as subjective, objective, or qualitative; God’ s love for us, or our love for God, or the love which is characteristic of Him, which “ answers to His nature” and which when “ communicated to man is effective in him towards the brethren and towards God Himself.” The second gives the simplest and most natural meaning to the words in their present context. The love for God of which man is capable is only fully realized in absolute obedience. At the same time we must remember that it is the teaching of the author that it is God’ s love for men which calls out the response of man’ s love for Him. “ We love Him, because He first loved us.” Comp. 2:15, 3:17, 4:12, 5:3. ἀληθῶς ] The true state of the case as contrasted with the false plea set up by the man who claims to have knowledge without obedience. The emphatic position, however, of the word suggests that it may reasonably be regarded as one of the many signs which are to be found in this Epistle, that the writer feels strongly the need of encouraging his readers with the assurance of the reality of their Christian privileges. Certainty is within their grasp if they will use the means which have been placed at their disposal. Comp. John 8:31. τηρη ] τηρει K 13. 100. 142 cscr 57lect: τηρησει Ia δ 453 (5). τον ] om. Ia δ 203 (265). αληθως ] om. 27. 29. 66**. 5b, 6. Imitation the sign of Union. The test of union with God is the imitation of His Son. This is not stated directly, as in the case of knowledge (ver. 3), but the claim to “ abide in Him” is said to carry with it the moral obligation to “ follow the blessed steps of His most holy life.” See Findlay, p. 149.ἐναὐτῷμένειν ] This form of expression is peculiar to the Johannine writings (Gospel and First Epistle). It is the equivalent, in his system of thought, of the Pauline ἐνΧριστῷεἶναι , of which it was a very natural modification, if it is to be attributed to the author, and not to his Master. The longer the Lord delayed His coming, the more it came to be realized that union with Christ under the conditions of earthly existence must be an abiding rather than a short tarrying. The idea had taken its new shape before the “ last hour” was thought to have struck. Bengel points out a climax: cognitio (ver. 3), communio (5), constantia (6). ἐκεῖνος ] For the use of ἐκεῖνος with reference to Christ, cf. 1 John 3:3, 1 John 3:5, 1 John 3:7, 1 John 3:16, 1 John 3:4:17; John 7:11, John 7:19:21, John 7:9:12, John 7:28, and perhaps also 19:35 (Zahn, Einleitung, ii. 481; cf. Introd. p. iv). περιπατεῖν ] See note on 1:6. For its use in the Johannine writings, cf. John 8:12, John 8:11:9 f., John 8:12:35; 1 John 1:6, 1 John 1:7, 1 John 1:2:11; 2 John 1:4, 2 John 1:6; 3 John 1:3, 3 John 1:4. εντουτω ] post θεου P 31: om. Hδ 2 (?) (cf. Tisch. ver. 4) Ic 116* (-). γινωσκομεν ] cognoscemus, boh-ed. καθως … περιπατειν ] sic ambulare sicut (+et codd.) ille ambulauit, arm. και … περιπατειν ] om. L. καιαυτος ] post ουτως Ia 65 (317) Ic 174 : om. sahd. ουτως א C K P al. pler. cat. cop. syrp arm. Salv. Thphyl. Oec.] om. A B 3. 34. 65. 81. 180 dscr vg. sah. aeth. Clem. Or. Cyr. Cyp. Aug. The omission may possibly be due to the similarity of the preceding word, but the evidence against it is very strong. 2. 2:7-17. Proof of the ethical thesis from the circumstances in which the readers find themselves, and from their previous experience. The old commandment is always new in the growing light of God’ s revelation. “ Walking in light” and “ keeping the commandments” further defined as love of the brethren (a) 7-11. General. Brotherly love (b) 12-17. Individual. Warning against love of the world 7-8. The Commandment, old and new.It is hardly necessary to discuss the interpretations which regard the “ old” and the “ new” as different commandments, the old commandment being the injunction to “ walk as He walked,” and the new, the call to brotherly love. But assuming the identity of the old and the new, the commandment has been interpreted in three different ways. (1) With reference to 1:5 ff., to give proof of “ walking in light” by the confession of sin and the avoiding of everything sinful. (2) With reference to the verses immediately preceding, to “ walk as He walked.” Of these the second is the most natural, but it is not necessary to find a reference to any actual words of the Epistle which have preceded. The expressions which follow, “ of which ye were in possession from the beginning,” “ the word which ye heard,” make such a reference improbable. (3) The expression ἐντολὴκαινή recalls so vividly the language of the Gospel, and the connection with the duty of brotherly love insisted upon in vv. 9 and 10 is so clear, that we are almost compelled to interpret the passage in accordance with John 13:34, ἐντολὴνκαινὴνδίδωμιὑμῖνἵναἀγαπᾶτεἀλλήλους , καθὼςἠγάπησαὑμᾶς , where the “ newness” is to be found in the new standard required, καθὼςἠγάπησαὑμᾶς , rather than in the duty of mutual love, which was recognized in the Jewish law. In meaning this interpretation is practically identical with (2). “ The idea of the imitation of Christ is identical with the fulfilment of love” (Westcott). And it gives the most natural meaning to the description of the commandment as old, and yet new “ in Him and in you.” The old commandment, “ Thou shalt love thy neighbour,” which was already contained in the Mosaic law, if not also to be found in the conscience of those who “ having no law, are a law unto themselves,” received a new meaning and application in the light of Christ’ s teaching and example, and in the lives of His followers. And it had lately acquired a deeper meaning in contrast with the loveless intellectualism, which the writer clearly regarded as one of the worst dangers in the teaching and example of his opponents. ἀγαπητοί ] The first occurrence of the writer’ s favourite form of address in these Epistles. Cf. 3:2, 21, 4:1, 7; 3 John 1:2, 3 John 1:5, 3 John 1:11. No conclusion can be drawn from its use as to the meaning of the command. The reading of the received text is found in the vocative only once in these Epistles. Both words are suitable expressions to introduce an appeal to the readers to show their brotherhood in Christ by active brotherly love, whether the writer has primarily in view, as the objects of the love which he inculcates, Christians as Christians, or men as men. The attestation, however, is decisive in favour of ἀγαπητοί . And, on the whole, it is not only more in accordance with his style, but suits his appeal better. The ἀδελφοί may have been suggested by the language of vv. 9, 10.ἀπ ʼ ἀρχῆς ] The meaning of this expression must, of course, be determined from the context in each case. It is used eight times in the First Epistle, and twice in the Second. In 1:1 it recalls the use of ἐνἀρχῇ in the first chapter of Genesis and in the Prologue of the Gospel. Its use in 3:8 is similar. Twice in this present chapter (2:13, 14) it occurs in the phrase, “ Ye have known Him who is from the beginning.” The remaining instances in the two Epistles all have reference to the “ old” command. The repetition of the words at the end of ver. 7 (ὃνἠκούσατε [ἀπ ʼ ἀρχῆς ]) in the Received Text is almost certainly wrong. They have probably been introduced from the similar phrase in ver. 24. Where the phrase is used of the “ old” command, it may refer either to the early days of the Mosaic legislation, or to the beginning of the education of each convert to whom the writer is speaking, or to the beginning of his life as a Christian. A reference to the teaching of Judaism on the subject of “ love” seems, on the whole, to satisfy the conditions best in each case. But it is probably a mistake to attempt to define the meaning of the phrase very rigidly. Long continuance is suggested rather than a definite starting-point. It is not easy to determine whether the writer is thinking of the beginning of the life of each of his readers, or of their religious consciousness, or of their Christian life. The point can be settled only by the more general consideration of the character of the false teaching combated in these Epistles. The real force of the expression is to heighten the contrast of the “ newer” teaching which placed knowledge higher than love. The writer has in view the “ Many Antichrists, who answered prompt ‘ Am I not Jaspar as thyself art John? Nay, young, whereas through age thou mayest forget?’ ” He is confident that as against the “ glozing of some new shrewd tongue” that which was “ from the beginning” will prove to be “ of new significance and fresh result.” ὁλόγοςὃνἠκούσατε ] “ The word which ye heard” must be that which was told them by their teachers, whether Jewish or Christian or both. The command to love one’ s neighbour was common to both. ὁλόγος more naturally suggests a whole message rather than one definite command. But it may refer to the new commandment of Joh 13:34, regarded as a rule of life rather than a single precept. αγαπητοι א A B C Psa_20 cat. vg. sah. cop. syrutr arm. Did. Thphyl. Aug. Bed.] αδελφοιΚ L al. plur. aethutr Oec.: om. jscr: αδελφοιμου Ic δ 299 (-). ειχετε ] εχετε 27. 29. 34. 42. 57lect 58lect ascr kscr: habemus sah: habebamu, arm-ed. η 1o] pr. και Ia 7. ηκουσατε א A B C P 5. 13. 27. 29. 39. 40. 65. 68. 81. 180 dscr jscr vg. sah. cop. syrutr arm. aeth. Aug. Thphyl.] + απαρχης K L al. longe plur. cat. Oec. 8. The command, which is as old as the Law of Moses, even if the writer did not regard it as implicitly contained in the story of Cain and Abel (cf. 3:11, 12, ἵναἀγαπῶμενἀλλήλους · οὐκαθὼςΚαὶνκ .τ .λ .) becomes new “ in Him (i.e. Christ) and in you.” The ἐντολή , “ Thou shalt love thy neighbour,” received an altogether new meaning and scope in the light of Christ’ s teaching as to “ Who my neighbour is,” of His own example shown most clearly in His treatment of Tax-gatherers and Aliens, and of the carrying out of His example by His followers in the admission of Gentiles to the full privileges of Christianity on equal terms with the Jews. In Christ and in Christians the old command had gained “ new significance and fresh result.” The verse had, no doubt, a special significance in view of the recent victory gained over the false teaching, and its depreciation of the law of love, which characterized the conduct and the thought of its supporters. The author rightly saw in recent events how the Church had “ rescued the law of love” from the darkness which threatened to overwhelm it. The true light was shining more brightly in consequence, and the darkness more quickly passing away. But though these recent events were the occasion, they do not exhaust the meaning of the words, which have a far wider reference. Wurm, who argues with great plausibility for the reference to the victory over the false teachers (see esp. p. 104), apparently confines the reference to that incident too narrowly. Though it affords a fairly adequate explanation of the words ἐνὑμῖν , it is unsatisfactory as an explanation of ἐναὐτῷ . The new significance of the law of love in Christ and in Christians had a far wider application. The light of the true knowledge of God was already shining and dispelling the darkness of exclusiveness by the light of love wheresoever the “ darkness overtook it not.” πάλιν ] The word clearly introduces another description of the same commandment, not another command. Cf. John 16:28, πάλινἀφίημιτὸνκόσμον , where πάλιν cannot mean “ a second time,” and 1 Corinthians 12:21, οὐδύναταιὁὀφθαλμὸςεἰπεῖντῇχειρί … ἢπάλινἡκεφαλὴτοῖςποσίν . Cf. also John 19:37; Romans 15:10, Romans 15:11, Romans 15:12; 1 Corinthians 3:20; (?) 2 Corinthians 10:7, 2 Corinthians 10:11:16; Hebrews 1:5, (?) 6, 2:13, 4:5, 10:30. The use of πάλιν in the N.T. to introduce another quotation in proof of the same point, or a further thought about the same subject, is fully established. ὅ ] The antecedent to the neuter relative is the clause ἐντολὴνκαινὴνγράφωὑμῖν . “ It is a new commandment that I write unto you.” The order lays the emphasis on ἐντολὴνκαινήν . It is the “ newness” of the old command which is said to be true in Him and in His followers. ὅτι … φαίνει ] The shining of the true light reveals the true character of that which the darkness hid or obscured. The force of the present tense in παράγεται and φαίνει is significant. They must be interpreted as presents. All is not yet clear and known, but the process has already begun. The darkness is passing away. Contrast “ It has become bright as the sun upon earth, and the darkness is past” (Book of Enoch 58:5).There are many indications in the Epistle that the writer regards the Parousia as imminent. Cf. especially ver. 18, ἐσχάτηὥραἐστίν . The present verse throws some light on the difficult question of the relation between the teaching of the Gospel and that of the Epistle on the subject of the Parousia. In the Epistle the expectation is more clearly stated and more obviously felt than in the Gospel, though in the earlier work the idea of “ the last day” not only receives definite expression, but is something more than an obsolete conception, alien to the author’ s real thoughts and sympathy, or a mere condescension to popular Christianity, fed on Apocalyptic expectation and unable to bear a purely spiritual interpretation. A difference of emphasis is not necessarily a change of view. It is doubtful if the two conceptions are really inconsistent. Their inconsistency would not be felt by a writer of the particular type of thought which characterizes the author. Their meeting point lies in the idea of “ manifestation,” which is his characteristic expression for the Parousia, as also for the earthly life of the Lord. For him the “ Presence” is no sudden unveiling of a man from heaven, who in the twinkling of an eye shall destroy the old and set up the new. It is the consummation of a process which is continuously going on. It is the final manifestation of the things that are, and therefore the passing away of all that is phenomenal. As eternal life “ is” now and “ shall be” hereafter, as judgment is a process already going on, because men must show their true nature by their attitude to the Christ, while its completion is a final act; so the Parousia is the complete manifestation of that which is already at work. The time of its completion is still thought of as “ the last day,” and “ the day of judgment.” The true light is already shining, and the darkness is passing away. But He who is coming will come. καινην ] om. I a 1100 (310) K δ 161. ο … αυτω ] in qua est ueritas, boh. | εστιν ] μενει H δ 3 (C) Ia 200f. οεστιναληθες ] om. I a 70. αληθες ] post αυτω A. ενυμιν ] א B C K L al. longe plur. cat. vg. sah. boh-ed. syrsch etp txt arm. aeth. Thphyl. Oec. Aug. Bed.] ενημιν A P 4. 7. 9. 22. 29. 31. 34. 47. 76* cscr tol. boh-cod. syrp mg Hier.: om. εν H δ 162 (269). σκοτια ] σκια A.9. The true light was already shining and gaining ground. The darkness was passing away. But it had not yet passed. The perfect day had not yet dawned. All had not yet recognized the light. And all who claimed to have done so could not make good their claim. The true light, when once apprehended, leads to very definite results. The claim to have recognized it, if not borne out by their presence, is false. These results are presented in sentences similar to vv. 4 and 6. The writer puts before his readers the cases of typical individuals, he that saith, he that loveth, he that hateth. The falsity of the claim is sharply stated. At the same time the form of expression would seem to suggest that there is more excuse for self-deception. The claimant is not called ψεύστης (v. 4). “ It is always easy to mistake an intellectual knowledge for a spiritual knowledge of the Truth” (Westcott). To claim to have knowledge of God, actually realized in personal experience , without obeying his commands, is deliberate falsehood. To claim spiritual illumination without love may be due to the fact that we are deceiving ourselves. It may be the result of mistaken notions as to the function of the intellect. Those who put forward such a claim only show that their apprehension of the “ light” is not at present so complete as they imagine. The “ light” is, of course, that which illumines the moral and spiritual spheres. Cf. Origen, Comm. in Joann. xiii. 23, φῶςοὗνὀνομάζεταιὁθεὸςἀπὸτοῦσωματικοῦφωτὸςμεταληφθεὶςεἰςἀόρατονκαὶἀσώματονφῶς , διὰτὴνἐντῷφωτίζειννοητοὺςὀφθαλμοὺςδύναμινοὕτωλεγόμενος . In virtue of such “ light” it is possible for men to go forward in moral duty and spiritual growth, just as the light of the sun makes it possible for them to walk on the earth’ s surface without stumbling or tripping up (cf. John 11:9 f.). μισῶν ] The writer naturally does not deal with the possibility of intermediate states between love and hatred. In so far as the attitude of any particular man towards his fellow-man is not love, it is hatred. In so far as it is not hatred, it is love. The statements are absolute. The writer is not now concerned with their applicability to the complex feelings of one man towards another in actual life, or how the feelings of love and hatred are mingled in them. It is his custom to make absolute statements, without any attempt to work out their bearing on actual individual cases. His work is that of the prophet, not of the casuist.τὸνἀδελφὸναὐτοῦ ] The full meaning of these verses can be realized only in the light of the revelation of the brotherhood of all men in Christ. In spite of the statements which are usually made to the contrary, we are hardly justified in saying that this universalism is beyond the writer’ s vision. The Christ of the Fourth Gospel is the Light of the World, but the command to love one another is given to those who have recognized His claims. In the Epistle, Christ is the Propitiation for the whole world. But this is potential rather than actual. The writer has to deal with present circumstances, and polemical aims undoubtedly colour the expression of his views. Prophet and not casuist as he is, he is nevertheless too much in earnest to lose sight of the practical. Vague generalities are not the instruments with which he works. A vapid philanthropy, or a pretentious cosmopolitanism, which might neglect the more obvious duties of love lying closer to hand, would find no favour with him. The wider brotherhood might be a hope for the future, as it is for us. But the idea of brotherhood was actually realized among Christians, though in his own community it is clear that much was still wanting in this respect. It is of this brotherhood that he is primarily thinking. In his letters to individuals this is even clearer than here (cf. 3 John 1:5, 3 John 1:10). And the usage of the word ἀδελφοί in the New Testament certainly favours this view. At the same time, the wider view of the Sermon on the Mount and the Parable of the Good Samaritan is in no way contradicted by the more limited statements of this Epistle. The language used here lends itself easily to a similar expansion. The Lord had summarized the teaching of the Mosaic Law in the words, “ Thou shalt love thy neighbour and hate thine enemy.” The new light had revealed the brotherhood of all men. In its light the term “ brother” includes both classes, neighbours and enemies, whom the Law had separated. He who now hates his “ brother” has not had his mental vision cleared by the light. The writer’ s words can easily be made to convey the wider truth. He certainly would not contradict it. What he enforces is the first step towards its realization. And he is always thinking of the next step which his readers must take. Note the emphatic position of ἕωςἄρτι : the light is shining and he is in darkness still. Om. totum comma sahd. εν 2o]pr. ψευστηςεστινκαι א 15. 43. 98. 137 arm. aeth. Cypr. σκοτια ] σκια 100 (mg.). 10. The contrast is, as usual, stated in terms which carry it a stage further, μένειν being substituted for εἶναι . It is possible that a man might attain to the light. He cannot abide in it without showing that love which the new light has revealed to be the true attitude of Christian to Christian, and of man to man. Cf. John 12:46, ἵναπᾶςὁπιστεύωνεἰςἐμὲἐντῇσκοτίᾳμὴμείνῃ : 8:35, ὁυἱὸςμένειεἰςτὸναἰῶνα . The slave may learn much, but he cannot abide in the house for ever.σκάνδαλον … ἔστιν ] The stumbling-block may be that which a man puts either in his own way, or in that of his neighbour. The word is not found elsewhere in the Johannine books, except Revelation 2:14 . The verb is found in John 6:61, John 16:1. The general usage of the New Testament, and perhaps the use of the verb in the Fourth Gospel, is in favour of the second interpretation. And it gives a possible sense. He who loves his neighbour not only abides in the light himself, but is also free from the guilt of causing others to offend. But the general context almost requires the other explanation. The effect of love and hate on the man himself is the subject of the whole passage. The sphere of his moral and spiritual progress or decline is regarded as being within himself. The occasions of falling are within. Cf. Hosea 4:17, ἔθηκενἐαυτῷσκάνδαλα . This may be suggested by what is probably the true form of the text, σκάνδαλονἐναὐτῷοὐκἔστιν , internal stumbling-block, causing offence within, there is none. Possibly ἐναὐτῷ may refer to ἐντῷφωτί ,“ In the light there is nothing to cause stumbling.” Cf., however, John 11:9, John 11:10. For the phrase itself we may compare the Rabbinic ה ַ מ ּ ֵ ב ִ י א ת ְ ק ָ ל ָ ה ל ַ ח ֲ ר ֵ י ב ו ֹ quoted by Schlatter from Sifre, Numbers 5:15. εναυτω B Κ L Ρ al. pler. cat. vg. syrp arm. Thphyl. Oec. Aug.] post εστιν א A C 5. 105 jscr m syrsch sah. Lcif. 11. The first part of this verse repeats verse 9. The remainder emphasizes the dangers of the state described. The man’ s mental, moral, and spiritual state must affect his conduct. He “ walks” in that in which he “ is.” He who walks about in darkness can have no idea whither he is going. At every moment he is in danger of falling. Hatred perverts a man’ s whole action, and prevents conscious progress toward any satisfactory goal. The darkness in which he has chosen to abide has deprived him of the use of those means which he possesses of directing his course aright. It is an overfanciful interpretation which sees in the last words of the verse any reference to the idea that darkness, or want of the opportunity of using them, actually destroys the organs of vision. There is no reason to suppose that the writer had this physical truth in view as he wrote. He may be thinking of Isa 6:10; comp. Romans 11:8-10 and the close parallel in John 12:35. εστιν ] μενειΡ . τουςοφθαλμους ] post αυτου 2:0 3, 42, 57, 95, 101. αυτου 2:0] om. K2 δ 161 (261). 12-17. Warning against love of the World. The appeal based on the readers’ position and attainments. 12-14. Grounds of the appeal. 15-17. Warning.12. Before passing on to the more direct application of the general principles which he has now stated in outline, the writer reminds his readers of what their position is and what is involved in it. He knows that they are harassed by doubts as to the validity of their Christian position, so he hastens to assure them of it, and to use his assurance as the ground of the appeal which he is making. He writes to them the Epistle which is in course of composition , because they are already members of the community of light. In virtue of what Christ is and has done, the sin which separates them from God has been, actually in part, potentially altogether, removed. The old, in their experience, and the young, in their strength, have a power which stands them in good stead. They can enjoy fellowship with God who is light, and in the communion of that fellowship they can see clearly so as to “ walk” without stumbling, to avoid the false allurements of the world, and the consequences which would follow their acceptance of the false teaching of the many antichrists whose presence shows that the last hour is come. And the reasons which led him to write that part of his letter which has already been penned (ἔγραψα ; cf. 27, where the ταῦτα shows that the reference is to the preceding verses) are similar. Those who have learned by experience the truth of the Fatherhood of God can confess the sins which their Father is faithful and just to forgive, and as παιδία who need and can obtain fatherly discipline and guidance they can go forward in the strength of love. Thus their position as Christians is the ground of his appeal. Much can be said to them which it would be impossible to address to those outside. Most, in fact, of what he has to say is of the nature of calling to remembrance that which they already know. The true safeguard against their present dangers lies in their realizing their Christian position, in carrying out in life the faith and knowledge which they already possess, in rekindling the enthusiasm of earlier days which has now grown cold. The experience of age, and the vigour of youth and early manhood, supply all that is needed to restore health in Christian thought and life. The life of the society is safe if the two classes of which it is composed will contribute of their treasure to the common store, and use for themselves and for the community the powers of which they are in actual possession.γράφω ] The present naturally refers to that which is in the course of composition, the letter as a whole. The present tense is used in 1:4, 2:1, 13 (bis). In each case the reference may be to the whole Epistle, though where ταῦτα is used it has suggested to some the probability of a more limited reference. The simplest explanation of the use of the aorist in ver. 14 is that the writer turns back in thought to that part of the letter which he has already finished, the writing of which can now be regarded as a simple complete act. Of the many explanations which have been offered this would seem on the whole to be the most natural, and least unsatisfactory. The suggestion that the author wished to vary the monotony of six repetitions of the same word need hardly be taken seriously. He is afraid neither of monotony nor of repetition, and the slight changes which he introduces into his repetitions are seldom, if ever, devoid of significance. A reference to a former document, either the Gospel, or a lost Epistle, is not probable. The reasons given for having written do not suit the Gospel, while they fit it admirably with the present Epistle, and with that part of it which has already taken shape. The Gospel was undoubtedly written for Christians rather than for those who were still “ of the world.” But its object was to instruct, to increase faith and deepen spiritual life, by imparting wider knowledge and clearer understanding of the real meaning of things already known. The aim of the Epistle is to emphasize the important points of what the readers have already grasped, and to persuade them to use their knowledge to meet present dangers. It was because of the knowledge which all possessed, of the Christian experience of the elder, and the strength and achievements in the Christian warfare of the younger among his readers, that he could make his appeal. But for that, he could not have written what he had written. A reference to a former Epistle must almost necessarily have been made clearer and more definite. It is, of course, quite possible that he had written to them before the present occasion. That the Canon has preserved but a selection of the Apostolic and sub-Apostolic correspondence is proved by the references contained in the Pauline Epistles, and probably in 3 John 1:9. And if such a letter had been written, it might have been misunderstood and have required further explanation or justification (cf. Karl, p. 32), as S. Paul found on two occasions during his correspondence with the Corinthians. But there is nothing in the passage to suggest that this was the case. It is still more difficult to suppose that the presents and the aorists have exactly the same reference. The use of the “ epistolary aorist” by which the author mentally transfers himself to the position of the recipients of the letter, or “ regards his letter as ideally complete,” is established. But it does not give us a satisfactory explanation of the change from present to aorist. Law’ s suggestion (The Tests of Life, p. 309), that after writing as far as the end of ver. 13 “ the author was interrupted in his composition, and that, resuming his pen, he naturally caught up his line of thought by repeating his last sentence,” is ingenious. But again it must be noticed that there is nothing to indicate that such a break actually took place. Repetition with slight changes not insignificant is a regular feature of the author’ s style.On the whole, the explanation to which preference has been given above is the best solution of a difficult problem, unless we prefer to leave it in the class of problems insoluble without the fuller knowledge of the exact circumstances, which doubtless made the writer’ s meaning, and reasons for writing as he did, quite clear to those who read his words. τεκνία ] The use of the diminutive is confined in the New Testament to the Johannine writings, with the exception of one passage in S. Paul (Galatians 4:19) where the reading is doubtful. It occurs only once in the Gospel. Its use is comparatively frequent in the Epistle (2:1. 12, 28, 3:7, 18, 4:4, 5:21). It is a natural word for the aged disciple, or Apostle, to use when addressing the members of a Church of whom many were no doubt his “ sons in the Faith,” and practically all must have belonged to a younger generation than himself. Differences of meaning must not always be pressed, but the word expresses community of nature, as contrasted with παιδία , which suggests the need of moral training and guidance . Throughout the Epistle the word seems to be used as a term of affection for the whole society to which the author writes. The final warning of the Epistle (v. 21) against idols, literal or metaphorical, could hardly be addressed to the children as opposed to the grown-up members of the community. The regular usage of the word in the Epistle has an important bearing on the next difficulty which these verses present, the question whether a double or triple division of the readers is intended. In the former case the clauses containing the vocatives τεκνία and παιδία are addressed to the whole community, which is then divided into the two classes of πατέρες and νεανίσκοι . This is now generally recognized as the most satisfactory interpretation. A triple division in which fathers are the middle term, could only be accepted as a last necessity. It might be possible, as Karl maintains, that the writer should first state the two extremes and then add the mean. But it is in the last degree improbable. Augustine’ s explanation, “ Filioli, quia baptismo neonati sunt, patres, quia Christum patrem et antiquum dierum agnoscunt, adolescentes, quia fortes sunt et ualidi,” fails to justify the relative position of the last two terms. And both terms, τεκνία and παιδία , have their significance as addressed to the whole body. All the children of the Kingdom share in the forgiveness of sins which Christ has won for them, and all are παιδία ; for the teaching and exhortation, which he has found it necessary to impart to them, show that none of them has finished his Christian education. Not even the eldest of them is as yet τέλειος .ὅι ] The third difficulty of the passage is the meaning of ὅτι . Does it introduce the contents of what is written, or the reasons for writing? Usage is probably in favour of the “ causal” meaning. There is no certain instance in the Epistle of the use of ὅτι after γράφω in the “ declarative” sense (cf. ver. 21). The “ contents” are generally expressed by an objective accusation . But this is not decisive. It is a question which must be decided by the general meaning of the individual passage. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/iccnt/ The gift of Divine kinship carries with it the obligation to self-purification.1. This verse is closely connected with the preceding. It is a meditation on the last words of that verse, ἐξαὐτοῦγεγέννηται . The writer is trying to restore the waning enthusiasm of his readers, and to recall them to their first love. He therefore reminds them of their high privilege and position. God has given them proof of His love. He has bestowed on them the rank and title of His children, sharers in His nature. And it is no mere title. It corresponds to real facts, if they will but realize them, and respond to them. And these facts are the cause of the hostile attitude of the world. Those who do not know God have no sympathy with those who share His nature. An interesting parallel to this passage is found in Pirqe Aboth, iii. 22 (ed. Taylor, 1897), “ Beloved are Israel that they are called children of God; greater love (was it that it) was made known to them that they are called children of God, as it is said, Ye are the children of the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 14:1). We may also compare and contrast (cf. Windisch, ad loc.) Philo, de confusione ling. 146 f. (Cohn, ii. p. 257) καὶγὰρεἰμήπωἱκανοὶθεοῦπαῖδεςνομίζεσθαιγεγόναμεν , ἀλλάτοιτῆςἀειδοῦςεἰκόνοςαὐτοῦ , λόγουτοῦἱερωτάτου . The emphasis on the direct relation of Christians to God is characteristic of the Epistle, though the writer conceives of this relationship as realized in and through Christ. ἴδετεποταπήν ] Cf. Galatians 6:11, ἴδετεπηλίκοιςὑμῖνγράμμασινἔγραψα : and for the combination with ποταπός , Mark 13:1, ἴδεποταποὶλίθοι . In the N.T. ποταπός generally suggests surprise, and very often something of an admirable character (qualem, Latt. verss.). Cf. Matthew 8:27; Luke 1:29, Luke 7:39. Luke 7:2 P. 3:11 . The Latt. verss. never use cujas, ποταπός having lost its reference to place. ἀγάπην ] Love, not token of love. “ The Divine love is, as it were, infused into them, so that it is their own, and becomes in them the source of a divine life.” δέδωκεν ] is better supported than the aorist, and is intrinsically superior. The results of what they have received are permanent and abiding. Nowhere else in N.T. does ἀγάπηνδίδοναι occur. ὁπατήρ ] suggested by the following τέκναθεοῦ . Cf. Revelation 21:7. ἵνατέκναθεοῦκληθῶμεν ] Another instance of the definitive ἵνα . It is difficult to find any “ full telic” force here. God did not give His love to men in order that they might be called sons. The greatness of His love to them was manifested in this, that He allowed Himself to be called their Father. Cf. ver. 11, αὕτηἐστὶνἡἀγγελία , … ἵναἀγαπῶμεν . According to the general usage of this Epistle and the Fourth Gospel, τέκνα 66θεοῦ emphasizes the community of nature as distinguished from the dignity of heirship. The “ being called” includes the “ being,” but it is not synonymous with it. It lays special stress on the dignity of the Christian title and position.καὶἐσμέν ] An awkward parenthesis, which scribes naturally dropped, as in the Receptus, or adapted to the sentence, as in the Latin Versions, et simus. But it is in the author’ s style. Cf. the true text of Joh 1:15, κέκραγενλέγων — οὗτοςἦνὁεἰπών — Ὁὀπίσωμουἐρχόμενος , and also Revelation 1:6; 2 John 1:2. And it also adds force to the sentence. “ It is no mere empty title. It is a realized fact, though some are in danger of forgetting it.” Justin seems to have known this verse; Dial. c. Try. 123 (353 B), οὕτωςκαὶἡμεῖςἀπὸτοῦγεννήσαντοςἡμᾶςεἰςθεὸνΧριστοῦ , — καὶθεοῦτέκναἀληθινὰκαλούμεθακαὶἐσμέν , οἱτὰςἐντολὰςτοῦΧριστοῦφυλάσσοντες . διὰτοῦτο ] Because they knew not God. As usual, the reference of τοῦτο is to what follows. They do not recognize us, because they did not know God. Those who failed to know God in creation, in history, in the revelation made by Jesus Christ, naturally fail to know those who are of like nature. αγαπην ] post πατηρ H δ 6 . δεδωκεν א B C K L P al. longe plu. Thphyl. Oec.] εδωκεν A L 13, 27 cscr dscr. ημιν ] υμιν B K 22, 31, 80, 100: post πατηρ H 257 (33). τεκναθεουκληθωμεν ] κληθητετεκναθῡ Ia δ 382 (?). καιεσμεν ] καιεστιν H 162 (61) Ia 397f, 205, 106, 261 (96): om. K L al. plu. armzoh. ημας ] υμας א * K L P al. 40 arm-codd. Thphyl. Oec. εγνω ] εγνωκατε P 192: εγνωτε 100 al. pauc. αυτον ] + οκοσμος Ic 174 (252). 2. The thought of τέκναθεοῦ is expanded in connection with the thought of the Parousia. Here and now they have attained to the position of “ children of God.” Their present dignity is as nothing compared with the glory which shall be revealed. The exact conditions of their future state have not yet been made clear. What has already become matter of common knowledge is that, the more fully Christ is revealed, the closer will be their likeness to Him. What they have seen of Christ incarnate has raised them to the position of God’ s children. If He is fully made manifest, those who see Him as He is “ will be consummated in the divine likeness to which it was the divine purpose that they should attain” (Westcott). Cf. Genesis 1:26. All is not yet made manifest, but they have so learned the Christ that they know that it is “ God’ s task to make the heavenly period Perfect the earthen.” ἀγαπητοί ] Cf. 3:21, 4:11, and contrast 2:7, 4:1, 7. The word is used here, not to introduce a new section, but to call attention to a further meditation on what has preceded. The writer uses the term which reminds his readers of their and his common share in the gift which God has given. νῦντέκναθεοῦἐσμέν ] Cf. καὶἐσμέν of the preceding verse. What they have at present justifies their full confidence for the future, which will bring the complete unfolding of that which is even now present, though its manifestation is hindered by the circumstances in which they are placed.οὔπωἐφανερώθη ] For οὔπω with the aorist, where the writer is not looking back on a time separated by an interval from that of writing or speaking, cf. Mark 11:2 ; 1 Corinthians 8:2 ; Hebrews 12:4 ; Revelation 17:10 , 12 . The statement denies that there has ever yet been a moment at which it could be said ἐφανερώθη , where the aorist would be either timeless, or expressive of what has just happened. There is no necessary reference to any occasion “ on which the revelation might have been expected,” such as the manifestation of the Risen Lord (Westcott). οἴδαμεν ] We know enough to justify confidence even if no complete revelation has as yet been made. Great as are our privileges now, how far greater then! Nothing short of being like God in Christ. Contrast γινώσκομεν (2:3, 18, 3:24, etc.): here no progress in knowledge is suggested: we are aware of the future likeness.ἐὰνφανερωθῇ ] May mean either (1) if it shall be revealed, i.e. our future condition , or (2) “ if He shall be revealed,” i.e. Christ. The first is the more natural interpretation so far as grammar is concerned. It connects the words naturally with the preceding οὔπωἐφανερώθη . And it gives an adequate meaning to the words. “ If our future glory is revealed, it will be found to be not less than likeness to God, the open vision of whose glory shall transform us.” In favour of (2) is the use of φανερωθῇ of Christ in ver. 28 of the preceding chapter, and the general sense of the passage. Throughout the passage the writer’ s thoughts are turned to the revelation of Christ in His glory at His Parousia. If He be manifested in His true glory, the vision will change us to His likeness. Cf. 2 Corinthians 3:18, τὴνδόξανΚυρίουκατοπτριζόμενοιτὴναὐτὴνεἰκόναμεταμορφούμεθαἀπὸδόξηςεἰςδόξαν : Colossians 3:4, ὁτὰνὁΧριστὸςφανερωθῇ … τότεκαὶὑμεῖςσὺναὐτῷφανερωθήσεσθεἐνδόξῃ . And if the use of φανεροῦσθαι in 2:28 partly suggests this interpretation, in spite of the intervening οὔπωἐφανερώθη , where the τίἐσόμεθα determines the meaning of the verb, it must also be remembered that the language of soliloquy and meditation has to some extent its own rules. To one pondering over the future glory of the Son of God, in the light of the present revelation of the Risen Lord, which suggests so much more than it actually reveals, the words ἐὰνφανερωθῇ could probably have but one meaning. To us it would have been clearer if the subject had been definitely expressed. It does not follow that the same is true of the writer, or of those for whose sakes he is giving written form to his meditations. Very possibly they had often heard him meditate on the theme ἐὰνφανερωθῇ . He uses the word φανεροῦσθαι eighteen times, and in twelve Christ is the subject, though most of them refer to His manifestation in the flesh. ὅμοιοι ] Contrast Philippians 2:6, τὸεἶναιἴσαθεῷ . And for the thought, cf. Plato, Theaetetus, 176 B, φυγὴδὲὁμοίωσιςτῷθεῷκατὰτὸδυνατόν : Greg. Thaum. Paneg. in Origenem, c. 12, τόγεπάντωντέλοςοὐχἕτερόντιοἶμαιἢκαθαρῷτῷνῷἐξομοιωθένταπροσελθεῖντῷθεῷκαὶμένεινἐναὐτῷ . Revelation 22:4, καὶὄψονταιτὸπρόσωποναὐτοῦ . Similes, quia beati, says Bede. ὅτι ] “ Because we shall see Him as He is.” What men saw of Jesus of Nazareth, when He manifested His glory under the limitations of human life, raised them to the position of τέκναθεοῦ , in the case of all who received Him (John 1:13). How much greater transforming power shall there be in the vision of Him as He is, no longer veiled by the conditions of earthly life! It is possible to take ὅτικ .τ .λ . as giving the proof of the knowledge . We know that we shall be like Him, for we know that we shall see Him; and only the pure in heart shall see God. He is visible only to those who share His nature. Like is perceived by like alone. But if the writer had meant this he surely would have expressed himself differently. He often leaves not a little for his readers to supply. But he demands from them the use of spiritual insight rather than of mental acuteness. Weiss’ explanation is too ingenious for its context. τεκνα ] post θεου P 31. τι ] οτι Ia 270 (54) K 559 (415). οιδαμεν ] + δε K L al. pler. cat. syrsch cap. sahd aeth. Or. Dam. Thphyl. οτι (? 2:0)] pr. και Ia 397f, 205, 106, 201 (96): και Ia 158 (395). οψομεθα ] οψωμεθα 31 Rev_2 scr: uidemus, boh-ed. 3. The possession of such a hope is the strongest incentive to absolute purity. The hope is not really grasped except by those whose striving towards this goal is eager and constant. The hope is not stated to be the necessary condition of the purity, but the purity is the necessary result of the hope. It is not denied that other causes may produce a similar result. But where such a hope really exists the striving after purity must follow. The Christian hope is incompatible with moral indifference. No one, not even the “ Gnostic,” is raised by it above the moral obligations. And the purity aimed at is absolute. The standard is nothing less than the perfected human life of the glorified Christ.πᾶς ] The use of πᾶς in this Epistle and in the Gospel is instructive. It generally sets aside the claims of some party or other who claimed special privileges or exemptions for themselves. ὁἔχων … ἐπ ʼ αὐτῷ ] The form of expression emphasizes the thought of hope possessed and enjoyed as a sure possession (ἔχεινἐλπίδα being stronger than the simple verb), and which rests on the Christ, and is therefore surely and securely grounded. Contrast Acts 24:15, ἐλπίδαἔχωνεἰςτὸνθεόν , reaching as far as (Westcott). Cf. 1 Timothy 4:10, 1 Timothy 5:5. See Introduction, p. iv; also 1 Timothy 6:17; 1Ti_1 P. 1:13, 21. ἐπ ʼ αὐτῷ must, of course, refer to Christ. ἁγνίζει ] Cf. Exodus 19:10 f.; Numbers 8:21; Joshua 3:5; Jos_1 Est 7:10, and also John 11:55. Those who appeared before God at the Jewish feasts were required first to purify themselves from all Levitical and ceremonial uncleanness. The hope of appearing before the presence of God, and of seeing Christ as He is, necessarily inspires its possessors with the desire of putting away every defilement which clouds the vision of God, even as the human nature of the Christ, made perfect through the discipline and suffering of earthly life, has even now been exalted to the unveiled presence of the Father. καθώς ] He has attained, and those who hope to attain likewise will naturally spare no effort to follow the same path. But καθώς suggests a pattern, rather than introduces a motive. ἐκεῖνος ] For the change of pronoun, cf. John 5:39, and perhaps 19:35. Throughout the Epistle ἐκεῖνος used absolutely refers to Christ. Cf. 2:6 (note). ἁγνός ] For the difference between ἁγνός and καθαρός , see Westcott’ s note. Καθαρός seems to state the objective fact, ἁγνός emphasizes the subjective feeling. The Vulg. commonly has castus for ἁγνός , but here has sanctus. τηνελπιδα ] fidem, sahd ταυτην ] om. Ia 70, 367 (505). επαυτω ] επαυτον 2. 25. 30. post εαυτον boh-sah. (in eo): εναυτω 31. εαυτον ] αυτον 31* oscr. 4. πᾶς ] Cf. ver. 3 (note). In contrast with those who seek to cleanse themselves from all defilement, are set those who continue to do the sin which defiles and separates from God. There is no special class of illuminati, superior to the obligation to keep the moral law. The test of progress is obedience. Those who fail to do the will of God, to work out the best of which their nature is capable, are breaking the law of God, which is the law of their being. All sin is law-breaking; all falling short of the highest possible is disobedience to God’ s law for men, the law of self-realization after the pattern of the Christ. He that fails to do righteousness breaks the law.τὴνἀνομίαν ] ἀνομία here is, of course, not the antinomianism of the “ Gnostic.” The condemnation of that would have required the converse of the statement here made, “ All ἀνομία is sin.” But the writer is undoubtedly thinking of the claim made by the superior “ Gnostic,” that he is at liberty to follow the leading of his own desires, without being under any obligation to the moral law, which is only binding on the ignorant and the inferior. The sins of which the writer is thinking are failures to fulfil the law of love, rather than grosser sins of the flesh, which are hardly, perhaps never, referred to in this Epistle. But whatever form they take, sinful acts are not matters of indifference. In the case of all men, even the most intelligent, they are transgressions of a valid law. He who stoops to them shows himself thereby to be no true τέκνονθεοῦ . καὶἡἁμαρτίακ .τ .λ .] The καί adds a clause which carries the thought a step further. Not only is “ doing sin” a violation of law, but sin in its very nature is a transgression of the law of God. It is the self-assertion of the finite against the eternal will of Him who has the right to claim absolute obedience. την 1o] om. 31. η 2o] pr. και א : (?) om. I a 200 (83). εστιν ] + δε H δ 2* . 5. καὶοἴδατεκ .τ .λ .] Not only does he who commits sin break a Divine law, but he stultifies the whole purpose of the Incarnation. Christ was manifested to men in His earthly life in order to take away sin, to destroy and remove it. And being sinless Himself, it was in His power to do so. To these two great incentives to self-cleansing, the purpose of the Incarnation, and the power of the Incarnate Christ, the writer can appeal as to part of the normal Christian consciousness, whether he includes himself or speaks only of his readers . ἐκεῖνος ] Cf. ver. 3. The writer apparently sees no difficulty in using ἐκεῖνος and αὐτός in the same verse with reference to the same subject: though, of course, the case where ἐκεῖνος stands first is not strictly parallel to those in which it follows the use of αὐτός , as in ver. 3. ἐφανερώθη ] The word is used more frequently, as here, by the writer with reference to Christ’ s first coming, or manifestation, in the flesh. Cf. 1 Timothy 3:16; 1Ti_1 P. 1:20. ἄρῃ ] Take away, i.e. destroy. The Hebrew נ ש ׂ א is used in both senses of taking away and bearing. But it is differently translated into Greek in the two cases. Αἴρειν expresses the former, φέρειν the latter. Cf. Isaiah 53:11, τὰςἁμαρτίαςαὐτῶναὐτὸςἀνοίσει .τὰςἁμαρτίας ] whether used absolutely, or with the addition of ἡμῶν , denotes the many acts in which the sin of humanity is expressed. The concrete expression is more forcible than the absolute . ἁμαρτίαἐναὐτῷοὐκἔστιν ] cf. John 7:18, ἀδικίαἐναὐτῷοὐκἔστιν . The statement is made of the whole human life of the Christ , and is not confined to the earthly part of it. In virtue of His sinlessness He can accomplish the purpose of the Incarnation; and the thought also suggests the means by which it can be accomplished, a thought which is further developed in the next verse. Cf. Augustine, “ In quo non est peccatum ipse uenit auferre peccatum. Nam si esset in illo peccatum, auferendum est illi, non ipse auferret.” οιδατε A B C K L al. pler. vg. boh-codd. syr. aeth. Tert. Aug.] οιδαμεν א 40, 98 tol. sah. arm. boh-ed. Fulg. ταςαμαρτιας A B P 5. 13. 27. 66**, 81 am. fu. demid. harl. tol. cop. syr. aeth. Tert. Aug. Fulg.] + ημων א C K L al. pler. cat. vg. sah. syr. Ath. Thphyl. Oec. εναυτω ] post εστιν א sah. cop. aeth. 6. In so far as union with the Sinless is realized, sin ceases to be. The doing of sin shows that the Christ has never been fully seen or known. The statements are made absolutely, after the writer’ s wont. They must, of course, be interpreted in the light of 1:8 ff., where the writer makes it clear that he does not mean that those who have realized their union with Christ have actually attained as yet to a state of complete sinlessness. Where sin is, the vision of the Christ has not yet been made perfect. There is nothing to show that the writer is describing the general character of the Christian, which remains unchanged by separate sinful acts, inasmuch as they are foreign to it and do not affect it as a whole. The statement is made absolutely without reference to the modifications necessary when it is applied to the individual case. ἐναὐτῷμένειν ] As contrasted with εἶναι , μένειν perhaps suggests in this context the necessity of human effort. οὐχἁμαρτάνει ] Augustine has supplied the necessary modification, “ In quantum in ipso manet, in tantum non peccat,” a sentence which Bede has incorporated in his Commentary (cf. Westcott’ s note).ἑώρακεν … ἔγνωκεν ] The vision and the knowledge have their abiding results. ὁρᾶν is used by the writer of spiritual vision. It cannot be restricted here (as by Weiss) to those who had actually seen the Lord in the flesh, ἔγνωκεν being added to meet the case of later disciples. Cf. Bede, “ Visionem dicit et cognitionem fidei, qua iusti etiam in hac uita deum uidere delectantur, donec ad ipsam speciem apertae visionis eius in futuro preueniant, de qua supra dicitur, Quoniam uidebimus eum sicuti est,” a passage which is also based on Augustine’ s comment, “ est illuminatio per fidem, est illuminatio per speciem.” If the two words are to be distinguished here, ὁρᾶν lays stress on the object, which appears and is grasped by the mental vision, γινώσκειν on the subsequent subjective apprehension of what is grasped in the vision, or it is unfolded gradually in experience. πας 2o] pr. και 38. 67 (mg.). 95. 96**. 97 (mg.) hscr vg. syr. aeth. arm. Or. Thphyl. Aug. (senel): pr. διο Ic 258 (56). εγνωκεν ] εγνω Ib 365. 472 (214) Ic 208, 116 (307) K δ 359 (479). 2. 3:7-18. Elucidation of the thesis (ethical), and earnest warning against those who would lead them astray (a) 7-10. Further meditation on the Divine Birth. The opposite statement. He that sinneth is of the Devil. (b) 10-17. Clearer definition of sin as failure to love the brethren, and of its opposite, love. 7. The views of the false teachers were plausible, and there was imminent danger of some of the faithful being seduced. But the facts were clear. He, and he only, who shows the fruits of righteousness in what he does, is righteous. Righteousness is always known by its fruits. There are no heights of knowledge, or superior kinds of nature, for which action is a matter of indifference. τεκνία ] If this is the true reading, the appeal is again made to their common (spiritual) nature. There is some authority for the reading παιδία , which would be equally suitable. The danger would have been less imminent, if they had used their own powers, and shown themselves less dependent on the moral guidance of others. μηδεὶςπλανάτω ] Cf. 2:26. They must yield to the seductions of no one, however prominent his position or plausible his arguments. It is, of course, possible that the writer is thinking of some particular opponent. ὁποιῶν ] Cf. 1:6, 3:4, etc. If the character is true, the whole life will be an expression of it, even as the whole of Christ’ s life was a continuous expression of the character and person in whom God could be well pleased. ἐκεῖνος ] Cf. vv. 3, 4 (notes). Righteousness was fully realized in Him who set the Christian standard. No lower ideal would prove a sufficient incentive to holiness, i.e. the highest self-realization of which the nature of man is capable, who was created in order to grow into the likeness of God. τεκνια א B K L al. pler. cat. Thphyl. Oec. m vg. syr. Tert. Aug.] παιδια A C P 5. 13. 27. 29 arm. (uid.) cop. syrp mg Lcif.: + μου 15. 26. 36. 68 cat. sah. syrsch aeth. μηδεις ] μητις A. ποιωνδικαιοσυνην (? ? cf. v. Soden, p. 1856)] δικαιοςων H δ 86 . δικαιος (? 2o)] om. H δ 48 (33.) την 2o om. א *. 8. ὁποιῶντὴνἁμαρτίαν ] The contrast to 7b. He whose whole course of action is the expression of “ sin,” belongs to the Devil, from whom the life which animates him is derived, as the higher life which issues in righteousness proclaims its possessor a τέκνονθεοῦ . ἐκτοῦδιαβόλουἐστίν ] Cf. Bede, “ Non carnis originem ducendo ex diabolo sicut Manichaeus impurissime de cunctis credit hominibus: sed imitationem uel suggestionem peccandi sumendo ab illo, quomodo et nos filii Abrahae sumus facti, imitando fidem Abrahae,” a suggestive note, though it ignores the nearer illustrations of the context. ἀπ ʼ ἀρχῆς ] The meaning of ἀπ ʼ ἀρχῆς has been variously interpreted. It has generally been understood either of (1) the beginning of “ sinning,” i.e. the Fall of Adam, or events which preceded the first sin of man; or (2) the beginning of the existence of the Devil. His first act was one of sin. The uncertainty of both these interpretations has led Rothe and others to give the phrase a logical rather than a temporal meaning. “ Satan sins, the author would say, ‘ par principe,’ for the sake of sinning. Other sinners sin for the sake of another. In contrast to him all human sin is derived.” Whether the actual phrase can bear such an interpretation or not, the point of view of the readers has surely been overlooked. The writer must have intended a meaning which the words could suggest to them. The phrase must therefore be interpreted in accordance with John 8:44, John 8:1:1; Genesis 1:1, etc. The attempt to assign a definite date, so to speak, is a mistake. “ The earliest times spoken of Genesis” would perhaps be the nearest popular paraphrase. “ From the first” would give its meaning with fair accuracy. It denotes the earliest events which have any bearing on the point at issue. From the very first, long before the first actual sin of any man, “ the devil sinneth,” and the course begun from the first has been continued ever since. All human sin, therefore, has its origin in what is external to the man who sins. It comes from an external source. It is not self-originated or part of man’ s nature. As Westcott has said elsewhere, “ There is no view of human nature so inexpressibly sad as that which leaves out the Fall.” As also F. D. Maurice has said, “ There has been no period of the existence of human beings in which they have not been liable to the assaults of this Tempter.” There is nothing in the passage to suggest that the writer held a “ dualistic” view of the origin of evil, considering the Devil “ an originally evil being” ; but it is manifest that he believed in a personal Tempter. Cf. John 8:44.εἰςτοῦτοἐφανερώθηκ .τ .λ .] All such action is in direct opposition to the purpose of the Incarnation of the Son of God, who was manifested in the flesh in order to destroy the works of the Devil, i.e. the sins which he has introduced into the lives of men. λύσῃ ] “ destroy.” The word generally includes the suggestion of destroying, undoing or dissolving, that which forms the bond of cohesion. Cf. John 2:19, John 5:18, John 7:23 (the Lord “ dissolved” the Jewish sabbatical tradition by applying to the question the higher principle of the duty of restoring man to his true self). Windisch aptly quotes the λογίον of the Egyptian Gospel, ἦλθονκαταλῦσαιτὰἔργατῆςθηλείας . ο 1o] + δε A 25, 68 kscr tol. boh-ed. arm. aeth. Lcif. λυση ] λυσεί B 100: λυθη P. 9. He who is begotten of God must be in character like God who begat him. Sin, which is of the Devil, finds no place in him. ὁγεγεννημένος ] Compare and contrast John 1:13, ἐκθεοῦἐγεννήθησαν . Here the writer emphasizes not only the initial act, or the single act, but its permanent results. ἁμαρτίανοὐποιεῖ ] Anarthrous and therefore qualitative. He does not do that which is sinful in character. But the absence of the article should not be pressed. ὅτισπέρμα ] The seed which produces the new life in him (cf. John 1:13), as a permanent and abiding factor.1 The interpretation which equates σπέρμα with the Word of God (“ semen dei, id est uerbum dei,” Bede, from Augustine, who adds, “ unde dicit Apostolus, Per Euangelium ego uos genui, 1 Corinthians 4:15) receives some support from 1 P. 1:23; James 1:18, but is hardly in accordance with the Johannine teaching, in which the Spirit is the author of the new birth (cf. Joh_3.). Wohlenberg in an interesting paper has pleaded for the interpretation which identifies σπέρμαθεοῦ with God’ s children scollectively . It has the advantage of referring αὐτοῦ and ἐναὐτῷ to the same person (God’ s children abide in Him), but it makes the following clause, οὐδύναται … γεγέννηται , very difficult both in grammar and sense. As Law has pointed out, the last clause must then have run . Still less can be said for Karl’ s interpretation of the words as referring to Christ. Cf., however, Justin, Apol. i. 32, where we perhaps have an echo of this.2οὐδύναταικ .τ .λ .] The fact that he has been begotten of God excludes the possibility of his committing sin as an expression of his true character, though actual sins may, and do, occur, in so far as he fails from weakness to realize his true character. Cf. John 8:33, John 8:39. Every τέκνον must reproduce the works of his father. In so far as any man is a τέκνονθεοῦ he “ cannot” do the works of the Devil. The writer speaks, however, here as elsewhere, in the absolute language of the prophet rather than with the circumspection of the casuist. On the N.T. doctrine of Birth from God, see Windisch, p. 118. πας ] pr. διοαγαπητοι Ic 258 (56). γεγεννημενος ] γεγενημενος K 99. 100. 177 * jscr oscr al. pauc. του (? 1o)] om. H δ 48 (33) Ia 106 (179). αμαρτιανουποιει ] non peccat sah. boh. σπερμα ] pr. το Ic 551 (216) O46 (154). αυτου ] dei sahd: om. Ia 382 (231). αμαρτανειν ] αμαρτιανποιησαι Ia 158 (395). οτι ] οστις Ia 264 (233). 10. ἐντούτῳ ] This may possibly refer to what has preceded, the not-doing or the doing of sin, which are the distinguishing characteristics of the classes into which the writer divides mankind. But it is more probable, and more in accordance with the writer’ s usual custom, that the reference is to what follows, the achievement of, or the failure to achieve, righteousness and love (cf. 2:3). For the construction, cf. the note on 1:4. φανερά ] The writer is striving to give his readers a distinguishing test which can be easily applied. It is, of course, to the judgment of men, not the judgment of God, that the two clues become manifest. τέκνατοῦδιαβόλου ] cf. Acts 13:10, υἱὲδιαβόλου , and Joh_8. The teaching of this section of the Epistle can hardly be understood without reference to the 8th chapter of the Gospel, with which it is intimately connected. πᾶς ] There are no exceptions on the ground of superior knowledge or “ pneumatic” nature; cf. notes on vv. 3, 4. καὶὁμὴἀγαπῶν ] The doing of righteousness might be too vague and general a test. The writer therefore narrows it down to one special form of righteousness which is in fact the basis of the whole, and in the exercise of which the false teachers had apparently shown themselves particularly lacking. Cf. Romans 13:9, εἴτιςἑτέραἐντολή , ἐντῷλόγῳτούτῳἀνακεφαλαιοῦται , ἐντῷ · ἀγαπήσειςτὸνπλησίονσουὡςσεαυτόν .τὸνἀδελφὸναὐτοῦ ] The writer is obviously thinking of members of the Christian Society, not thereby excluding the wider duty on which the Sermon on the Mount and the Parables insist. The object of the Epistle is to suggest practical tests. They must be practical and such as are easily applied. No statement is made to the effect that he who confines his love to his Christian brethren has completely fulfilled the law of Christ. The writer has a special object in what he says, and he writes in view of the failure in this respect of showing love to fellow. Christians, which was conspicuous in the case of the false teachers, in spite of their claims to intellectual and spiritual superiority. There is nothing inconsistent with the teaching of the Christ in laying special stress on the first stage in obeying it. The experience of a lifetime, and especially of his later years, would seem to have taught the writer the necessity of charity beginning at home. εντουτω ] εκτουτου Ia 200f (83). πας ] pr. και C* uid aeth. ποιωνδικαιοσυνην א A B C K L P al. omnuid cat. harl. tol. arm. cop. syr. aeth. Did. Thphyl. Oec.] ωνδικαιος m vg. (am. fu. demid.) sah. syr. Or. Cyp. Lcif. Aug.: δικαιοςων H δ 6 . An interesting “ Western” variant, which can hardly claim to be original. The context requires the practical test of “ doing.” δικαιοσυνην א B L al. plu. Dam.] pr. την A C K P h. al. fere.20 Dam. 0 2o] om. Ia 382 (231). αυτου ] + ουκαγαπατονθν Ia 70 (505). 11. The original message of the Gospel, nay, the whole history of God’ s revelation of Himself to men from the earliest times, is summed up in the command to exercise mutual love. He therefore who does not love his brother shows thereby that he cannot be ἐκτοῦθεοῦ . αὕτη … ἵνα ] The αὕτη , which refers to what follows, excludes the possibility of any “ telic” force being retained by ἵνα here; cf. John 17:3, and the close parallels in John 13:34, John 13:15:12; 1 John 3:23, 1 John 4:21, 1 John 5:16. See also 1 John 5:3; 2 John 1:5, 2 John 1:6; cf. note on 1:9. The declarative, or definitive, use of ἵνα to introduce the contents of a command, or the like, is fully established for S. John. ἀγγελία ] The message of the Gospel, of which the law of love is the basis. The reading ἐπαγγελία does not suit the context, and it is obviously due to the careless substitution of a commoner word. Except in this passage, ἀγγελία is found only once in the N.T. (1 John 1:5). On the other hand, ἐπαγγελία occurs 51 times, but only once in the Johannine writings (1 John 2:25). ἣνἠκούσατεἀπ ʼ ἀρχῆς ] The law of love was an essential part of the earliest presentation of the Gospel. It formed part of the earliest teaching which the readers had received. The contents, however, of ver. 12 suggest that in the words ἀπ ʼ ἀρχῆς the writer’ s thought goes back to still earlier times. The earliest stories of the beginnings of the race bear witness to the fatal consequences of disobedience to the law of love. αγγελια A B K L al. plu. cat. Thphyl. Oeccom vg. Aug.] επαγγελια א C P 27. 29. 40. 66**. 69. 99 ascr nscr al. mu. harl. syr. sahwb cop. arm. seth. Did. Cyr. Oectxt Lcif.: uerbum sahd. ινααγαπωμεν ] ut diligatis boh-ed. armusc: ινααγαπατε Ia 113 (235). 12. The story of Cain is the typical example of the “ want” of brotherly love. The form of the reference here is conditioned by what the writer has to say about the hatred which Christians must expect from the world. Men’ s deeds are the natural outcome of their character and inclinations. Evil deeds are the expression of a character which takes pleasure in what is evil. Righteousness must always provoke the hostile feeling of those whose delight is in evil. And feelings must sooner or later express themselves in action. οὐκαθώς ] Cf. 2 Corinthians 8:5, καὶοὐκαθὼςἠλπίσαμενἀλλὰἑαυτοὺςἔδωκαν : John 14:27, οὐκαθὼςὁκόσμοςδίδωσιν , and especially John 6:58, οὗτόςἐστινὁἄρτοςὁἐξοὐρανοῦκαταβάς , οὐκαθὼςἔφαγονοἱπατέρεςκαὶἀπέθανον , where the construction is irregular, as here. The comparison is incomplete in form. It may be paraphrased “ the feelings of Christians for each other must not be like, rather they must be the exact opposite of, those of Cain, whose hatred of righteousness led him to the violent murder of his brother.” Schlatter aptly quotes in illustration (p. 149), ב ּ ְ א ֵ י ז ֶ ה א ָ ח · ל ֹ א ב ְ ק ַ י ִ ן ל ְ ה ֶ ב ֶ ל ֹ ק ַ י ִ ן ה ָ ר ַ ג א ֶ ת ־ ה ֶ ב ֶ ל , Pes. Kah. 16. 126a. ἐκτοῦπονηροῦἦν ] Every man must draw his life and power from one source or the other. His deeds show to whom he belongs and has attached himself. The writer never denies the individual freedom of choice. He only traces things back to what he believes to be their ultimate spiritual sources. ἔσφαξεν ] The verb always includes the idea of violence. In the N.T. σφάζειν is found only here and in the Apocalypse. Cf. Revelation 6:4, ἵναἀλλήλουςσφάξουσιν : 9, τὰςψυχὰςτῶνἐσφαγμένωνδιὰτὸνλόγοντοῦθεοῦ : 18:24, πάντωντῶνἐσφαγμένωνἐπὶτῆςγῆς . It is also used of the Lamb, and of the “ head” of the beast (13:3). In the LXX its most frequent use is sacrificial (cf. Genesis 22:10, of Isaac; Exodus 29:11; Leviticus 1:5; Numbers 11:22, etc.); but see also Judges 12:6 (A), σφάζουσιναὐτοὺςἐπὶτὰςδιαβάσειςτοῦἸορδάνου : 1 K. 15:33, ἔσφαξεΣαμουὴλτὸνἈγὰγἐνώπιονΚυρίου : 1 Mal 1:2, καὶἔσφαξεβασιλεῖς , etc.χάριντίνος ] The violent deed was only the last expression of that antipathy which righteousness always calls out in those who make evil the guiding principle of their life. This view, that the cause of the murder of Abel is to be found in the character of Cain as manifested in his actions, is hardly in accord with the narrative of Genesis (4:8 ff.), but it is quite in keeping with the suggestions read into that narrative by the adherents of the allegorical method of exegesis. We may compare Philo’ s treatment of the subject, who finds indications of Cain’ s φιλαυτία in the fact that he only offered his sacrifice “ after several days,” and not at once, with the readiness which should distinguish the service of God; and that he offered of the fruits, not of the first fruits. Cf. also Hebrews 11:4, where the stress is laid on the character of the sacrifices offered , rather than on the general character of all the actions of the two men. του (? 1o) om. Ia 397ffff (96) | τον ] pr. Abal, sahd. om. και … αυτον aeth. τινοςχαριν Isa_55 (236). ου ] pr. et sahd. αδελφουαυτου ] αβελ Ia 264 (233). δικαια ] bona arm. 13-16. The ground of the world’ s hatred of those who love, and the glory of love, which gives life, in Christ. 13-15. Those who can interpret aright the true meaning of the story of Cain and Abel will feel no surprise at the attitude of the world towards Christians. It only expresses the hostility which that which is good must always call out in that which is evil. Our love for the brethren assures us that we have already passed out of the state of hatred and death, and now abide in that of life. For life is love. He who does not love is still in the state of death. Every one who does not love his brother is a murderer, in the eyes of all to whom the true issues of things are manifest, even though he has so far stayed his hand from violence. And your common consciousness as men tells you that no murderer can have the higher life in him as a permanent and abiding principle of action. 13. μὴθαυμάζετε ] cf. John 3:7 , where the aorist emphasizes the immediate feeling aroused by a particular thought, or action, rather than the more permanent feeling called out by what is continuous. Cf. also John 5:28, where the form of sentence refers to the continuous feeling, not to the momentary surprise, which the fact that the hour was coming, when all the dead should hear the voice of the Son of God, might occasion. The construction with the present imperative is the usual construction in the Johannine writings, the aorist subjunctive being only used in the passage quoted above. Here it is significant. The hatred of the world was an abiding attitude, always liable to provoke unchristian retaliation, and always a temptation to the more “ intelligent” to neglect their duty to their weaker brethren. μη A B Ccorr K L al. pler. vg. sah. cop. syr. Lcif. Did. Thphyl. Oec.] pr. και א C* P 15. 18. 29. 36. 66**. 98. 191 cat.* syr. am. aeth. αδελφοι א A B C D al. mu. cat. vg. arm. Lcif. Did.] + μου K L al. longe. plu. syr. sah. cop. aeth. Thphyl. Oec. υμας ] ημας sah. Ia 1402 (219) O46 (154). 14. ἡμεῖςοἴδαμεν ] The appeal is to the Christian consciousness, shared by writers and readers alike. Their experience as Christians has taught them that conscious life is dormant till it is called out in active love and fellowship. Cf. Augustine (Tract. v. 10), “ Nemo interroget hominem; redeat unusquisque ad cordem suum: si ibi inuenerit charitatem fraternam, securus sit quia transiit a morte ad uitam.” ὁμὴἀγαπῶν ] The statement is put in its most general form. The state in which love has not been called out into conscious activity is a state of death. Life is the chance of learning how love not only “ might be,” but “ is.” The addition of τὸνἀδελφόν in the Receptus is natural in the light of the preceding clause and of ver. 16. But it narrows down the writer’ s meaning unnecessarily. In his more absolute statements he shows himself fully aware that the duty of love is absolute, and has a wider application than the Christian Society, even as the Christ is the propitation for the whole world, though in a practical Epistle he lays most stress on what is first practicable. τουςαδελφους ] + ημων א 68. 58lect syr. sah. ομηαγαπων א A B 13. 27. 29. vg. sahdb arm. Did. Lcif. Aug.] + τοναδελφον C K L P al. pler. sahw cop syr. Thphyl. Oec. Cassiod. (+ αυτου P Rev_10 sahw cop. syr. aeth.): τουςαδελφους 15. ο ] + δε Ia 256 (24). 15. πᾶςὁμισῶνκ .τ .λ .] Cf. Aug. (Tract. 5:10). “ Non movet manus ad occidendum hominem, homicida iam tenetur a Domino; uiuit ille, et iste iam interfector iudicatur.” Hatred is the moving cause, whether or not the occasion for its final display has presented itself and been used. Cf. Matthew 5:23, Matthew 5:24. ἀνθρωποκτόνος ] Cf. John 8:44, the only other instance of its use in the N.T. It is, of course, used here in its literal sense of actual murderer, not of the murderer of the soul. οἴδατε ] It is axiomatic. Their natural consciousness as men will tell them that the higher life cannot be communicated as a permanent possession to such an one. The writer does not avoid the use of irony when it suits his purpose. μένουσαν ] Cf. John 1:32, John 1:33, John 1:5:38, John 1:6:27; 1 John 2:14, 1 John 2:24; 2 John 1:2. The word suggests that eternal life is both “ a continuous power and a communicated life.” Wohlenberg’ s attempt to connect the word μένουσαν with the following verse is ingenious rather than convincing. Though it is not absolutely necessary to the sense, its position is justified by the μένει of ver. 14, and it serves to heighten the impossibility of the rejected hypothesis.πᾶς … οὐ ] The usual “ Hebraistic” expression, or at least the form of expression which a Jew writing Greek would naturally adopt. Cf. 1 John 2:19, 1 John 2:21, etc.; and see Moulton’ s note, Grammar of New Testament Greek, vol. i. p. 245 f. Such phrases as χωρὶςπάσηςὑπερθέσεως show that “ vernacular usage” only needed to be extended “ under the encouragement of a similar idiom in Hebrew.” But so far as the evidence goes it would seem that there has been “ extension” in the Semitic direction. The construction is not found in the Gospel. αυτου ] εαυτου B οιδατε ] οιδαμεν Ic 114 (335) sahwb boh.: pr. ουκ Ia δ 505 (69). πας 2o] + ο Ib δ 370 (1149). εναυτω B K al. plu. Thphyl. Oec.] ενεαυτω א A L C P al. 30. αιωνιον ] om. Ic 116. 114 . μενουσαν ] om. sahd. 16-18. Description of true love, and exhortation to its practice. The essence of love was manifested once for all, finally and completely, when the Christ gave His life for men. We know what true love really is in the light of that example. And we cannot but recognize our obligation to follow it, if need be even to the last sacrifice, for our brethren. There is, however, a simple test by which we can know at once whether we are at least on the road which leads to the possession of true love. He who is unwilling to give of his external possessions, where need is obvious and well known to him, has not even begun to cherish true love for God in his soul. True love proves itself in action. It cannot stop short at expressions of which the tongue is the instrument. It must show by actual deeds that the words in which it is professed correspond to real feelings of the heart. 16. ἐντούτῳ ] The reference is to what follows, according to the writer’ s usual custom, especially when a clause with ὅτι follows. τὴνἀγάπην ] Absolute. There is no need to supply a genitive, τοῦΧριστοῦ or τοῦθεοῦ . The true nature of love was manifested in such a way that men could learn to realize it, with abiding effects on their character and life . ἐκεῖνος ] He: neither writer nor readers feel the need for further definition by the addition of a name. Cf. the notes on vv. 3, 4. ἐκεῖνοςὑπὲρἡμῶν ] He for us: the Christ, the Son of God, for such as we are. The contrast is heightened by the order of the words. There are no depths of sacrifice to which true love will not stoop.τὴνψυχὴναὐτοῦἔθηκεν ] Neither of the O.T. phrases, which are usually quoted, ש ׂ י ם נ פ ש ׁ ב כ פ ו and ה ש ׂ י ם נ פ ש ׁ א ש ׁ ם (Isaiah 53:10), afford a sufficiently close parallel to suggest an interpretation. The additions, of ב כ פ ו in the one case, and א ש ׁ ם in the other, determine the exact sense of ש ׂ י ם .The Rabbinic phrases quoted by Schlatter (on John 10:11) all have נ ת ן . The usage of the Fourth Gospel is a safer guide. Cf. John 10:11, John 10:15, John 10:17, John 10:18, 13:John 10:37-38, John 10:15:13, and also 13:4, τίθησιτὰἱμάτια . The latter passage suggests the idea of laying aside, as a garment is put off, which agrees well with the use of the phrase in John 10:18. The usage of τιθέναι in John 2:10, τὸνκαλὸνοἶνοντίθησιν , can hardly help us to determine its meaning here. The phrase does not occur again in the Johannine Books. The Latin translation “ dat” in John 10:11 is, of course, derived from the Western variant δίδωσιν (א D). Elsewhere the Vulgate uses ponere. Spitta’ s suggestions (ZNTW x. [1909] p. 78), that the phrase is used rightly in vv. 11, 15, in the sense of risking or staking his life for the sheep, and taken up in a different sense (of giving, or laying down) in the later interpolation of vv. 17, 18, is worthy of consideration, but it has perhaps been influenced by the Hebrew phrase, where the meaning, as has been pointed out, is determined by the added ב כ פ ו . If the distinction is to be maintained, the present verse agrees with the “ later” passage. καὶἡμεῖςκ .τ .λ .] It is not clear whether this clause is added to the first clause, ἐκεῖνος … ἔθηκεν , and governed by ὅτι , or is to be regarded as a consequence of the example set by the Christ. The obligation, which all good men recognize, to sacrifice their lives, if need be, for others, may be part of the means whereby we learn what true love is. Such a κοινὴἐννοία of good men throws the clearest light on the nature of love. But the obligation, as felt by “ us,” may also be regarded as the consequence of what Christ has done. When once the perfect example has been set, the duty of all disciples to follow it is clear. Grammatically the first is preferable. But the use of καί in this Epistle is wide. The writer always thinks as a Hebrew, and this is reflected in his forms of expression. The second interpretation is therefore grammatically admissible. And it has the advantage of far greater simplicity and directness. The emphatic ἡμεῖς , moreover, is in favour of it. εγνωκαμεν ] εγνωμεν Ic 551 (216): γινωσκομεν Ic 114 (335). τηναγαπην ] + τουθεου 52 vg. (am. demid. harl.) arm-codd. boh- codd.: + ipsius m tol. Vig.: + eius, Ambrst. τηνψυχηναυτουεθηκενυπερημων Ia 200f (83). ημων ] υμων Ia 175, 502 (319) Ib 398, 78, δ 507, δ 368 (69). υπερτωναδελφων ] post ψυχας Ia δ 457 (209) Ib δ 507 (241) Ic 551 (216) K δ 200 (922). εθηκεν ] τεθεικεν 4. 31. 40: τεθηκεν Ia 264. δ 505 (233): ponit ante τηνφυχ . αυτου 31*. υπερ ] περι P. τωναδελφων ] αλληλων boh. Ic 114 (335): + ημων Ia 101. 7 (40). θειναι א A B C P 5. 15. 26. 27. 29. 68] τιθεναι K. L al. pler. Thphyl. Oec. 17. The practical test. Wider obligations may be acknowledged with all readiness in theory, where a more homely test reveals the extent of a man’ s failure. The writer is always enforcing the truth that philanthropy begins at home. Cf. Philo, De Post. Cain, 86 (Cohn, ii. 18), τίγὰρὄφελοςλέγεινμὲντὰβέλτιστα , διανοεῖσθαιδὲκαὶπράττειντὰαἴσχιστα ; σοφιστῶνοὗτοςὸτρόπος . τὸνβίοντοῦκόσμου ] Well paraphrased in Augustine’ s version, facultates mundi. Βίος always denotes life in its external aspects. Cf. 2:16, ἡἀλαζονίατοῦβίου : Mark 12:44 ( = Luke 21:4); 1 Timothy 2:2; 2 Timothy 2:4; and for the verb, 1 P. 4:2, τὸνἐπίλοιπονἐνσαρκὶβιῶσαιχρόνον . Cf. also Acts 26:4, τὴν … βίωσίνμουἐκνεότητος . Consequently, βίος is rare in the N.T., while ζωή occurs more than a hundred times. θεωρῇ ] Behold: not merely cast a passing glance, but see, long enough to appreciate and understand the circumstances of the case. Cf. John 20:6; Acts 4:13; Revelation 11:11 f. χρείανἔχοντα ] Cf. 2:27; and for the use of the phrase absolutely, Mark 2:25; Acts 2:45, Acts 2:4:35; Ephesians 4:28. κλείσῃ ] Cf. Psa_76. (77.) 10, ἢσυνέξειτοὺςοἰκτειρμοὺςαὐτοῦἐντῇὀργῇαὐτοῦ ; cf. also Deuteronomy 15:7, ἐὰνγένηταιἐνσοὶἐνδεής … οὐκἀποστέρξειςτὴνκαρδίανσου . The word perhaps suggests that a barrier has to be raised against the natural human feelings which the contemplation of such a case calls out. τὰσπλάγχνα ] Cf. Proverbs 12:10, τὰδὲσπλάγχνατῶνἀσεβῶνἀνελεήμονα . The word is not found in the earlier parts of the Septuagint, and only in this passage is it used to translate ר ַ ח ֲ מ ִ י ם , which in the Psalms is paraphrased by οἰκτιρμοί (Psa_24. (25.) 6, and in Isaiah (47:6) by ἔλεος . See Lightfoot’ s note on Philippians 1:8. The classical distinction between σπλάγχνα and ἔντερα (not in N.T.) is not to be found in Hebrew forms of expression. τοῦθεοῦ ] The context determines that the genitive must be objective. Cf. 5:3. εχη ] εχειτις Ic 258 (56). θεωρη ] θεωρει K L 29. 40 alplus 20. αυτου (? 1o)] om. Isa_7. κλειση ] κλεισει L 13 al. απαυτου ] om. Ib δ 180 (1319). εν ] επ Ia 70 (505) Ib 253f (2) K 453 δ 401 (62). 18. τεκνία ] The appeal is made, as usual, on the ground of the common spiritual nature which they all share. ἐνἔργῳκαὶἀληθείᾳ ] The phrase is contrasted with λόγῳ and γλώσσῃ . Practical love corresponds to inward truth. Much protestation is a mere exercise of the tongue. τεκνια א A B C P Rev_15 cat. m am. syr. arm. Clem. Dam. Aug.] + μου K L al. longe. plur. vg. (fu. demid. etc.) syr. sah. cop. aeth. Thphyl. Oec. αγαπωμεν ] αγαπατε H δ 6 . λογω ] pr. εν H δ 6 Ia 101. 264. 65 (40): pr. τω Ia 175, 502 (319). μηδε ]και א syr. aeth.τηγλωσση A B C K L al. plu. Dam. Thphyl.] om. τη א P al. sat. mu. cat. arm. Clem. Oec εν ] om. K al. permu. cat. Dam. Oec. αληθεια ] + quia sumus ex ueritate sahd. 19 f. The consciousness that their love for God is true and active, assures men of their fellowship with God, that they are “ of the truth.” The choice of phrase is determined by the language of ver. 18. Practically it is equivalent to εἶναιἐκτοῦθεοῦ . And the consciousness of this fellowship brings assurance, in spite of what the conscience has to tell of thoughts and deeds which mar its realization. Even before God, in whose presence no falsehood can stand, the Christian can “ still” his heart: for the all-knowing God is greater than the accusing conscience. Knowing all, He knows that the love is true, and is the determining element of the character, notwithstanding the many failures which interrupt its complete realization. His knowledge is absolute. He can see the whole, and He has accepted the love which is real and active as sufficient ground for admitting the man to His fellowship. Cf. John 21:17, πάντασὺοἶδας , σὺγινώσκειςὅτιφιλῶσε . The accusations of conscience are stilled in the presence of omniscient holiness, which is perfect love. At first sight the omniscience of God may seem a strange ground for the confidence of men, who are conscious of sins that interrupt their fellowship with God. “ If as natural men we shrink from allowing our neighbours to see into our heart, much more are we terrified at the thought that the holy God penetrates to the depth of our hearts” (Rothe). But in the case of Christians, who are conscious of the relationship to God in which they stand, it is otherwise. Their security lies in the fact that this relationship has been establislhed by one who knows all the circumstances of the case. There is no fear of alteration in the light of fuller knowledge. But how can such confidence be said to be derived from the practice of love, in the sphere in which it is first possible, i.e. in love of the brethren? The answer is that in such activities they have learned to know of a love, other than that based on physical kinship, which is not merely the “ cloak of self-seeking” ; and the more clearly its true character is recognized, the more clearly it is seen that such love is of the very Being of God. So the all-knowing “ were the all-loving too.” The surest ground of our confidence is the knowledge that “ our help standeth in the name of the Lord,” who is love.Thus the general meaning of these verses is fairly plain. They have always been recognized as touching the very heart of the Christian faith. The exact interpretation, however, of each clause is a matter of considerable difficulty. The meaning of πείσομεν is disputed, as also of the first and second ὅτι . The difficulties caused by the sequence of two clauses introduced by ὅτι have led to the removal of the second ὅτι from some texts. (1) If πείσομεν is taken in its usual sense of “ persuade,” the fact of which we “ persuade our heart” may be left unstated, to be gathered from the context. If so, we must supply “ that we are of the truth” from the preceding verse. This is grammatically unobjectionable, and gives an adequate sense. Even though our heart (conscience) convicts us of sins which separate us from God, we can nevertheless persuade ourselves that we are really of the truth, because God is greater than our hearts, in knowledge and in love, and has recognized our position, in spite of, or perhaps we should say in consequence of, the fact that He knows all, and so is qualified to judge. The fact may be found in the second clause, “ that God is greater than our heart.” Against this the objection is hardly valid that the fact is too obvious to be disputed. The question is not of the objective truth of the fact, but of our subjective apprehension of it, under circumstances which make its realization peculiarly difficult (ἐὰνκαταγινώσκῃκ .τ .λ .). On the other hand, Dr. Westcott’ s objection would seem to hold good, that “ the consciousness of a sincere love of the brethren does not furnish the basis of the conviction of the sovereign greatness of God.” If the first suggestion is felt to be unsatisfactory, there is some authority for the absolute use of πείθειν in the sense of “ still, ” assure, appease, tranquillize. Cf. Matthew 28:14, καὶἐὰνἀκουσθῇτοῦτοἐπὶτοῦἡγεμόνος , ἡμεῖςπείσομενκαὶὑμᾶςἀμερίμνουςποιήσομεν (where, however, the reference may be to the contents of ver. 13, the asserted theft of the body by the disciples); 2 Mac. 4:45, ἐπηγγείλατοχρήματα … πρὸςτὸπεῖσαιτὸνβασιλέα . We can appease our heart, can still the qualms of conscience, with the knowledge that God who knows all has admitted us to His fellowship and love, a fact of which we are assured by the active love for others which His love has kindled in our hearts. This is perhaps the simplest interpretation, though as an explanation of πείσομεν it is less natural than .(2) The exact meaning of ὅτι in each clause and their mutual relations are of less moment. The meanings “ that” or “ because” have to some extent come under consideration in connection with πείθειν . But the relation of the first clause to the second is doubtful. The second ὅτι may be regarded as resumptive, either in the sense of “ that,” or “ because.” The resumptive is more natural in the former than in the latter case. It is possible in either case. But the use of the resumptive ὅτι after so short a clause is not really natural, and is not in accord with the style of the writer. The first ὅτι may be relative, “ Whereinsoever our heart condemns us,” the second ὅτι being taken in the sense of either “ that” or “ because.” This interpretation relieves the sentence of an awkward and unnecessary resumptive particle, and it may be paralleled by instances of the use of ὅτιἄν in the Gospel, which are not indeed identical, but are sufficiently similar to justify its adoption here. Cf. John 2:5, John 14:13, John 15:16. If we take into consideration the author’ s habit of throwing forward for the sake of emphasis a word or words which stand outside the general construction of his sentence, we may feel justified in assuming that he has here made use of an accusatival clause (of respect) in rather loose connection with the rest of the verse. For the use of ὅτιἄν , cf. Mark 6:23; Luke 10:35. In what has been said, it has, of course, been assumed that the omniscience of God is alleged as a ground for confidence not for fear (if our own heart condemn us, the judgment of omniscient justice must be far more severe). The opposite view has been stoutly maintained by Wohlenberg in the series of articles referred to above (Neue Kirkliche Zeitschrift, 1902, p. 636 ff.), and also by Findlay (Expositor, November, 1905). Cf. also the comment of the Catena (Cramer, viii. 128), ἐάν ,φησίν , ἁμάρτωμενοὐλανθάνομεν , οὐδὲδιαφευξόμεθα · εἰγὰρἁμαρτάνοντεςτὴνκαρδίανἑαυτῶνλαθεῖνδυνάμεθα , ἀλλὰνυττόμεθαὑπὸτοῦσυνειδότος , πόσῳμᾶλλοντὸνθεὸνπράττοντέςτιτῶνφαύλωνδυνηθῶμενλαθεῖν ; It makes the connection between vv. 19 and 20 almost impossible to explain. It can only be done by interposing a thought which is left altogether without expression in the passage. “ We shall assure our heart— and we shall have great need to do so; for if our conscience condemn us, how much more severe must necessarily be the verdict of the omniscient God!” If this is what the writer meant, he has severely taxed the powers of his readers to follow his argument. And the aim of the whole passage is surely to give assurance, and not to strike terror into their hearts. There is nothing in the passage to indicate that vv. 20 and 21 are intended to meet the circumstances of two different classes of people, the self-confident and the self-distrustful. In the explanation given of this passage it has been assumed that ἐντούτῳ refers back to the previous verse, which is contrary to the common usage of the writer, though perhaps not unparalleled. It is, however, possible to find the test of knowledge, and consequent assurance, in the sentence ὅτιμείζων — πάντα . The thought of God’ s power and omniscience may give us assurance that we are “ of the truth.” We have been accepted by one who knows all the circumstances. In view of the writer’ s usage there is much to be said for this interpretation. The general meaning of the passage is not affected by it. Windisch is inclined to regard the passage as corrupt, and suggests that we should read οὐπείσομεν , and cut out the clause ὅτιἐάν … καρδία as an interpolation based on ver. 21. Thus amended, the passage would certainly contain a warning to the self-confident, against which no exception could be taken. But the best criticism on the suggestion is his own next sentence, “ Das beste ist freilich man bleibt bei der Konstatierung: der Text is verderbt.” The writer knows how to use the irony of the commonplace, but he did not use it here. εντουτω A B 40 dscr Rev_5 vg. cop. syr. Clem.] pr. et sah. boh-cod.: om. א C K L P al. longe. plu. cat. syr. aeth. Dam. Thphyl. Oec. Aug.: αλλεκτουτου 69 ascr. γνωσομεθα א A B C P 6. 7. 15. 18. 22. 27. 29. 33. 36. 40. 66**. 68. 69. 137 ascr jscr cat. sah. cop. arm. Clem. Dam.] γινωσκομεν K L al. pler. vg. syr. Thphyl. Oec. Aug. εσμεν ] εστι Ia 158 (395). πεισομεν ] πεισωμεν 5. 27. 29. 69 ascr al. fere.10 Thphyl. τηνκαρδιαν ] A* B 66** sah. boh. syr. aeth. Aug.] ταςκαρδιας א A2 C K L P al. fere. omn. cat. vg. arm. syr. Thphyl. Oec. εαν ] αν A al. pauc. καταγινωσκηημων ] post καρδια Ib 469 (215). καταγινωσκη ] καταγινωσκει L 13 100. 106. 107*. Rev_5. οτι 2o א B C K L al. plu. cat. syr.] om. A 13 33. 34. 63 dscr (vg. sahbw cop. arm. aeth. Oec. Aug. non exprimunt). μειζων ] μειζον K. εστιν ] om. Ia 252-δ 459 55 (391) Ib 209f (386). θεος ] κυριος C. ημων 2o] om. arm-ed. παντα ] pr. τα Ia 261. 106. 216 (142). 21 ff. If our conscience acquits us, the result is a feeling of joyful confidence in the sight of God, and the consciousness that our prayers are answered, because of our obedience and willing service. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/iccnt/ II. 4:1-6. The Christological thesis. The Spirit which is of God recognizes Jesus as the Christ come in flesh. 1. 4:1-3. Content of the Confession 4:1-3. In accordance with his usual custom, the writer finds a transition to a new section in the repetition of the last prominent idea. The gift of the Spirit ensures to them knowledge. But all spiritual activities of the time could not be traced back to the Spirit of God as their source. The suggestions of every spirit could not be accepted as true. As at Corinth in the days of S.Paul, spiritual phenomena must be tested. And the reader’ s experience supplied them with a test by which they could know whether the spirits were of God or not. The surest criterion was the confession of the Incarnation, or rather of the Incarnate Christ. Those who saw in Jesus of Nazareth as He appeared on earth in fleshly form the complete revelation of the Father, were of God. Those who refused to confess Jesus were not of God. Such a refusal was the peculiar characteristic of Antichrist, whose coming they had been taught to expect, and whose working they could already perceive.1. ἀγαπητοί ] Cf. 2:7, etc. The writer appeals to the common bond of love which unites them all, in order to call out their best efforts for the common good. This address now becomes frequent (1, 7, 11), the main topic being love. μὴπαντὶπνεύματιπιστεύετε ] Cf. Didache, 11:8, οὐπᾶςδὲὁλαλῶνἐνπνεύματιπροφήτηςἐστίν , ἀλλ ʼ ἐὰνἔχῃτοὺςτρόπουςΚυρίου . ἀπὸοὖντῶντρόπωνγνωσθήσεταιὁψευδοπροφήτηςκαὶὁπροφήτης . All spirit-inspired utterances are not to be accepted as necessarily true. Πιστεύειν with the dative always means to accept as true, to believe in the truth of statements made by any one. Cf. John 8:31, πρὸςτοὺςπεπιστευκόταςαὐτῷἸουδαίους . ἀλλὰδοκιμάζετε ] Cf. 1 Corinthians 12:10, ἄλλῳδὲδιακρίσειςπνευμάτων , where the “ discerning of spirits” is one of the recognized kinds of χαρίσματα . In the earlier generations the spiritual phenomena which accompanied the growth of Christianity were a cause of grave anxiety to all Christian leaders. It needed a special grace to distinguish between the true and the false. They might be delusions or impostures; if real, they might be evil. Cf. 1 Thessalonians 5:19-21, τὸπνεῦμαμὴσβέννυτε · προφητείαςμὴἐξουθενεῖτε · πάνταδὲδοκιμάζετε . It would generally have been far easier to say, with the ἰδιώτης of Corinth, μαίνεσθε . The difficulty, which culminated in Montanism, is of periodic recurrence. But the writer reminds his hearers that the grace of discernment was part of the Christian endowment, if Christians were willing to use the χάρισμα which they possessed. Compare the passage quoted above from the Didache; and, for the danger of yielding to the opposite temptation, compare the preceding sentences (11:7), καὶπάνταπροφήτηνλαλοῦνταἐνπνεύματιοὐπειράσετεὐδὲδιακρινεῖτε · πᾶσαγὰρἁμαρτίαἀφεθήσεται , αὕτηδὲἡἁμαρτίαοὐκἀφεθήσεται . Compare also 12:1, πᾶςδὲὁἐρχόμενοςἐνὀνόματιΚυρίουδεχθήτω · ἔπειταδὲδοκιμάσαντεςαὐτὸνγνώσεσθε · σύνεσινγὰρἕξετεδεξιὰνκαὶἀριστεράν . The plurals here cannot refer to an individual official. ὅτιπολλοὶκ .τ .λ .] The clause explains the necessity for the testing. The spirit of evil has sent forth his messengers into the world, and their activity is well known. ψευδοπροφῆται ] Cf. Matthew 7:15, προσέχετεἀπὸτῶνψευδοπροφητῶν . Did. 11:6. ἐξεληλύθασιν ] Contrast the tense of 2:19, where the definite fact of their separation from the Body of the Faithful is stated. Here the thought is of their sending forth by the Spirit who inspires them, and of the effect of their mission in the world. Here ὁκόσμος is used in its natural sense of the world of men, and is not specially contrasted with the Christian Body. πιστευετε ] πιστευητε 31 Rev_2 scr.. ταπνευματα ] pr. παντα K; πανπν̄α H δ 6 . του ] om. Ia δ 254. εστιν ] εισιν Ib δ 507 (241). 2. ἐντόυτῳ ] refers to what follows, according to the customary usage of this Epistle. γινώσκετε ] The word may be taken either as imperative or indicative. At first sight the use of the imperative in ver. 1 would seem conclusive as to the interpretation of this verse. But an appeal to his readers’ knowledge and experience is more in accordance with the writer’ s method. The aim of the whole Epistle is to remind them of what they already possess, and to base on it an appeal to them to make use of that which they have. In the Christian faith, as it has been taught to them from the beginning, they have adequate provision against the dangers to which they now find themselves exposed. All that is needed is that they should use what they already possess. They must trust the powers with which the Christ has endowed them. Cf. 2:29. Nowhere in the Epistle does the imperative follow ἐντούτῳ : 2:3, 5, 3:16, 19, 24, 4:13, 5:2. The reading γινώσκεται , which has passed into the Vulgate (cognoscitur), is an obvious corruption, the interchange of αι and ε being perhaps the commonest itacism in Greek manuscripts. The direct appeal to his readers is far more congruous with the author’ s style, and suits the context better. τὸπνεῦματοῦθεοῦ ] Here only in the Johannine books. Cf. ver. 13, ἐκτοῦπνεύματοςαὐτοῦ . The vacillation between singular and plural, and the various genitives connected with πνεῦμα , may perhaps serve as indications that the doctrine of the Spirit is not yet clearly defined in precise terms.ὁμολογεῖ ] The verb is used in the Johannine books with the following constructions: (1) absolutely, cf. John 1:20, John 1:12:42; (2) with ὅτι , cf. 1 John 4:15; (3) with the single accusative, cf. 1 John 1:9 , 2:23 , 4:3 ; (4) with the double accusative, cf. John 9:22, ἐάντιςαὐτὸνὁμολογήσῃΧριστόν . The construction of 2 John 1:7, οἱμὴὁμολογοῦντεςἸησοῦνΧριστὸνἐρχόμενονἐνσαρκί , is parallel to this verse, and equally obscure. Three constructions are possible here. (1) ἸησοῦνΧριστόν may be the object and ἐληλυθόταἐνσαρκί the predicate. The confession of Jesus Christ as one who has come in the flesh is the test proposed. We may perhaps compare S. Paul’ s test in 1 Corinthians 12:3, οὐδεὶςδύναταιεἰπεῖνΚύριοςἸησοῦςεἰμὴἐνπνεύματιἁγίῳ . In favour of this construction is the natural connection which it gives of ἸησοῦνΧριστόν , which can hardly be separated unless the context clearly suggests their separation. (2) The form of ver. 3, according to the true text, is in favour of regarding Ἰησοῦν as object and the rest of the words as predicate. The error which the writer condemns seems to have been the rejection of the identity of the historical man Jesus with the pre-existent Christ, truly incarnate in His manhood, in favour of the view that some higher power, as the Aeon Christ, descended upon the man Jesus at the Baptism, and left him before the Passion. There is nothing in the Epistle which compels us to suppose that the author is combating pure Docetism, though, of course, such teaching would be excluded by the phrases used in these verses, in whatever way they are interpreted. The construction of Joh 9:22 may perhaps be urged as supporting this interpretation. And it probably emphasizes most clearly the view on which the writer wishes to lay stress. It is the denial of Jesus as the incarnate Christ which he regards as the source of all error, as the true text of ver. 3 shows. But so far as grammar and syntax are concerned this separation of Ἰησοῦν from Χριστόν , without anything in the context to necessitate it, or even to suggest it, is difficult. (3) The simplest construction is, therefore, that in which the whole phrase is regarded as connected. The confession needed is of one who is Jesus Christ incarnate, a man who lived on earth a true human life under the normal conditions of humanity, and who is also the preexistent Christ who manifested God’ s glory in this form. And the true text of ver. 3 favours this construction, if it is not regarded as too awkward. But whichever construction be adopted, the confession demanded is not of the truth of certain propositions about a certain person, but the confession of a Person, of whom certain propositions are true, who is possessed of the nature and qualities which they define. It is a confession not of the fact of the Incarnation, but of the Incarnate Christ. ἐνσαρκὶἐληλυθότα ] The phrase describes the method rather than the fact. The revelation of God was made to men by the Son of God appearing in human form and living a human life. It was given in a form which made it comprehensible to men, and its effects were abiding . Its whole validity depended on the Revealer being true man, who could speak to men as one of themselves. The guarantee for its completeness and its intelligibility was destroyed if the Revealer and the man were not one and the same. And the confession involved allegiance to the Person of the Revealer; without that men could not make the revelation their own. Non sonando, sed amando (Bede). The reading ἐληλυθέναι which is found in some important authorities is a natural correction of a difficult and somewhat awkward phrase. When Polycarp uses the passage he not unnaturally substitutes the infinitive for the participle. (Polycarp, ad Philipp. 6:3 f., ἀπεχόμενοιτῶνσκανδάλωνκαὶτῶνψευδαδέλφωνκαὶτῶνἐνὑποκρίσειφερόντωντὸὄνοματοῦκυρίου , οἵτινεςἀποπλανῶσικενοὺςἀνθρώπους . ΠᾶςγὰρὃςἂνμὴὁμολογῇἸησοῦνΧριστὸνἐνσαρκὶἐληλυθέναι , ἀντίχριστόςἐστιν ). But it misses the point. True confession is allegiance to a Person and not acceptance of a doctrinal statement. Only the spirits which inspire men to make such a confession are “ of God.” τουτω ] + ουν Ic 258 (56). γινωσκετε א c A B C L al. sat. mu. sah syrp aethutr Ir. Lcif.] γινωσκεται K al. fere. 50 vg. syrsch Cyr. Thphyl. Did. Aug.: γινωσκομεν א 9. 14. 69 ascr arm. cognoscemus boh-ed.: cognoscetis boh-codd. θεου 1:0]+et spiritum erroris sah. 0 1:0— πνευμα 20] om. Ia δ 457-119 (209). ΙησουνΧριστον ] ΧριτονΙησουν C arm-codd. εληλυθοτα א A C K L etc.] εληλυθεναιΒ 99. Cf. Polycarp (? ver. 3) Thdrt. vg. Ir. Cyp. Or. Lcif. Did. 3. The simple accusative τὸνἸησοῦν is undoubtedly the true text. The variants ἹησοῦνΧριστόν , κύριον , ἐληλυθόταἐνσαρκί are natural attempts to expand an abrupt phrase from the preceding verse. The interesting variant λύει which is presupposed in several Patristic passages must be discussed separately. It is not the only instance of an explanatory gloss which has influenced the text of this Epistle. The shorter text emphasizes clearly the personal character of the confession (see the notes on the preceding verse). And it lays the right stress on the danger which threatened the readers of listening to those who undervalued the importance of the human life and personality of Jesus of Nazareth. τοῦτο ] The denial of Jesus. τὸτοῦἀντιχρίστου ] Either the Spirit which comes from Antichrist, or more probably the special characteristic of Antichrist. The work of Antichrist was already being done in the world. ὃἀκηκόατε ] Cf. 2:18, ἠκούσατεὅτιἈντίχριστοςἔρχεται . The “ coming” of Antichrist formed part of common Jewish expectation and Christian teaching. The readers had been taught what to expect, and ought to find no difficulty in detecting its beginnings among them. ἤδη ] Cf. John 4:35, ὅτιλευκαίεἰσινπρὸςθερισμὸνἤδη , and 9:27, εἶπονὑμῖνἤδη . With these three exceptions, of which 4:35 is doubtful, the Johannine use of ἤδη is to qualify the words which follow. πνευμα (? 1:0)] om. H 257 (33) Ia 70, 65. 172 (505) | ο (? 1:0) + αν Ia 70 (505) | μη ] om. Ib δ 152 (491). ομηομολογει ] λυει vg. (soluit) Ir. Or. Aug. Fulg. cdd. uet. op. Socr. Cf. Lcif. Tert. τονιησουνΑΒ h 13. 27. 29. 69 ascr cdduet ap. Socrat. Cyr. Thdt. vg. fu. harl. tol. syrutr boh-ed. arm-cod. aeth. Ir. Or. Lcif. Did.] ιησουνκυριον א : τονιησουνχριστον L al. plu. boh-codd. cat. Oec.: τονχν̄ιν̄ Ia 192, δ 254, δ 454 (318) Ic 364-208. δ 299 (137): ιησουνχριστον K al. plus 30 Polyc. Thyphl. am. demid. sah. arm-ed. Aug. Tert.: + ενσαρκιεληλυθοτα א K L al. pler. cat. syrutr arm. Thphyl. Oec. Tert. (uenisse) Cyp.: + ενσαρκιεληλυθεναι H δ 48 (33) Aπρι (K) Polyc. τον ] κν̄ Ic 487 (-). εκ ] om. K L kscr al. plus10 cat. τουτο - ο 2:0] hic est Antichristus quem sah. boh. arm. το ] om. I a δ 203ff, 254 (205) K δ 364 (51) | του 2:0] om. Ia 264 (233). ο 2:0] οτι א 5. 6. 39. 100: ου H δ 6 . ακηκοατε ] ακηκοαμεν H δ 2 Ia δ 453-173 (5). The evidence for the reading λύει = soluit in this verse is mainly Latin; before von der Goltz’ s discovery, described below, it was almost exclusively so. The statements of Clement, Origen, and Socrates are most naturally explained as proving the existence of such a reading in Greek. Taking the evidence roughly in chronological order, we must notice first that of Irenaeus, though it is unfortunately only preserved in a Latin dress. In 3:16. 8 (Massuet, 207), Irenaeus is denouncing the Gnostics who distinguish between Jesus, the Christ, the Only-begotten, the Saviour. He accuses them of making many Gods, and Fathers many, and of dividing up the Son of God. The Lord warns us to beware of such, and John, His disciple, in his afore-mentioned Epistle says, “ lat (2 John 1:7, 2 John 1:8). lat.” The actual reading, “ lat,” may be due to the Latin translator; but it must be noticed that it suits the preceding words of Irenaeus, comminuens autem et per multa diuidens Filium Dei, so much better than the common reading μὴὁμολογεῖ (non confitetur), that it is more natural to suppose that Irenaeus had in his Greek text either λύει or some equivalent phrase, unless his translator has very freely paraphrased the whole passage to bring it into agreement with the text of the Epistle with which he was acquainted. (See, however, Westcott,p. 157.)The evidence of Clement of Alexandria was also available only through Latin sources. The Latin summary of his Hypotyposes has no equivalent for this passage; but in the summary of the Second Epistle we find, “ Adstruit in hac epistola perfectionem fidei extra caritatem non esse, et ut nemo diuidat Iesum Christum, sed unum credat Iesum Christum uenisse in carne,” words which do not go far towards proving that Clement knew of the reading λύει in Greek, but when taken in connection with two passages in Origen suggest the possibility that the reading was known at Alexandria in Clement’ s time.In the Latin version of Origen’ s Commentary on S.Matthew, § 65, the reading “ soluit Jesum” is found. The passage is an explanation of the parable, Matthew 24:14. The man who went on a journey being naturally identified with the Lord, Origen raises the difficulty, “ How can He be said to go on a journey who promised that where two or three are gathered together in His name, He will be in their midst?” He finds a solution of the difficulty which he has raised in the distinction between the Lord’ s divine and human natures. “ Secundum hanc divinitatis suae naturam non peregrinatur, sed peregrinatur secundum dispensationem corporis quod suscepit.” He adds other instances of statements which must be referred to His human nature, and then adds, “ Haec autem dicentes non soluimus suscepti corporis hominem, cum sit scriptum apud Joannem ‘ Omnis spiritus qui soluit Iesum non est ex Deo’ sed unicuique substantiae proprietatem seruamus.” The whole argument is so thoroughly in Origen’ s style, that we should hestitate to attribute the quotation of the verse in this form to the Translator, though we cannot be certain that Origen read λύει in his Greek text. The passage has been quoted frequently, but it is curious that another passage in the part of his Commentary on S.Matthew which is extant in Greek has been generally overlooked. I had noted the passage several years ago, but have seen no reference to it earlier than Dr. Zahn’ s Introduction. In 16:8, Origen is commenting on the words δοῦναιτὴνψυχὴναὐτοῦλύτρονἀντὶπολλῶν . He notices that the ψυχή is given as the λύτρον , not the πνεῦμα nor the σῶμα . He adds the caution that in saying this he has no wish to disparage the ψυχή of Jesus, but wishes only to insist on the exact statement made. And he adds, ΠλὴνσήμερονοὐλύωτὸνἸησοῦνἀπὸτοῦΧριστοῦ , ἀλλὰπολλῷπλέονοἷδαἓνεἶναιἸησοῦντὸνΧριστόν . The passage may only be an echo of such expressions as are found, e.g., in Irenaeus III. xii. 7, “ Qui autem Iesum separant a Christo.” But a comparison of these two passages in the same Commentary certainly leave the impression that the reading λύει was known to Origen. The matter is determined if the Scholion is correct which is found in the Athos MS, containing information about Origen’ s text which von der Goltz has described in Texte und Untersuchungen, N. F. 2:4. The Scholion, which is quoted on p. 48 of von der Goltz’ s work, is as follows: ὃλύειτὸνἸησοῦν . ΟὕτωςὁΕἰρηναῖοςἐντῷτρίτῳκατὰτὰςαἱρέσειςλόγῳκαὶὨριγενὴςἐντῷήτόμῳτῶνεἰςτὸνπρὸςΡωμαίουςἐξηγητικῶνκαὶΚλήμηςὁΣτρωματεὺςἐντῷπερὶτοῦπάσχαλόγῳ . Von der Goltz points out that the 8th Book of Origen’ s Commentary would seem to have contained his exposition of Rom 5:17-16, and in Rufinus’ translation (v. 8; Lomm. p. 386) 1 John 4:2 is quoted, so that it is not unlikely that in the original Greek the quotation included the third verse with the reading λύει . Thus, if we may trust the evidence of the Scholion, and there are no good grounds for not doing so, in the three instances where extant Latin evidence suggested that the reading was known to Greek writers, we have now definite evidence that it was found in their Greek text. The only other Greek evidence for the reading is the well-known passage of Socrates about Nestorius (H. E. 7:32), αὐτίκαγοῦνἠγνόησενὅτιἐντῇκαθολικῇἸωάννουγέγραπτοἐντοῖςπαλαίοιςἀντιγράφοιςὅτιπᾶνπνεῦμαὃλύειτὸνἸησοῦνἀπὸτοῦθεοῦοὐκἔστι . ταύτηνγὰρτὴνδιάνοιανἐκτῶνπαλαιῶνἀντιγράφωνπεριεῖλονοἱχωρίζεινἀπὸτοῦτῆςοἰκονομίαςἀνθρώπουβουλόμενοιτὴνθεότητα · διὸκαὶοἱπαλαιοὶἑρμηνεῖςαὐτὸτοῦτοἐπεσημήναντο , ὥςτινεςεἶενῥαδιουργήσαντεςτὴνἐπιστολήν , λύεινἀπὸτοῦθεοῦτὸνἄνθρωπονθέλοντες . Again this language may be “ satisfied by the supposition that he was acquainted with the Latin reading and some Latin commentary” (Westcott, p. 157). But this can hardly be called the most natural interpretation of his words.The evidence of Tertullian and Augustine points to the early existence of the phrase in connection with the passages in the Johannine Epistles, though it is not always certain whether this passage or the similar words in the Second Epistle are referred to. The most important passage is adv. Marc. 5:16, “ Johannes dicit processisse in mundum praecursores Antichristi spiritus, negantes Christum in carne uenisse et soluentes Iesum.” Augustine in a somewhat different manner appears to comment on both readings. After explaining the words “ qui non confitetur Iesum Christum in carne uenisse.” by the suggestion that the denial is to be found in the want of love which divides the Church, he continues, “ adeo ut noueritis quia ad facta retulit et omnis spiritus, ait, qui soluit Iesum.” Later on he has “ soluis Iesum et negas in carne uenisse.” The natural explanation of his treatment of the passage is that in his text the words “ qui soluit Jesum, non est ex Deo” (the addition of “ in carne uenisse” after “ Iesum” in Migne must be an error) followed the clause “ qui non confitetur Iesum Christum in carne uenisse.” There are other instances of supplementary glosses in Augustine’ s text of this Epistle. The quotation in the Testimonia of Cyprian (2:8), “ Omnis spiritus qui confitetur Iesum Christum in carne uenisse, de Deo est, qui autem negat in carne uenisse, de Deo non est, sed est de Antichristi spiritu,” shows that the reading “ soluit” was not found in the earliest form of the old Latin text, in spite of its presence in all Latin MSS except Codex Frisianus. On the whole, then, the Latin evidence points to the probability that this reading crept into the Latin texts at an early date, being first introduced as an explanatory gloss, which subsequently displaced the reading it was inserted to explain. The history of its appearance in Greek authorities is still obscure, but may perhaps be explained in the same way. And the internal evidence points in the same direction. It is far easier to explain ὃλύει as an attempt to emphasize the bearing of the verse on the heretical views of the “ Separators,” than vice versa. As Wurm has acutely observed, the reading ὃμὴὁμολογεῖ , etc., could only have been introduced as an explanatory gloss on ὃλύει at a time when the meaning of this phrase had been forgotten. But it is certainly found during the period when the reading “ qui soluit” could cause no difficulty and was perfectly well understood. Neither reading can be later than Irenaeus, and at that date there could have been no motive for the alteration of λύει if it had been the original reading. On the other hand, the correction of μὴὁμολογεῖ into λύει would give special point to the passage as a condemnation of a particular form of heresy, which at that time had to be combated. 2. 4:4-6. Attitude of the Church and the world towards this confession 4-6. If they are true to themselves the readers have nothing to fear from the activities of the Antichristian spirits at work in the world. In virtue of the new birth, which as Christians they have experienced, they have gained the victory over the false prophets, and the fruits of the victory are theirs, unless they deliberately forfeit them. The victory was not gained in their own strength. It was God who fought for them and in them. And God is greater than the devil who rules in the world. The false prophets are essentially “ of the world.” All that dominates their life and action comes from it. Their teaching is derived from its wisdom, not from the revelation which God has given in His Son. And so their message is welcomed by those who belong to the world. For like associates with like. The writer and his fellow-teachers are conscious that they derive their true life from God. And those who are of God, and therefore live their lives in learning to know Him better, in the gradual assimilation of the revelation of Himself which God is making in His Son, receive the message. It is only rejected by those who are not of God, and so are not learning to know Him. Thus from the character of those who welcome their respective messages we learn to recognize and distinguish the spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood.4. ὑμεῖς ] The readers, whom he has instructed in the Faith, and whom he naturally addresses as his “ little children,” using the privileges of age and position when he wishes to speak emphatically, in words either of warning or of exhortation. Cf 2:1, 12, 28, 3:7, 18, v. 21. The emphatic pronoun separates the readers from the false teachers. ἐκτοῦθεοῦἐστέ ] Cf. John 8:23, John 8:17:14, John 8:16; 1 John 3:19, 1 John 5:19, 1 John 2:19. By the phrase εἶναιἐκ the writer seems to denote more than merely “ belonging to.” It suggests primarily spiritual dependence. A man is said to be “ of God,” “ of the Devil,” who draws all his inspiration, all that dominates and regulates his thought and action, from the sources out of which he is said to be. Εἶναιἐκτοῦθεοῦ denotes especially the state of those who have experienced the spiritual regeneration which is the true note of the Christian, and who are true to their experience. Εἶναιἐκτοῦκόσμου is the state of those who still, whether nominally Christian or not, draw their guidance from human society, considered as an ordered whole, apart from God. νενικήκατε ] by remaining true to the Christianity which they had been taught ἀπ ʼ ἀρχῆς , rather than by the expulsion of the false prophets from the community. ὂτι ] There was no cause for boasting of their victory. It was God who worked in them, as the Devil worked and ruled in the world. Noli te extollere. Vide quis in te vicit (Aug.). υμεις ] pr. και Ia70 (505): pr οτι I b 472, 161 (312) | εκ ] filii sahd. εστε ] nati estis sahw | τεκνια ] τεκνα 31 cscr al. pauc.: om. boh-sah. νενικηκατε ] ενικησατε Ic114 (335) | υμιν ] ημιν Ia 75 (394) | ο 2o] om. Ia 382. δ 254 (231) | εντωκοσμω ] εκτουκοσμου Ia 397 ffff (96) I b 62-δ 161 (767). 5. ἐκτοῦκόσμουεἰσίν ] See the notes on ver. 4. The false teaching drew its strength from the wider knowledge of the world, rejecting or failing to appreciate the essential truth of the revelation made in Jesus Christ incarnate. ἐκτοῦκόσμουλαλοῦσιν ]Their teaching corresponds to their sphere. And it is welcomed by the like-minded. ἀκούει ]Cf. Oecumenius, τῷγὰρὁμοίῳτὸὅμοιονπροστρέχει . There was apparently need of encouragement in view of the success which the false teachers had secured. Cf. again Oecumenius, εἰκὸςγάρτιναςτούτωνκαὶἀσχάλλεινὁρῶνταςἐκείνουςμὲντοῖςπολλοῖςπερισπουδάστους , ἑαυτοὺςδὲκαταφρονουμένους . διατουτο ] pr. και 69 ascr: και 68. 103 Did. λαλουσιν ] om. Ib 62 (498). ακουειαυτον (?) οκοσμος Ia 65 (317). 6. ἡμεῖς ] The contrast with ὑμεῖς (ver. 5) suggests that the teachers and not the whole body of Christians are meant. They know whence they draw the inspiration of their life and work. And they will be recognized by those who have begun to live the eternal life which consists in knowing God and His messenger (cf. John 17:3). ὁγινώσκωντὸνθεόν ] The phrase is used as practically equivalent to εἶναιἐκτοῦθεοῦ , but it emphasizes one particular point in the continual progress made by those who “ are of God,” viz. the knowledge of Him which comes from experience of life in fellowship with Him. ὃςοὐκἔστινκ .τ .λ .] They cannot know or welcome the truth, because the principles which guide their thoughts are not derived from the truth. ἐκτούτου ] Cf. John 6:66, John 19:12, in neither of which verses is the meaning exclusively temporal. The phrase is not used again in the Epistle, or in the Johannine writings, with γινώσκειν . As compared with ἐντούτῳ it may perhaps suggest a criterion which is less obvious, and which lies further away from that which it may be used to test. The character of their confession offers an immediate test of the spirits. It requires a longer process of intelligent observation to determine the character of the reception with which the message meets. The “ test” here is the fact that the one message is welcomed by those who are of God and know God, the other only by those who are of the world. Cf. John 15:19. γινώσκομεν ] The preceding ἡμεῖς and ἡμῶν make it natural to refer this to the teachers, and grammatically this is no doubt the more correct interpretation. But when the writer is meditating, rather than pursuing a course of logically developed thought, his meditation is apt to pass out into wider spheres, and it is more than probable that he now includes in the first person plural the whole body of those whom he is addressing, as well as the teachers, with whom he began by associating himself. τὸπνεῦματῆςἀληθείαςκ .τ .λ .] The Spirit of God, of which the essential characteristic is truth, and the spirit of the Devil, or of Antichrist, which is characterized by falsehood, the active falsehood which leads men astray . ο ] pr. και Ie258* (56). ος … ημων 2o א B K al. pler. vg. etc.] om. A L a 3. 142. 177* ος ] pr. και Ic364 (137). εκτουτου ] εντουτω A vg. sah. cop. πν̄α (? 1o, 2o)] πρ̄α Ia 205-261 (51). C. 4:7-5:12 Third presentation of the ethical and Christological theses. They are not only shown to be connected (as in B), but the proof of their inseparability is given. Love is the basis of our knowledge of fellowship with God, because God is love. And this love of God is manifested in the sending of His Son, as faith comprehends it. So the two main thoughts of the Epistle, Faith in Jesus Christ and Love of the Brethren, are intertwined in this passage, which may be divided into two sections. I. 4:7-21. First meditation on the two thoughts now combined. Love based on faith in the revelation of Love which has been given, the test of our knowledge of God and of our birth from God II. 5:1-12. Faith as the ground of love. I. 1. 4:7-12. Love based on the Revelation of Love (a) 7-10 The writer grounds an appeal to his “ beloved” hearers for mutual love on the true nature of love as manifested in the Incarnation. True love is not merely a quality of nature, and on that analogy included in our conception of the Deity. It has its origin in God. Human love is a reflection of something in the Divine nature itself. Its presence in men shows that they have experienced the new birth from God and share in that higher life which consists in gradually becoming acquainted with God. Where love is absent there has not been even the beginning of the knowledge of God, for love is the very nature and being of God. And God’ s love has been manifested in us. God sent His only-begotten Son, in whom His whole nature is reproduced, who alone can fully reveal it to men, into the world of men with a special purpose. That purpose was to enable men to share the higher spiritual life which He imparts . The nature of true love is manifested in those who have begun to share that life. True love is something which gives itself, neither in return for what has been given nor in order to get as much again: even as God gave His Son, not as a reward for the love which men had showed to Him, but as a boon to those who had only manifested their hostility to Him, in order to remove the obstacles which intervened between God and men. 7. ἀγαπητοί ] One of the writer’ s favourite words. It occurs ten times in the Epistles, though not in the Gospel. It is his usual method of address when he wishes to appeal to the better thoughts and feelings of his readers, or, to use S.Paul’ s phrase, to “ open the eyes of their hearts.” It emphasizes the natural grounds of appeal for mutual love, which can most readily be called out among those who are loved or lovable.ἡἀγάπηἐκτοῦθεοῦἐστίν ] The whole of the Biblical revelation of God emphasizes the fact that man is made in the image of God, not God in the image of man, however much our conceptions of God are necessarily conditioned by human limitations. It suggests that whatever is best in man is the reflection, under the limitations of finite human existence, of something in the nature of God. The true nature of love cannot be appreciated unless it is recognized that its origin must be sought beyond human nature. We may compare the doctrine of “ Fatherhood” insisted upon in Ephesians 3:15. πᾶςὁἀγαπῶν ] It is generally recognized that love is here presented, not as the cause of the new birth from God or of the knowledge of God, but as their effect. The presence of love is the test by which the reality of their presence in any man may be known. The discussion of the question whether the writer intends to present the relation of the being born of God to the knowledge of God as one of cause and effect, or of effect and cause, is perhaps idle. He who loves shows thereby that he has experienced the new birth from God which is the beginning of Christian life, and that its effects are permanent and abiding. He also shows that he has entered upon that life which consists in the gradual acquiring of the knowledge of God. Whether this process of acquiring knowledge begins before, and leads to, the new birth, or only begins after that has been experienced and is its consequence, is not stated. The question was probably not present to the writer’ s mind. ηαγαπη ] post εστιν Ia 175 (319). του (? Io)] om. Ic 116 . οαγαπων ] + τονθεονΑ : + fratrem demid. tol. Fulg.: + fratrem suum. Did.: cf. omnes qui diligunt se inuicem sahd. και Io— (8) εστιν ] om. syrp. γεγεννηται ] γεγενηται 99. 177*. 180 jscr Iscr Dam. 8. The negative counterpart of ver. 7, the statement being made, as usual, with a slight difference. οὐκἔγνω ] He shows by his want of love that the process of knowledge never even began in him. ὅτιὁθεὸςἀγάπηἐστίν ] Love is not merely an attribute of God, it is His very Nature and Being; or rather, the word expresses the highest conception which we can form of that Nature. Holtzmann’ s note is worth quoting. “ Even the false gnosis realized that God is light and spirit. But when here and in ver. 16 love is put forward as the truest presentation of God, this is the highest expression of the conception of God. It passes entirely beyond the limitations of natural religion. It does not come within the category of Substance, but only those of Power and Activity. It opens the way for an altogether new presentation of religion based on the facts of moral life.” ͂ 1o— θεον ] post εστιν syrsch: om. א *192 dscr arm-cdd. aeth.: ομηαγαπωνουκεγνωκεν א c. ο 1o pr. οτι Ic 174 (252): + δε Ic 258 (56). ουκεγνω ] om. εγνωκεν א c 31: ουγινωσκει A 3. 5. 13 Rev_4 arm. Or. cf. Lcif. Did. Fulg.: non cognoscit sah. 9. ἐντούτῳ ] The true nature of God’ s love has now been shown, in a way which men can understand and appreciate, in the fact and the purpose of the Incarnation. God gave His best, that men might be enabled to live the life of God. ἐνἡμῖν ] Not “ among us.” still less “ to us.” If the writer had meant “ God’ s love to us,” he would doubtless have used the Greek words which would convey that meaning, ἡἀγάπητοῦθεοῦεἰςἡμᾶς . The preposition has its full force. God sent His Son that men might live. The manifestation of His love is made in those who have entered upon the life which He sent His Son to give. τὸνμονογενῆ ] The idea presented by μονογενής in the Johan nine books would seem to be that of the one and only Son who completely reproduces the nature and character of His Father, which is concentrated in one, and is not, so to speak, divided up among many brethren. It emphasizes the completeness of the revelation of God which He is able to give, as well as the uniqueness of the gift. ἵναζήσωμεν ] Cf. the note on ἐνἡμῖν . The love was manifested in a definite act with a definite object. εν 1o] pr. καιοτι Ia 200f. 254. 502 (83) Ib 78-157 : pr. και Ic 114 (335). τουθεου ] eius arm-codd. ενημιν ]om. Ib 253-559 (2). απεσταλκεν ] απεστειλεν K 29. 38. 42. 57 al. plus12 Ath. οθεος ]om. 15. 18. 25. 98. 100 Rev_5 arm. aeth. Aug. ζησωμεν ] ζωμεν א *. 10. True love is selfless. It is not a mere response. It gives itself. The sending of God’ s Son was not the answer of God to something in man. It was the outcome of the very Nature of God. Cf. odes of Solomon, iii. 3, 4, “ I should not have known how to love the Lord, if He had not loved me. For who is able to distinguish love, except the one that is loved?” ἱλασμόν ] Cf. 2:2. God could not give Himself while men’ s sins formed a barrier between them and Him. True love must sweep away the hindrances to the fulfilment of the law of its being. While Vulg. has propitiatio, Aug. has litator, and Lucif. expiator, emphasizing the fact that that which reconciles is a person. ηαγαπη ] + τουθεου א sah. cop. ηγαπησαμεν ] ηγαπηκαμεν B L ηγαπησεν pr. πρωτος K δ 364 (51). αυτος ] εκεινος A: pr. Deus sahw. απεστειλεν ] απεσταλκεν א . περι ] υπερ Ia 200 (83): om. Ic 174 (252). (b) 11, 12. Love of the Brethren the test of Fellowship In the light of such a manifestation of God’ s love there can be no question about the obligation to mutual love among those who have experienced it. True knowledge always finds expression in action. The true nature of God cannot be made visible to the eye. His presence cannot be seen. But it is known in its results. Where love is, there we know that God abides in men. His abiding in men is the most complete expression of His love. 11. ἀγαπητοί ] Cf. ver. 7. The loving address is here used for the sixth and last time. οὕτως ] Cf. John 3:16, of which this verse seems to be an echo. Οὕτως defines the way in which God manifested the true nature of love, by giving His Son. καὶἡμεῖς ] The writer and his readers, or more generally the Christian Family, those who have experienced and appropriated the revelation of love. Those who have learned the true character of love are under the strongest obligation to carry out, in such spheres as they can, the lesson which they have learned. The proper result of divine birth is divine activity. οθεος ] post ημας Ib 253f. 559. δ 152. δ 260 (2). οφειλομενκαιημεις Ia δ 453-173 (5). 12. θεὸνκ .τ .λ .] Cf. John 1:18, where the order of the first two words is the same. The absence of the article throws the emphasis on the nature and character of God. As He is in His true nature He cannot be made visible to the eyes of men, so that they can grasp the meaning of what they see (θεᾶσθαι , contrast the ἑώρακεν of the Gospel, which merely states the fact). ἂνκ .τ .λ .] What cannot be seen can be known by its fruits. Mutual love is a sign of the indwelling of God in men. “ Through our love for each other (as Christians) we build the Temple, in which God can dwell in and among us” (Rothe). His love for men receives its most perfect expression in His giving Himself to men, and entering into fellowship with them. αὐτοῦ ] There is the usual division of opinion as to whether the genitive is subjective or objective, or whether the two meanings are to be combined, the love which comes from God and which He causes to exist in men. The context on the whole favours the view that it should be taken as subjective. God’ s love to men is realized most fully in His condescending to abide in men. Cf. ver. 9, ἐφανερώθηἡἀγάπητοῦθεοῦἐνἡμῖν . 12. θεον ] pr. αδελφοι Ia 170 (303). τετελειωμενη ] pr. τετελειωταικαι 13: post ημιν A 5. 13. 31. 68. 69 ascr vg. Thphyl.: perfecta erit sahd. ενημιν ] post εστιν K L al. pler. cat. sah. cop. syrutr arm. aeth. Oec. Aug.13-16a. Proofs of Fellowship. The gift of the Spirit. The witness of those who actually saw the manifestation of love in the Life of Jesus. By means of the Spirit, of which He has given us, we are conscious that fellowship between Him and us really exists. Furthermore, the great proof of His love, the sending of His Son as Saviour of the world, rests on certain witness. We who lived with Him on earth, and have seen and understood the meaning of what we saw, can bear true witness. All who accept the fact that Jesus of Nazareth, who lived on earth as a man among men, is the Son of God, and who mould their lives in accordance with this confession, are in true fellowship with God. And we who saw Him have learned to know and to believe the love which God has for us, and shows in us. 13. The writer passes from the facts to Christian consciousness of the facts. We are assured that fellowship between God and us really exists, because he has given us of His Spirit, and the effects of His gifts are permanent. Cf. 3:24, where the same conclusion is reached. For the use of the preposition, cf. Matthew 25:28, δότεἡμῖνἐκτοῦἐλαίουὑμῶν . For the general arrangement of the matter, cf. 1 John 2:5, 1 John 2:6. μενομεν ] + καιημεις 13. αυτος ] + est s. manet sah. boh.: + (?) οθεος Ia 158 (395). πῡς ] πρσ̄ O46(154). δεδωκεν א B K L al. plur. cat. Ath. Cyr.] εδωκεν 13, 27, 29 cscr Ath. Bas. Cyr. 14. Beside the internal witness of the Spirit, there is also the external witness of those who saw the great proof of God’ s love. Their vision was complete, and lasting in its results. The testimony, therefore, which they bear is sure. ἡμεῖς ] The word must here refer to the actual eye-witnesses of the life of Jesus on earth. The exaggeration of the view which finds “ the αὐτόπται of the Province” 1 in each use of the first person plural of the pronoun in the Epistle, should not be allowed to obscure the natural meaning of certain expressions which it contains; cf. 1 John 1:1. The verb looks back to ver. 12: “ God Himself no one has ever yet beheld; but we have beheld His Son. σωτῆρα ] Cf. John 4:42, οὗτόςἐστινἀληθῶςὁσωτὴρτοῦκόσμου . The purpose of the mission was to restore the fellowship which had been gradually forfeited. τεθεαμεθα א B K L al. longe. pler. cat. Thphyl. Oec.] εθεασαμεθα A 27. 29. 33. 34. 66**. 68. 98 al. aliq. Cyr. μαρτυρουμεν ] testati sumus sah. απεσταλκεν ] απεστειλεν Ia 396fff (96) Ib 78-157 O46 (154). υιον ] + αυτου Ic 364, 259 (137). 15. ὁμολογήσῃ ] Cf. 4:2 and notes. The confession is stated variously; cf. 4:2; 2 John 1:7, and the various confessions is the Gospel. The essential point seems to be the identity of Jesus, the man who lived on earth a human life, with the Son of God, who as only-begotten Son of His Father could reveal the Father to men. In the thought of the writer no other conditions could assure the validity of the revelation and the possibility of its comprehension by man. He who “ confesses” this, i.e. makes this belief the guiding principle of his life and action, is assured of the truth of his fellowship with God. Thus the work of the original witnesses is continued in the “ confession” of those who “ have not seen and yet have believed.” Such a confession is as sure a test of Divine fellowship as “ mutual love.” As it cannot be true unless it issues in such mutual love, it is difficult to distinguish the two. The writer probably puts it forward rather for its value as an objective sign to others, than for its power of giving assurance to him who makes it. In the Christian community there is external as well as internal assurance to be found by those who look for it. 16a. καὶἡμεῖςἐγνώκαμενκαὶπεπιστεύκαμεν ] If, as seems probable, the first person plural still refers to the writer and other teachers who, like him, had seen the Lord on earth, he is thinking of his early experiences in Galilee or Jerusalem, when growing acquaintance passed into assured faith, which had never since been lost. Contrast the order in the confession of S. Peter, John 6:69. The growth of knowledge and the growth of faith act and react on each other. ἐνἡμῖν ] The love which God has for men is manifested in those who respond to it, in whom it issues in higher life. But perhaps it is safer to regard the preposition as a trace of the influence of Aramaic forms of expression on the writer’ s style. ομολογηση ] ομολογη A 5 | ιησους ] κσ̄ Ia 101 (40): χσ̄κσ̄ Ia 382 (231): + χριστος B m, arm-codd. Cf. Tert. αυτος ] ουτος Ia δ 457-110 (209) : + est s. manet boh. sah. πεπιστευκαμενκαιεγνωκαμεν arm. | πεπιστευκαμεν ] πιστευομεν A 13 am. tol. cop. τηναγαπην ] +Dei am. * arm. εχει ] εσχεν H δ 6 . ενημιν ] μεθημων Ia 397ffff. δ 157 (96). 16b-21. Love and Faith in relation to Judgment. The nature of true love.Since God is love, he who abides in love abides in God and God in him. Thus the test of love can give full assurance with regard to the reality of our fellowship with God. It is a logical deduction from the very nature of God. Love has been made perfect in us when, and only when, we can look forward with entire confidence to the great day of God’ s judgment, knowing that as the exalted Christ abides in the Father’ s love, so we abide in it so far as that is possible under the conditions of our present existence. Where full confidence is not yet possible, love is not yet made perfect, for fear and dread have no place in true love. It drives them out completely from the sphere of its activity. For fear has in itself something of the nature of punishment, and he who experiences it has not yet been made perfect in love. How then can we say that we have love? Because our love, in whatever degree we possess it as yet, has its origin in something that is above and beyond us. It has its origin in God. It is called out in response to the love which God has for us. But our claim to love can be put to an obvious test. Love is active, and must, if it is real, go forth to those who need it. If any one claims to love God and does not show love to his brethren, his claim is not only false, but reveals a falseness of character. Love will show itself wherever an object of love is to be found. He who will not take even the first step can never reach the goal. If the sight of his brother does not call out his love, the fact shows that he cannot have love enough to reach as far as God. And for us the matter is determined, once for all, by the Master’ s command. He has said, “ The first commandment is, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God. And the second is this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” 16b. ὁθεόςκ .τ .λ .] Cf. ver. 8, where love is shown to be the necessary condition of knowledge of God. Here it is presented as the necessary condition of fellowship. ὁμένωνκ .τ .λ .] Cf. ver. 12, where the writer emphasizes the fact that God’ s love for men is shown most completely in His willingness to “ abide” in us. Here the emphasis is laid on the mutual character of the intercourse, ἐντῷθεῷμένεικαὶὁθεὸςἐναὐτῷ , and especially on the human side. By abiding in love, the Christian realizes the divine fellowship. και 4o— μενει 2o] om. Syrsch | om H δ 2 — μενει 2oא B K L al. fere. 50 sah. cop. syrp arm. Cyp. Aug.] om. A al. sat. mul. cat. vg. aeth. Thphyl. Oec. Cyp. 17. ἐντούτῳκ .τ .λ .] Two interpretations of this verse are possible, according as the words refer to what precedes or to what follows. Ἐντούτῳ may recapitulate the clause ἐντῷθεῷμένεικαὶὁθεὸςἐναὐτῷ . Love finds its consummation in the realization of this mutual fellowship. But it would be truer to say that love is made perfect, not in fellowship generally, but in perfect fellowship; and this is hardly expressed by the words. And in the general usage of the author ἐντούτῳ refers to what follows, whenever the sentence contains a clause which allows of such a reference. Such clauses are either added without connecting particle, or are introduced by ὅτι , ἐάν , or ὅταν . There is no certain instance of the construction ἐντούτῳἵνα . But John 15:8 should probably be interpreted in this way . And the writer’ s use of the purely definitive ἵνα is so well established that such a construction causes no difficulty. If ἐντούτῳ refers to the clause introduced by ἵνα the meaning will be that love is made perfect in full confidence, It has been perfectly realized only by those who can look forward with sure confidence to the judgment of the Great Day. Such confidence is the sign of perfect love. The thought is developed further in ver. 18. Cf. also 2:28. παρρησίαν ] See the note on 2:28. μεθ ʼ ἡμῶν ] As contrasted with ἐνἡμῖν it is possible that the phrase may emphasize the co-operation of men in the realization of fellowship, “ In fulfilling this issue, God works with man” (Westcott, who compares Acts 15:4). But it is at least equally possible that the usage of the Hebrew preposition ע ם may have influenced the choice of preposition. ὅτικ .τ .λ .] The ground of the assurance. Those who have attained to fellowship share, in some degree, the character of the Christ, as He is in His exalted state, in perfect fellowship with the Father. Cf. John 17:23, ἐγὼἐναὐτοῖςκαὶσὺἐνἐμοί · ἵναὦσιντετελειωμένοιεἰςἕν . Those who are like their Judge, can await with confidence the result of His decrees. The fellowship is limited by the conditions of earthly life . Οὗτος “ emphasizes the idea of transitoriness.” But so far as it goes the fellowship is real. ἐκεῖνος ] is generally used in this Epistle of the exalted Christ; cf. 2:6, 3:3, 5, 7, 16. ἐντῇἡμέρᾳτῆςκρίσεως ] Cf. 2:28, ἐὰνφανερωθῇ . However much the writer may seek to spiritualize the ordinary Christian, or even the Synoptic, eschatology, he has not eliminated from the sphere of his theological thought the idea of a final “ day” of judgment, when the processes which are already at work shall reach their final issue and manifestation. The attempts which have been made to draw a distinction in this respect between the Gospel and the Epistle cannot be said to have been successful. ηαγαπη ] + τουθεου 96 alpauc vgcle tol. sahbw: eius arm. μεθημων ] + ενημιν א . εχωμεν ] εχομεν א K Rev_5: σχωμεν Ib 78 (-). τη ] om. Ia δ 454 (794). ημερα ] αγαπη א . οτι … εσμεν ] ut … simus sahbw (non liquet sahd). κρισεως ] + προςτονενανθρωπησαντα Ic 208-116, 356 (307). εκεινος ] κακεινος 13 Rev_2. εστιν ] ηνεντωκοσμωαμωμοςκαικαθαροςουτως Ic 116, 356 (-). εσμεν ] εσομεθα א . 18. Fear, which is essentially self-centred, has no place in love, which in its perfection involves complete self-surrender. The two cannot exist side by side. The presence of fear is a sign that love is not yet perfect. “ Love cannot be mingled with fear” (Seneca, Ep. Mor. 47:18). κόλασινἔχει ] not only “ includes the punishment which it anticipates,” but is in itself of the nature of punishment. Till love is supreme, it is a necessary chastisement, a part of the divine discipline, which has its salutary office. κόλασις is used in the New Testament only here and in Matthew 25:46; Matthew 25:2 Mac. 4:38. The expression must mean here more than “ suffers punishment,” as in Hermas, S. 9:18. 1, ὁμὴγινώσκωνθεὸνκαὶπονηρευόμενοςἔχεικόλασίντινατῆςπονηρίαςαὐτοῦ . ἔξωβάλλει ] Cf. Matthew 5:13, Matthew 5:13:48; John 6:37, John 9:34, John 12:31, John 15:6. Love must altogether banish fear from the enclosure in which her work is done. ὁδὲφοβούμενοςκ .τ .λ .] Till fear has been “ cast outside,” love has not been made perfect. Cf. Philo, quod Deus sit immut. 69 (Cohn, 2:72), τοῖςμὲνοὖνμήτεμέροςμήτεπάθοςἄνθρωπουπερὶτὸὂννομίζουσιν , ἀλλὰθεοπρεπῶςαὐτὸδι ʼ αὐτὸμόνοντιμῶσιτὸἀγαπᾶνοἰκειότατον , φοβεῖσθαιδὲτοῖςἑτέροις , quoted by Windisch. εντη ] η Ic 114 (335): om. τη Ib 253 (2). φοβος (? 2:0)] φοβουμενος Ia δ 157 (547) Ic 174 (252). 19. ἡμεῖς ] We Christians, as in ver. 17. The point has been much disputed whether the verb is to be interpreted as an exhortation (conjunctive) or as a statement of fact (indicative). The attempt to construe it as a conjunctive has led to various modifications of the text, the introduction of a connecting particle οὖν , never found in the true text of this Epistle cf., however, 3 John 1:8), or the insertion of an object for the verb (τὸνθεόν , αὐτόν , inuicem). And both modifications would be natural if the clause is to be taken as hortatory. But a further meditation on the nature of love as manifested in us is more suitable to the context, and it gives a deeper meaning to the words. Our love is not self-originated. It has a divine origin. It is called out in response to what God has given. Thus interpreted, the words offer a far more powerful incentive to the exercise of love than a mere exhortation, and they have their natural place in the writer’ s thoughts. God is love; by the path of love we can enter into His fellowship (16): in our case love is made perfect in proportion as it casts out fear and establishes full confidence (17, 18). And it rests on something greater and stronger than our own powers. It is the response of our nature to the love which God Himself has shown. Such love which He has called out in us must find an object. If it fails to find out the nearer object, it will never reach the further (19, 20). And besides this, there is the Lord’ s express command (21). αὐτός ] The variant ὁθεός is probably a true explanation. But αὐτός is not only better attested, it is more in harmony with the writer’ s style. πρῶτος ] Cf. John 1:42. ημεις א B K L al. longe. plur. cat. sah. cop. syrp arm. Thphyl. Oec. Aug.] + ουν A 5. 8. 13. 31. 98. 101. 105. 106. 107. 177 gscr kscr al. pauc. vg. syrsch. αγαπωμεν A B 5. 27. 29. 66** fu. aeth. boh-codd. Aug. Pelag. Bed.] scimus sah.: + τονθεον א 13. 33. 34. 68. 69. 91. 137 ascr cscr dscr vg. demid. harl. tol. sur. boh-ed. arm. Leo: + αυτον K L al. longe. plur. cat. Thphyl. Oec. Aug.: + inuicem am. Leo. αυτος א B K L al. pler. cat. harl. sah. cop. syr. arm. aeth. Thphyl. Oec Aug.] οθεος A 5. 8. 13. 14*. 33. 34. 81. vg. Pelag. πρωτος ] πρωτον 5. 8. 25. 40. 69. ascr. ηγαπησεν ] ηγαπηκεν 13. 20. ἐάντιςεἴπῃ ] Cf. 1:6, ἐὰνεἴπωμεν , and the more definite ὁλέγων (2:4). The false claim is mentioned quite generally. At the same time, it is not improbable that the false teachers, who claimed to possess a superior knowledge of the true God, may also have laid claim to a superior love of the Father, who was “ good,” and not merely “ just,” as the God of the Old Testament. And the emphasis laid throughout the Epistle on the duty of mutual love makes it clear that their “ superior” love had been more or less conspicuous in its failure to begin at home, or to master the import of the Lord’ s verdict, ἐφ ʼ ὅσονοὐκἐποιήσατεἑνὶτούτωντῶνἐλαχίστων , οὐδὲἐμοὶἐποιήσατε . μισῇ ] Cf. 2:9. ψεύστηςἐστίν ] He not only states what is false , but reveals by his false claim a real falseness of character, if the difference between two possible forms of expression is to be pressed. ὁγὰρκ .τ .λ .] Love must express itself in action. He who refuses to make use of the obvious opportunities, which his position in this world affords him, cannot entertain the highest love. ὃνἑώρακεν ] Cf. Oec. ἐφελκυστικὸνγὰρὅρασιςπρὸςἀγάπην , and the saying of Philo, de Decalogo, 23 (Cohn, 4:296), ἀμήχανονδὲεὐσεβεῖσθαιτὸνἀόρατονὑπὸτῶνεἰςτοὺςἐμφανεῖςκαὶἐγγὺςὄνταςἀσεβούντων . οὐδύναται ] The reading of א B, etc., is perhaps more impressive and more in agreement with the writer’ s love of absolute statement than the variant which Westcott condemns as “ the rhetorical phrase of the common text” . At the same time the latter reading suggests a new point. The man who rejects the obvious method of giving expression to love in the case of those whom he has seen, has no way left by which he can attempt the harder task of reaching out to that which is invisible. οτι ] om. א Aug. (bis). αγαπω ] post θεον 1:0 Ia 70 (505): αγαπα Ic 551 (216): ηγαπηκεν H δ 48 (33). μιση ] μισειΚ h al.25 cat. Dam. Thphyl. γαρ ] om. Ia 158 (395) Ib 157 (29). ουδυναται ] א B 27. 29. 66**. 68. 69 ascr sah. syr. Lcif.] πωςδυναται A K L al. pler. cat. vg. syr. cop. arm. aeth. Dam. Thphyl. Oec. Cyp. Aug. αγαπαν ] αγαπησαι 13 Rev_2. 21. The duty of love not only follows necessarily from what God has done for us, it rests on His direct commandment. ἀπ ʼ αὐτοῦ ] naturally refers to God, as the variant in the Vulgate interprets it, though here as elsewhere, in the language of meditation, when the writer is of Semitic origin, a change of person is by no means impossible. The most direct statement of the command is Mark 12:29 ff., where the Lord quotes the command of Deu 6:4, Deuteronomy 6:5. The writer no doubt knew the Marcan passage, even if he had not himself heard the saying which it records, when it was originally spoken. Cf. also John 13:34. εχομεν ] accepimus sah. boh-codd. απαυτου ] αποτουθεου A vg. am. demid. harl. tol. om. θεον … τον 2:0 B A (uid.). om. και 2:0 13. 34. αυτου (? 2:0)] εαυτου Ic 114 (335). Ψ̠δ 6. Athos. Lawra 172 (β 52) (viii.-ix.). א Ԡ א . δ 2. Codex Sinaiticus. Petersburg (iv.). A δ 4. Codex Alexandrinus. London. Brit. Mus. Royal Libr. I. D. v.-viii. (v.). B δ 1. Codex Vaticanus. Rome. Vat. Gr. 1209 (iv.). C δ 3. Codex Ephraimi. Paris. Bibl. Nat. 9 (v.); 1 John 1:1 τους — (2) εωρα [κομεν ]. 4:2 εστιν — (3 John 1:2) ψυχη . L α 5. Rome. Angel. 39 (ol. A. 2. 15) (ix.). 13 13 ( = 33gosp.). δ 48. Paris. Bibl. Nat. Gr. 14 (ix.-x.). 1 Cf. Holtzmann on 3 John 1:9. II. 5:1-12. Second presentation of the two main thoughts closely combined together. Faith the ground of love 1. 5:1a. Faith the sign of the Birth from God (cf. 2:29, 4:7, Love). 2. 5:1b-4. The love of God which is the true ground of love of the brethren, is the sign of love of the brethren (contrast 4:20). 3. 5:5-12. Faith, in its full assurance, the witness to Jesus as being the Christ. 1. 5:1a. Faith the sign of the Birth from God 1 ff. The writer has shown that love has its origin in the nature of God, and is not merely an affection of human nature. He has also reminded his readers how their love for God, the reflex of His love for us, can be tested. The truth of our claim to love God is shown in our attitude towards the brethren. He now proceeds to show why this is so, and how we can be sure of the sincerity of our love for others. The love of a child for its father and for its brother or sister are facts of nature. Every one who loves the father who begat him naturally loves the other children whom his father has begotten. The facts of the spiritual birth are analogous. What is true of the human family is also true of the Divine Society. If we love the Father who hath “ begotten us again,” and the reality of that love is shown in our active obedience to His commands, we may be assured that our love to His other (spiritual) children is real and sincere. Every one that believeth that Jesus is the Christ shows by that belief, as it manifests itself in word and deed as well as in intellectual conviction, that he has experienced the new birth. Those who are “ born of God” must love all His children, as surely as it is natural that any child should love his father’ s other children. 1 πᾶςὁπιστεύωνκ .τ .λ .] Cf. John 1:12 f. ὅσοιδὲἔλαβοναὐτόν , ἔδωκεναὐτοῖςἐξουσίαντέκναθεοῦγενέσθαι , τοῖςπιστεύουσινεἰςτὸὄνομααὐτοῦ … οἵ … ἐκθεοῦἐγεννήθησαν . Where true faith in Jesus as God’ s appointed messenger to men is present, there the new birth has taken place. The writer does not state whether faith is the cause or the result of the new birth. The point is not present to his thoughts, and his argument does not require its elucidation. What he wishes to emphasize is the fact that they go together. Where true faith is the new birth is a reality, and has abiding and permanent consequences. The believer has been born of God. But incidentally the tenses “ make it clear that the Divine Begetting is the antecedent, not the consequent of the believing.” “ Christian belief, which is essentially the spiritual recognition of spiritual truth, is a function of the Divine Life as imparted to men” (Law). ὁπιστεύων ] Πιστεύεινὅτι expresses belief in the truth of a statement or thesis. The phrase used in the passage quoted above from the Gospel suggests complete and voluntary submission to the guidance of a Person, as possessed of the character which his name implies. But though the writer is careful to distinguish the two, he would have been unable to conceive of any true faith stopping short at intellectual conviction of the abstract truth of a statement like that which follows in the clause introduced by ὅτι , which had no effect on the shaping of a man’ s conduct. He would have regarded the belief that Jesus is the Christ as inseparable from faith in Jesus as Christ. Neither belief nor knowledge are for him purely intellectual processes. ἸησοῦςἐστὶνὁΧριστός ] The exact form of this confession of faith is conditioned by the antichrists’ denial . It lays stress on the identity of the man Jesus with the Christ who became incarnate in Him, as opposed to the theories, then prevalent, of the descent of a higher power on Jesus at the Baptism, which left Him before the Crucifixion. καὶπᾶςὁἀγαπῶνκ .τ .λ .] The child’ s love for its parent naturally carries with it love for brothers and sisters. The step in the argument, “ Every one that is born of God loveth God,” is passed over as too obvious to require statement. We are again reminded that we have to deal with the language of meditation. αγαπα B 7. 13. 33. 62 om. demid. tol. sah. Hil. Aug.] + και א A K L P al. pler. cat. vg. harl. syr. arm. aeth. boh. Cyr. Thdt. Thphyl. Oec. Hil. Aug. Bed. οχριστοςεστιν Ib δ 260f (440). γεγενηται Ia δ 505, δ 459, 552*, 256, 1402 (69). τον 20] to א 31. 2. As usual a test is added by which the sincerity of the love may be determined. Ἐντούτῳ points forward. This is clearly the established usage of ἐντούτῳ in the Epistle, but difficulty has been felt in thus explaining it here, because the clause to which it points forward is introduced by ὅταν , instead of the usual constructions, ἐάν , ὅτι , or a disconnected sentence. But the difficulty is not serious, and it is probable that ἐντούτῳ should be interpreted as usual. Whenever our love to God is clear, and issues in active obedience to His will, we know by this that our love for His children is real. Weiss’ explanation, which makes ἐντούτῳ refer back to the statement immediately preceding (πᾶςὁἀγαπῶνκ .τ .λ .), is perhaps at first sight easier. “ When, or as soon as, we love God, we love also the children of God, in accordance with the law that love for him who begets has as its necessary consequence love for those whom he has begotten” (p. 150). Thus the duty of loving the brethren is deduced from the natural law of affection, as well as being directly commanded by God. But the other interpretation is more in accordance with the writer’ s wish to emphasize the Divine origin of love. There is certainly no need to reduce the verse to the merest repetition of what has been already said, by the transposition of the objects “ Hereby we know that we love God, when we love the children of God,” as Grotius and others have suggested. τὰτέκνατοῦθεοῦ ] The use of this phrase instead of “ the brethren” is significant. True love, which has its origin in God, is called out by that in its object which is akin to the Divine. Every one who has been born of God must love all those who have been similarly ennobled. Love of God bears witness to, and has witness borne to itself by, love of the godlike. τατεκνατουθεου ] filium Dei arm. boh-codd.: Dominum aeth. | οταν ] si boh. οταν … αγαπωμεν ] εντωαγαπαντονθεον 13. 191. 57lect. ποιωμεν B 27. 29. 64. 69. 106. 15lect ascr dscr gscr vg. sah. cop. syr. arm. aeth. Thphyl. Lcif. Aug.] ποιουμεν 5. 17. 33. 34: τηρωμεν א K L P al. pler. cat. tol. cav. Oec.: τηρουμεν 31* Rev_2. om. ποιωμεν — (3) αυτου 10 A 3. 42. 66** 100. 101. The reading τηρῶμεν is clearly a correction to the more usual phrase which occurs in ver. 3. In itself the reading of B, etc., is more forcible. It emphasizes the active character of the obedience which testifies to the love felt for God and therefore for the brethren. 3. The first clause justifies the addition of the last clause of ver. 2, καὶτὰςἐντολὰςαὐτοῦποιῶμεν . Obedience to His commands is the necessary outcome of love to God. There is no such thing as true love of God which does not issue in obedience. αὕτη … ἵνα ] Cf. John 17:3. The definitive ἵνα generally introduces an ideal not yet actually attained. This is perhaps the only class of ideas whose contents it is used to define. τηρῶμεν ] Contrast ver. 2 . Actual “ doing” is the test of love. But love includes more of obedience than the actual carrying out of definite commands. It accepts them as the expression of an underlying principle, which is capable of moulding the whole character, and which must be kept alive and given scope to work. βαρεῖαι ] Cf. Matthew 23:4, δεσμεύουσινδὲφορτίαβαρέα : Luke 11:46, φορτίζετετοὺςἀνθρώπουςφορτίαδυσβάστακτα : and contrast Matthew 11:30, τὸφορτίονμουἐλαφρόνἐστιν . The word cannot here mean “ difficult to fulfil.” It suggests the idea of a heavy and oppressive burden. The commands may be in themselves difficult to carry out, and yet not burdensome, if the Christian is possessed of adequate power to fulfil them, in virtue of his Christian standing and love: dilige et quod vis fac (Augustine). Windisch regards vv. 3 and 4 as intended to show the possibility of fulfilling the Divine commands, and of realizing the Divine ideal for men. (1) On the side of God, He does not demand what is too hard for men. Cf. Philo, de spec. leg. 1:299, p. 257, αἰτεῖται … ὦδιάνοια , παρὰσοῦὁθεὸςοὐδὲνβαρὺκαὶποικίλονἢδύσεργον , ἀλλὰἁπλοῦνπανὺκαὶῥάδιον . ταῦταδ ʼ ἐστὶνἀγαπᾶναὐτὸνὡςεὐεργέτην , εἰδὲμή , φοβεῖσθαιγοῦνὡςἄρχοντακαὶκύριον … καὶτῶνἐντολῶναὐτοῦπεριέχεσθαικαὶτὰδίκαιατιμᾶν . (2) On man’ s side, the necessary power has been given to him. But this interpretation ignores the form of the sentence (ὅτιπᾶνκ .τ .λ .). γαρ ] om. H δ 6 K2 (S) sahw boh-codd. 4. And this power each Christian has, in virtue of the new birth from God. The statement is made in its most abstract form which emphasizes the power of the new birth rather than its possession by each individual . Every one who is born of God has within himself a power strong enough to overcome the resistance of all the powers of the world, which hinder him from loving God.καὶαὕτηκ .τ .λ .] For the form of expression, cf. 1:5; John 1:19. Our faith, the faith that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah, the Son of God, accepted not as an intellectual conviction but as a rule of life, overcame in our case the powers of the world, which fight for a different principle of life. The aorist naturally points to a definite act, or fact. The writer must be thinking either of the conversion of each member of the community, “ the moment when he ἐπίστευσεν , ” or else of some well-known event in the history of the Church or Churches addressed. The most natural reference is to the definite withdrawing of the false teachers from the fellowship of the Church. There is no obvious reference to the victory of Christ over the world which His followers share in virtue of their faith, i.e. in so far as they unite themselves with Him. παςογεγεννημενος Ia 173 (156). ημων א A B K P al. pler. cat. vg. etc.] υμων L 3. 42. 57. 98. 105. 191 al. fere. 20 aeth. 5. τίςἐστιν ] Cf. 2:22, τίςἐστινὁψεύστηςεἰμὴκ .τ .λ . The appeal is to practical experience. He who has realized what Jesus of Nazareth really was, and he alone, has in himself the power which overcomes the forces of the world which draw men away from God; cf. 1 Corinthians 15:57. ὁυἱὸςτοῦθεοῦ ] Cf. verse 1, ὁχριστός . The fuller p’ rase brings out the meaning more clearly, though the writer probably means much the same by both titles. He varies his phrase to leave no doubt about his meaning. The πρῶτονψεῦδος of the false teachers was the denial, not that Jesus was the Messiah of the Jews, but that He was the complete revelation of the Father, the assertion that the higher Power that was in Him was only temporarily connected with Him during a part of His earthly life. τιςεστιν A L al. pler. vg. sah. Oec.] pr. et arm.: + δε א (B) K P 13. 29. 66**. 68. 69 ascr al. fere. 15 cat. cav. demid. tol. cop. syr. arm. Did. Cyr. Thphyl. (τιςδεεστιν B cav. demid. tol. Did.). οπιστευων ] οπιστευσας P. ιησους + Christus arm-codd. boh-codd. εστιν ] om. Ia 1402 (219). ουιος ] pr. οχριστος 13. 56: οχσ̄ Ic 258 (56). 6-9. He, the pre-existent Son of God, was sent from heaven by God to do His will. He came to earth to fulfil His Mission. In His fulfilment of it, two events are prominent: the Baptism by which He was consecrated to His Messianic work, and the Passion by which He completed His work of atonement and propitiation. His coming was not in the water of John’ s Baptism alone, it was realized even more fully in the Blood which He shed upon the Cross. “ He that came” is the title which best characterizes His work. The function of the Spirit was different. It was to bear witness. He was the witness-bearer. And He was fitted for His office, for truth is of the essence of His being. He is the truth. And the witness may be trusted, for it is threefold. The witness-bearers are three: the Spirit, whose very nature qualifies Him for the office; the water of John’ s Baptism, after which He was declared to be the Son of God; and the blood shed upon the Cross, where testimony was again given to the fact that He is the Son of God, for His death was not like that of other men. Thus the three witnesses all tend to the same point. They establish the one truth that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. 6. Of the many interpretations of this passage which have been suggested, only three deserve serious consideration: (1) A reference to the two Christian Sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist naturally suggested itself to many interpreters of the Epistle, especially in view of the 4th and 6th chapters of the Gospel. But it is open to more than one fatal objection. If ὕδωρ can be satisfactorily explained of Baptism, αἷμα is never found in the New Testament as a designation of the Eucharist. And, secondly, the form of the sentence, ὁἐλθὼνδι ʼ ὕδατοςκαὶαἵματος , almost necessitates a reference to definite historical facts in the life of Christ on earth which could be regarded as peculiarly characteristic of the Mission which He “ came” to fulfil. If the writer had intended to refer to the Christian Sacraments, he must have said ὁἐρχόμενος . It is hardly necessary to point out that any interpretations which refer one of the expressions to a rite instituted by Christ, and the other to something which happened to Him (as, e.g., the Christian rite of baptism, and the atoning death on the Cross), are even less satisfactory. See Cambridge Greek Testament.(2) The reference to the incident recorded in John 19:34 was also natural, considering the stress laid upon it by the author of the Gospel, and the exact language in which he records the result of the piercing of the Lord’ s side by the soldier’ s lance, ἐξῆλθεναἷμακαὶὕδωρ . This incident gives a definite fact which would justify the use of the aorist . And the difference in order offers no real difficulty. It is easily explicable as a consequence of the writer’ s desire to throw special emphasis on the αἷμα , which he develops further in the next clause, οὐκἐντῷὕδατιμόνονἀλλ ʼ ἐντῷὕδατικαὶτῷὕματι . But it is difficult to see how this incident could be regarded as characterizing the Lord’ s Mission as a whole. No doubt the incident, as the writer had seen it or heard the account of it from a trustworthy and competent witness, had made a deep impression upon him. It had suggested to him the significance of “ blood” and “ water” as symbolizing two characteristic aspects of the Lord’ s work, cleansing and life giving. But the incident itself could hardly be thought of as the means whereby He accomplished His work. As an explanation of the actual words used, ὁἐλθὼνδι ʼ ὕδατυςκαὶαἵματος , it fails to satisfy the requirements of the case. (3) We are thus thrown back on the explanation of Tertullian, Theophylact, and many modern commentators, who see in the words a reference to the Baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist, in which at the beginning of His ministry He was consecrated to His Messianic work and received the gift of the Spirit descending upon Him and abiding on Him, and the Death on the Cross by which His work was consummated. The terms used refer definitely to the historical manifestation of the Son of God, and compel us to look for definite and characteristic events in that history by means of which it could be said that His mission was accomplished, His “ coming” effected. The two great events at the beginning and the end of the ministry satisfactorily fulfil these conditions. At the Baptism He was specially consecrated for His public work, and endowed with the Spirit which enabled Him to carry it out. And His work was not finished before Calvary. The Death on the Cross was its consummation, not a mere incident in the life of an ordinary man, after the Higher Power had left Him, which had temporarily united itself with His human personality for the purposes of His mission of teaching. The middle clause of the verse distinguishes two facts, and lays emphasis on the latter. The repetition of both preposition and article brings this out clearly. The statement is as precise as grammar can make it. And the whole statement, including what is said about the function of the Spirit as witness-bearer, is no doubt conditioned by the special form of erroneous teaching which had made so precise a statement necessary. Though Tertullian apparently adheres to this interpretation, his mention of it shows the early connection of this passage with the incident at the Crucifixion, recorded in John 19:34. Cf. Tert. de Baptismo, 16, “ Uenerat enim per aquam et sanguinem, sicut Ioannes scripsit, ut aqua tingueretur, sanguine glorificaretur, proinde nos facere aqua uocatos, sanguine electos. Hos duos baptismos de uulnere perfossi lateris emisit, quatenus qui in sanguinem eius crederent, aqua lauarentur, qui aqua lauissent, etiam sanguinem potarent.” The combination of the historical and sacramental explanation is well illustrated by Bede, “ Qui uenit per aquam et sanguinem, aquam uidelicet lauacri et sanguinem suae passionis: non solum baptizari propter nostram ablutionem dignatus est, ut nobis baptismi sacramentum consecraret ac traderet, uerum etiam sanguinem suum dedit pro nobis, sua nos passione redimens, cuius sacramentis semper refecti nutriremur ad salutem.” Considering his usual dependence upon Augustine, this may be taken as probably giving that writer’ s comment on the passage, especially if we compare his comment on the passage in the Gospel (Tract. cxx. 2), “ Aperuit, ut illic quodammodo uitae ostium panderetur, unde Sacramenta Ecclesiae manauerunt, sine quibus ad uitam quae uera uita est non intratur. Ille sanguis in remissionem fusus est peccatorum: aqua illa salutare temperat poculum; haec et lauacrum praestat et potum.” The passage was naturally allegorized by the Alexandrian School; cf. Clement, “ Iste est qui uenit per aquam et sanguinem” et iterum “ quia tres sunt qui testificantur, Spiritus, quod est uita, et aqua quod est regeneratio ac fides, et sanguis, quod est cognitio,” where the interpretation illustrates the absence of historical sense which usually characterizes the Allegorists. It would, of course, be possible to interpret the passage of the whole of the life of Jesus on earth, in which the Son of God was manifested in flesh, ὕδωρ and αἷμα being used as symbols of two different aspects of the work which He accomplished during that life, as, e.g., cleansing and life-giving, according to the recognized Biblical usage of the terms. But if this had been intended the context must have made it plain that this was the meaning which the writer wished to convey. His readers could hardly have deduced it from the passage as it stands. οὗτος ] Jesus, who is both Christ and Son of God. For this use of οὗτος to emphasize the character of the subject as previously described, see John 1:2, John 1:7, John 1:3:2 (21:24); 1 John 2:22, cf. 2 John 1:7. He who came was both Christ and Son of God. The incarnation of the Son of God in human nature was not a merely temporary connection during part only of the earthly life of Jesus of Nazareth.ὁἐλθών ] The article is significant. He is one whose office or work is rightly characterized by the description given. And the aorist naturally refers to definite historical facts, or to the whole life regarded as one fact. It is hardly safe to find in the expression ὁἐλθών a distinct reference to the (?) Messianic title ὁἐρχόμενος , and so discover in the phrase a special indication of the office and work of Messiah. The idea emphasized in this and similar expressions would seem to be generally the course of action taken in obedience to the command of God. The “ coming” of the Son corresponds to the “ sending” of the Father. It expresses the fulfilment of the Mission which He was sent to accomplish. As that Mission was Messianic in character, Messianic ideas may often be suggested by the phrase, but they are secondary. “ He who accomplished the Mission entrusted to Him by God” seems to be the meaning of the word. δι ʼ ὕδατοςκαὶαἵματος ] The difficulty of the phrase is reflected in the attempts to modify the text. Cf. the critical note. The phrase should express means by which the “ coming” was accomplished, or elements by which it was characterized. Cf. 2 Corinthians 5:7, διὰπίστεωςπεριπατεῖν . The tense of ἐλθών excludes any primary reference to the Christian sacraments, even if ὕδωρ and αἷμα could be used to indicate them (see note at the beginning of the verse). As has been pointed out, the order of the words is not in itself decisive against such a reference or against a reference to the incident recorded in John 19:34 . The real objection to the latter view is the difficulty of seeing how that incident could be regarded as characteristic means by which the “ coming” was accomplished. It may well have suggested to the writer the peculiar significance of two aspects of the coming, but can hardly be regarded as an event by means of which the coming was fulfilled. On the other hand, the Baptism and the Crucifixion were both important factors in the carrying out of the Mission which He came to fulfil, and in this light they stand out more prominently than any other two recorded events of the Ministry. οὐκἐντῷὕδατιμόνον ] The writer evidently feels that further precision is necessary to make his meaning clear and unmistakable. It is clear that he has to deal with a form of teaching which denied the reality, or at least the supreme importance, of the coming ἐντῷαἵματι . The use of the article is natural, where the reference is to what has been mentioned before. The repetition of both article and preposition certainly suggests that two different events are referred to, a point which the earlier phrase δι ʼ ὕδατοςκαὶαἵματος left doubtful. The difference in meaning between the two prepositions used is not very clear. The events may be regarded as instruments by which the Mission was accomplished; or, on the other hand, water and blood, or rather the realities which they symbolize, may be thought of as spheres in which the work, or purpose, of the Mission was characteristically realized. But the influence of Semitic forms of expression may have gone far towards obliterating any difference in meaning between the two forms of expression. Cf. Leviticus 16:3 ; 1 Corinthians 4:21 ; Hebrews 9:12 , 25 . καὶτὸπνεῦμακ .τ .λ .] Τὸμαρτυροῦν expresses the characteristic office of τὸπνεῦμα , as ὁἐλθών does of οὗτος . It is not merely equivalent to μαρτυροῦν . Christ was the fulfiller of the Divine plan. Cf. Hebrews 10:7 (Psalms 40:8), τότεεἶπον · ἰδοὺἥκω , ἐνκεφαλίδιβιβλίουγέγραπταιπερὶἐμοῦτοῦποιῆσαι , ὁθεὸς , τὸθέλημάσου . The special function of the Spirit is to bear witness to what the Christ was and came to do. It is not improbable that in the false teaching which is here combated, a totally different function had been assigned to the Spirit (cf. Introduction, p. xlix). We may, perhaps, see a parallel instance in the description of the proper function of the Baptist contained in the Prologue of the Gospel, ἀλλ ʼ ἵναμαρτυρήσῃπερὶτοῦφωτός . To the Baptist also some had assigned a different and a higher function. Perhaps, however, the sequence of thought in the passage as a whole may be brought out more clearly by a simpler interpretation, which does not exclude a secondary reference to the ideas which have been suggested. “ He” came both by water and by blood. Both bore witness to the character of His Mission. But there was other witness, and more important. The Spirit is the witness-bearer. And so the witness is threefold. It fulfils the requirements of legally valid attestation. If we recognize the proper place and function of the Spirit, we gain assurance which cannot be shaken. The present tense excludes the need of any definite historical reference in the case of the Spirit, as, for instance, the Voice at the Baptism, or the Voice which spake from heaven shortly before the Passion (John 12:28). The best explanation of the author’ s meaning is to be found in the account of the function of the Paraclete in John 15:26, τὸπνεῦματῆςἀληθείας , ὃπαρὰτοῦπατρὸςἐκπορεύεται , ἐκεῖνοςμαρτυρήσειπερὶἐμοῦ . Cf. also John 14:26, 16:John 14:8-10, John 14:13-15. ὅτι ] Either declarative or causal. The former gives a possible meaning. The Spirit “ carries with it immediately the consciousness of its truth and reality,” is in itself the best witness to its own nature, which is truth. But this is alien to the context. The emphasis is on the function of witnessing. This function the Spirit can perform perfectly, because the Spirit is the truth. The very nature of the Spirit is truth. Cf. John 15:26. By its very nature it is not only capable of bearing true witness, but it is also constrained to do so. It cannot deny itself. ελθων ] pr. υσ̄τουθῦ Ic 258 (56). καιαιματος B K L al. plu. vg. (am. fu. demid. harl.) syrsch Cyr. Γ hphy. Oec. Tert.]: pr. καιπνευματος 5. 68. 83 arm. aeth.: καιπνευματος 54. 103. 104 Cyr. Ambr.: om. Ia 158 (56) Ib 62-161. 472 (498) Ic δ 299 (-): +καιπνευματος 6. 7. 13. 15. 18. 25. 29. 30. 33. 34. 36. 39. 66**. 69. 80. 98. 101. 137 (+αγιου 33. 34. 39) ascr al. pauc. cav. tol. sah. cop. syrp Cyr. αιματος ] pr. δι Ia 184 (-) K500 (45). ιησουςχριστος א A B L al. plu. arm. Cyr. Thphyl. Oec.: χριστοςιησους K P h. 15. 22. 33. 34. 36. 39. 56. 100. 192 cat. arm-codd. sah. Ambr.: ιησουςοχριστος minusc. uix. multi. syr p Thphylcomn Oeccom. μονον ] μονω B εντωυδατι … αιματι ] εντωαιματι … υδατιΡ 31*. 83 arm.: εντωυδατι … πνευματι A 21. 41 Cyr.: εντωαιματι … πνευματι 66**. 80: + et spiritu cav. tol. aeth. τω 2o] om. Hδ 6 . εν 3o A B L P 4. 5. 13. 17. 18. 21. 33. 40. 41. 66**. 80. 83. 118 jscr kscr cat. Cyr.] om. א K al. plu. vg. boh-cod. Cyr. Thphyl. Oec. τω 3o] om. H162. 103 (61). καιτο ] οτι Ia 397ff (96). τοπνευμα 2o] χριστος 34 vg. armusc: om. το H δ 6 Ia 158 (395). 7. ὅτιτρεῖςκ .τ .λ .] The witness to the fact that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, is trustworthy. It fulfils the conditions of legally valid witness, as laid down in Deuteronomy 19:15, οὐκἐμμενεῖμάρτυςεἷςμαρτυρῆσαικατὰἀνθρώπουκατὰπᾶσανἀδικίανκαὶκατὰπᾶνἁμάρτημακαὶκατὰπᾶσανἁμαρτίανἣνἂνἁμάρτῃ · ἐπὶστόματοςδυὸμαρτύρωνκαὶἐπὶστόματοςτριῶνμαρτύρωνστήσεταιπᾶνῥῆμα . Cf. Deuteronomy 17:6; Matthew 18:16; 2 Corinthians 13:1; John 8:17. It is obvious that the same interpretation must be given to πνεῦμα , ὕδωρ , and αἷμα here as in the preceding verse. The Christ “ came” by water and by blood, and the Spirit bore witness to Him and to His Mission. The witness of the Spirit is supported by the witness of the water and the blood. The means by which He accomplished His Mission are subsidiary witnesses to its character. And the witnesses agree. The Spirit, and the opening and closing scenes of the Ministry as interpreted by the Spirit, bear similar witness to the Christ. εἰςτὸἕνεἰσιν ] Are for the one thing, tend in the same direction, exist for the same object. They all work towards the same result, the establishing of the truth that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. εισιν ] om. Ib 157 (29). μαρτυρουντες ] μαρτυρουσιν Hδ 6 Ic 114f (335). και 1o] om. Ib δ 602ffff (522). και 3o] om. Hδ 6 . καιτουδωρ post αιμα arm-codd. το 4o] om. Ia 70 (505). 8. εἰτὴνμαρτυρίανκ .τ .λ .] Cf. John 5:36. If we accept the testimony of men when it satisfies the conditions of evidence required by the law, much more are we bound to accept the witness which we possess in this case, for it is witness borne by God Himself. Cf. also John 8:18, καὶμαρτυρεῖπερὶἐμοῦὁπέμψαςμεπατήρ , and 10:25, τὰἔργαἃἐγὼποιῶἐντῶὀνόματιτοῦπατρόςμουταῦταμαρτυρεῖπερὶἐμοῦ . Neither here nor in 4:11 does the εἰ indicate any doubt: it is known to every one that we do accept such testimony.ὅτιαὕτηκ .τ .λ .] Such witness is greater, and therefore more worthy of our acceptance, because it is Divine witness, and deals with a subject on which God, and God alone, is fully competent to speak. It concerns His Son. God has borne witness concerning His Son. In this case the Divine witness alone is ἀληθινή in the full sense of the term, though other kinds of witness may be true so far as they go. ὅτιμεμαρτύρηκεν ] The reading ὅτι is undoubtedly right. If the reading ἥν , of the Textus Receptus, be adopted, the αὕτη must refer back to the witness already described, i.e. that borne by the three witnesses, the Spirit, the water, and the blood, or by the one witness, the Spirit, who interprets the evidence of the historical facts. The witness meant must be the witness borne to the truth that Jesus is the Christ. If ὅτι is accepted, it may be taken in three ways: (1) Causal. In this case αὕτη must refer to what has preceded, the witness already described. Such is the witness, Divine and legally valid, for God really has borne witness to His Son. By laying the stress on the verb μεμαρτύρηκεν it is perhaps possible to make sense of the passage in this way. But such an interpretation is very harsh, and not in conformity with the author’ s style. (2) ὅτι . This is the witness, i.e. that which He has borne concerning His Son. This use of ὅτι in the Johannine writings is not certainly established, though perhaps we should compare John 8:25, τὴνἀρχὴνὅτικαὶλαλῶὑμῖν . In the present context it would be intolerably harsh. (3) It is far more natural and in accordance with the author’ s style (cf. John 3:19, αὕτηδέἐστινἡκρίσιςὅτιτὸφῶςἐλήλυθενκ .τ .λ .) to regard the ὅτι as declarative. The value of the witness consists in this, that He has given it concerning His Son. There can be no more trustworthy witness, so far as competence to speak is concerned, than that which a father bears to his own son. The essence of the witness is that it is the testimony of God to His Son. In the Gospel, μαρτυρεῖνπερί is very frequent (1:7, 8, 15, 2:25, 5:31, 32, etc.), elsewhere very rare. τωνανθρωπων ] τουθεου א * | τουθεου (? 1o)] τωναν̄ων Ib δ 602 (522) | om. οτι Io K arm. | ημαρτυρια 2o] post θεου 2o] Ia | οτι 2o א A B 5. 6. 13 27. 29. 34. 66** vg. sah. cop. arm-codd. Cyr. Aug.] ην K L P al. pler. cat. arm-codd. Thphyl. Oec.: qui arm-ed. | περιτονυιουαυτου ] de filio suo Iesu Christo arm-codd.: + quem misit saluatorem super terram. Et filius testimonium perhibuit in terra scripturas perficiens; et nos testimonium perhibemus, quoniam uidimus cum, et annunciamus uobis ut credatis et ideo tol. 10. He who trusts himself to the guidance of the Son has in his own experience the witness which God bore to Him, it has become part of himself. He who does not accept the witness as true has not only missed the truth, but has made God a liar; for he has set aside as false the witness which God has borne concerning His own Son. ἐναὐτῷ ] in himself, as is made clear in the paraphrase of א . The passage must describe the “ testimonium spiritus internum.” ὁμὴπιστεύων ] The subjective negative is rightly used. It lays emphasis on the character rather than the fact of non-belief. A general class is described by its significant characteristic. But in N.T. οὐ with the participle is rare, in the Johannine writings only John 10:12. See J. H. Moulton, Gr. of N.T. Grk. 1. p. 231. τῷθεῷ ] This construction (c. dat.) expresses, as usually, acceptance of the statement rather than surrender to the person. The variants τῷυἱῷ , Jesu Christo, miss the point of the verse. ψεύστην ] Cf. 1:10. There is no room for ignorance or misconception. To reject the witness is to deny the truthfulness of God. He has spoken and acted deliberately, and with absolute clearness. The testimony has been borne. The things were not done in a corner. The witness must therefore either be accepted or rejected. It cannot be ignored or explained away. πεποίηκεν ] The tense suggests a definite choice of which the effects abide. The rejection has been made, and its effects are inevitable. The aorist (οὐκἐπίστευσεν , A, etc.) is not so forcible. οὐπεπίστευκεν ] The negative emphasizes the actual fact rather than its character . The choice has been made, and its consequences are manifest. οὐπεπίστευκενεἰςτὴνμαρτυρίαν ] The nearest parallel to this expression is John 2:23 (πολλοὶἐπίστευσανεἰςτὸὄνομααὐτοῦ , i.e. believed on Jesus as Messiah, as being that which His name implied, and were ready to follow Him as Messiah, till they discovered how different His conception of the Messianic office was from theirs). It seems to denote devotion to a person possessed of those qualities which the witness borne to him announces, or at least to the idea which is expressed in that witness. ἣνμεμαρτύρηκενκ .τ .λ .] The phrases of ver. 9; are repeated for emphasis; each point is dwelt upon. The witness has been borne, once for all; it cannot be ignored or set aside. It has been borne by God Himself, in a case where His word alone can be final, as it concerns His own Son. In the writer’ s view there can be no excuse for refusing to accept evidence which is so clear and satisfactory. Cf. Rothe, “ If God did not will that men should believe on Jesus, He led men into a terrible temptation. So if we would keep our conception of God pure, we must ascribe this intention to Him in His ordering of the world. We generally put forward prominently whatever tells against Faith, but leave on one side what speaks for it. We ought first to answer satisfactorily the question, how it could be possible that this Faith should so widely permeate humanity before we investigate the force of our doubts, and then we should rest assured that Christianity is non sine numine” ; a striking comment, even if it can hardly be said to be called out by the exact expressions of the text. om. totum comma Ia 397ffff (96) | τουθεου ] om. arm-cod. | τηνμαρτυριαν א B K L P al. longe. plur. cat. sah. syr. arm. Cyr. Thphyl. Oec. Aug.] + τουθεου A al. plus12 vg. cop. aeth.: +eius m. | αυτω A B K L P al. fere.54 cat Thphyl.] εαυτω א al. muuid Cyr. Oec. | μη ] om. Ia 175 (319) | τωθεω א B K L al. longe. plur. cat. boh-codd. syr. Cyr. Thphyl. Oec. Aug. Vig.] τωυιω A 5. 27. 29. 66** al. plus12 vg. syr.: τωυιωτουθῦ 56 sah. arm. boh-ed. filio eius aeth.: Iesu Christo m: om. am.* | αυτον ] aeum m sah. | ουπεπιστευκεν א B K L P etc.] ουκεπιστευκεν א : ουκεπιστευσεν A 5. 33. 34 dscr | εις 2o— ην ] Deo qui arm-cod. | εμαρτυρηκεν א | om. οθεος 4 dscr jscr vg. codd. aeth. Cyr. Aug. Vig. 11. At last the witness, some of the essential characteristics of which have been already described, is actually defined. So far the writer has only taught his readers that it is Divine witness, borne by a father to his son, and that those who believe on the son have it in themselves, as a possession which experience has made part of themselves. Now he definitely states in what it consists. God bore witness to His Son when He gave life to men,— that higher spiritual life which they can realize and make their own only in so far as they unite themselves to Jesus, the Christ, the Son of God. αὕτη … ὅτι ] Cf. John 3:19 (αὕτηδέἐστινἡκρίσις , ὅτιτὸφῶςἐλήλυθενκ .τ .λ .); 1 John 5:14, αὕτηἐστὶνἡπαρρησία … ὅτιἐάντιαἰτώμεθα … ἀκούειἡμῶν . The constructions with ἵνα , and with the nominative, are rather common in S. John. The witness which God bore consisted in the fact that He gave life to men, by sending His Son that men might have life in Him. Cf. John 10:10, ἐγὼἦλθονἵναζωὴνἔχωσινκαὶπερισσὸνἔχωσιν . The sending of the Son on a mission, truly characterized by the Water of the Baptism and the Blood shed on the Cross, and of which the object was to implant a new life in men, was the witness borne by God to the nature and character of Jesus of Nazareth. ζωὴναἰώνιον ] The anarthrous phrase emphasizes character or quality. The gift was something which is best described as “ spiritual life.” ἔδωκεν ] The tense emphasizes the fact, apart from its consequences. The reference is to the historic fact of the mission of Him who came by Water and by Blood. ἡμῖν ] We Christians. The gift of life is a witness only where it has been received. καὶαὕτηἡζωὴκ .τ .λ .] This clause is part of the “ witness,” not an additional statement made about the life. The witness is the gift of a life which is in the Son. εδωκεν ] δεδωκεν 69. 99 ascr 1scr | οθεος B 31. 38. 137 h.scr syrp] post ημιν א A K L P al. pler. cat. vg. syr. arm. | αυτη ] + εστιν A | om. εστιν A 100. 12. This verse explains more fully the last clause of the preceding verse. It is probably of the nature of an appeal to the reader’ s experience. Those who lived with Christ on earth found that they gained from Him a new power which transformed their life into a new and higher life. And the later generations had similar experience by which to judge, though they had not actually companied with Him during His life on earth. ὁμὴἔχωνκ .τ .λ .] In the negative statement there are two slight changes which have their significance: (1) The addition of τοῦθεοῦ to τὸνυἱόν . God is the source of life. The Son of God alone can give it to men. He that cannot gain it from that source cannot find it. (2) The position of τὴνζωήν , which is placed before the verb, and thus becomes more emphatic. Whatever else the man may have in the way of higher endowments, spiritual life is not within his grasp. In the positive statement the emphasis was laid on the actual possession . We have here another close parallel with the Gospel (see John 3:36). ὁμὴἔχων ] The negative generalizes the statement. A class of men is described who are distinguished by this characteristic. τονυιον 1 o] + τουθεου 8. 25. 34. 69 ascr boh-codd. | τηνζωην 1o] τονυιον 31: ζωηναιωνιον Ia δ 459 (489): + αυτου O46 (154) Ic 364 (137) | om. τουθεου vg. (am. demid.) arm-codd. Aug. Tert. | τηνζωην 2o] post εχει 2o Ib δ 370 (1149): + αυτου O46 Ic 364. 13-17. I have written thus about belief in Jesus as the Son of God, and the witness of the Spirit, and the witness of God, which consists in the life which He gave to men through Jesus Christ, in order that you might feel assurance as to the possession of true life, you who believe in Jesus who is the Son of God. Such confidence is realized in prayer, in knowing by experience that, whenever we ask anything of God according to His will, He hears our prayer. And if we are thus conscious that God has heard, we already possess, in anticipation, the thing we asked for. The Almighty Sovereign has said, “ Let it be,” there is no further doubt about the matter, even though actual possession may be delayed for long years. This is more clearly seen in intercession for the brethren. If any man see his fellow-Christian sinning, so long as his sinning is not such as leads inevitably to final separation from Christ and the life which God gives in Him, he will naturally intercede for him, and will gain life for him, even if it be long delayed, in the case of all whose sin is not unto death. There is sin which must lead, if persisted in, to final exclusion from life. I do not say that this comes within the sphere of Christian intercession. But in any case there is full scope for intercession. For all unrighteousness is sin, and there is such a thing as sin which does not necessarily lead to final exclusion from life. ταῦταἔγραψα ] Cf. 2:26, where the reference is clearly to the preceding section about the False Teachers. Cf. also 2:14, which the triple ἔγραψα probably refers to that part of the Epistle which had already been written. The present verse does not really present an exact parallel to the conclusion of the Gospel (John 20:31) which immediately precedes the appendix (ch. 21.). Even if the reference is to the whole Gospel and not to the σημεῖα recorded in ch. 20., that reference is determined by the preceding words . Here it would seem most natural to refer the words to the preceding section of the Epistle (5:1-12), in which the writer has put forward his view of Faith in Jesus, the Christ, the Son of God, as the necessary condition of the realization of that spiritual life which God has given to men through Jesus Christ, and which again is the real witness of God to the nature and character of His Son. The following explanation of ὑμῖν as those who believe in the name of the Son of God, makes the reference to the whole of this section almost certain. ὑμῖνκ .τ .λ .] For the separation of the explanatory clause (τοῖςπιστεύουσινκ .τ .λ .), cf. ver. 16, δώσειαὐτῷζωήν , τοῖςἁμαρτάνουσινμὴπρὸςθάνατον , where the change in number creates a still greater strangeness of expression, and John 1:12, ἔδωκεναὐτοῖςἐξούσιαντέκναθεοῦγενέσθαι , τοῖςπιστεύουσινεἰςτὸὄνομααὐτοῦ . This separation of τοῖςπιστεύουσινκ .τ .λ . from ὑμῖν has led to several attempts to improve the text: (1) The clause τοῖςπιστεύουσιν … θεοῦ has been added immediately after ὑμῖν in the Receptus. (2) This clause has been retained in its proper place; but for τοῖςπιστεύουσιν has been substituted (a) the nominative, οἱπιστεύοντες , or (b) a second final clause, καὶἵναπιστεύητε . The nominative (2a) is found with and without the insertion of a clause, τοῖςπιστεύουσιν , etc., immediately after ὑμῖν . Thus, on the assumption that the reading of B (ὑμῖνἵναεἰδῆτεὅτιζωὴνἔχετεαἰώνιοντοῖςπιστεύουσινκ .τ .λ .) is original, the genesis of the other variants can be easily explained. The parallels quoted above show that it presents a text completely in harmony with the writer’ s style. ἵναεἰδῆτε ] Cf. 2:1, ἵναμὴἁμάρτητε , and 3:24, ἐντούτῳγινώσκομεν . There are many signs in the Epistle of the writer’ s consciousness that his readers’ loss of their first enthusiasm and zeal for the Christian faith had led to their feeling uncertain about their position. They lacked “ assurance.” εἰδῆτε ] The knowledge which they need must be intuitive. If they realize who and what the Christ is, and the relation in which they stand to Him, they will at once “ perceive and know” that they are in possession of life. πιστεύουσινεἰςτὸὄνομα ] Cf. ver. 10 and John 2:23. The phrase must imply devotion to a person possessed of the qualities which his name denotes. It is unlikely that πιστεύειν is used with the two constructions (c. dat., εἰς c. acc.) in the same passage in exactly the same sense. Here the full force of the construction with εἰς is needed to bring out the sense. The knowledge follows as a matter of course where the self-surrender is complete. ταυτα ] pr. και Ic 258 (56) | εγραψα ] post υμιν H δ 6 | υμιν א A B h. 5. 6. 13uid 29. 66. 81. 142. 162 vg. sah. cop. syr. arm. aeth. Cassiod.] + τοιςπιστευουσινειςτοονοματουυιουτουθεου K L P al. pler. cat. Thphyl. Oec.: + τοιςπιστευουσιν 126 | εχετε A B al. sat. mu. cat. vg. syrp Cassiod.] habemus arm-codd.: post αιωνιον א K L P al. plus50 Thphyl. Oec. | τοιςπιστευουσιν א B syr.] οιπιστευοντες א c A 5. 6. 13 29, 66. 81. 142. 162. vg. cop. aeth.: καιιναπιστευητε K L P h. al. pler. cat. arm. Thphyl. Oec. (πιστευσητε h. 37. 57: om. και 57 arm-codd.). 14. καὶαὕτη ] The object of the preceding section was to produce assurance in the readers that they were in possession of the new life. This assurance is now described as παρρησία , boldness or confidence, with perhaps special reference to the original meaning of the word, absolute freedom of speech. It is said to consist in the fact that God hears them whenever they ask anything according to His will, i.e. it is realized in true prayer, which always brings with it the consciousness that it is heard. This is the fourth mention of the Christian’ s confidence; we have it twice in relation to the Judgment (2:28, 4:17), and twice in relation to prayer (3:21 and here). ἣνἔχομενπρὸςαὐτόν ] which we have and enjoy in realized fellowship with God. In describing relations, πρός generally denotes that which “ goes out towards,” a relation realized in active intercourse and fellowship. Cf. John 1:1, John 1:2; Mark 6:3 (οὐκεἰσὶν … ὧδεπρὸςἡμᾶς ; living our life).ὅτι ] One of the common constructions used by the writer to introduce the description of that to which αὕτη , or ἐντούτῳ , or some such expression refers. Our παρρησία with God is based on the fact that He hears whatsoever we ask κατὰτὸθέλημααὐτοῦ . ἐάντικ .τ .λ .] The necessary condition of the hearing; subject to this condition, that it is not in opposition to the Divine will, the hearing is assured whatever the petition may be. αἰτώμεθα ] The more subjective form of expression is chosen. But it is doubtful whether any definite and clear difference in meaning between the middle and the active can be pressed. Cf. Matthew 20:20, Matthew 20:22 ; John 16:24, John 16:26 . κατὰτὸθέλημααὐτοῦ ] Cf. John 14:13, ὅτιἂναἰτήσητεἐντῷὀνόματίμουτοῦτοποιήσω . ἀκούειἡμῶν ] Cf. John 9:31, οἴδαμενὅτιὁθεὸςἁμαρτωλῶνοὐκἀκούει , ἀλλ ʼ ἐάντιςθεοσεβὴςᾖ … τούτουἀκούει : John 11:41 f.; Psa_16. (17.) 6. The word naturally includes the idea of hearing favourably. εχωμεν A al. pauc. | οτιεαντι א B K L P al. pler. sah. syr. arm.] οτιοεαν 13 arm.(uid.) sah. boh.: οτιαν A: οτιεαν 31*. 68. 191. 58lect | αιτωμεθα ] αιτωμεν Ia δ 602 (522) θελημα ] ονομα A aeth. | αυτου ] τουθῡ Isa_55 (236) Ib 209f. (386). 15. ἐὰνοἴδαμεν ] For the indicative after ἐάν , cf. 1 Thessalonians 3:8, ἐὰνστήκετε , and J. H. Moulton’ s Grammar of N.T. Greek, p. 168, where among others the following instances from papyri are quoted, ἐὰνδεῖ , ἐὰνοἶδεν , ἐὰνδ ʼ εἰσίν , ἐὰνφαίνεται . Our consciousness that we are heard in whatsoever we ask, the necessary condition not being repeated, brings with it a consciousness of possession. In the certainty of anticipation there is a kind of possession of that which has been granted, though our actual entering upon possession may be indefinitely delayed. God has heard the petition: the things asked for, for which we have asked not without effect , are in a sense already ours. This is perhaps the most natural explanation of the verse.But it is possible that the writer, while meditating after his wont on the subject of prayer, is trying to find expression for a view of prayer which gives a more literal meaning to the words ἔχομεντὰαἰτήματα . In the preceding verse he has laid stress on the fact that what he has to say applies only to such prayers as are offered κατὰτὸθέλημααὐτοῦ . This excludes any prayer which is the expression of the supplicant’ s own wish on any subject, except in so far as it is identical with the will of God on that subject. He may therefore have thought of true prayer as including only requests for knowledge of, and acquiescence in, the will of God in the matter with which the prayer is concerned, rather than as a statement of the supplicant’ s wish, accompanied by a readiness to give it up, if it is in opposition to God’ s will. In the case of such prayers the supplicant can enter into immediate and conscious possession of the thing asked for, whether the answer to his own formulated or felt wish be yes or no. The statement may be literally true οἴδαμενὅτιτὰαἰτήματαἔχομεν . Cf. Mark 11:24. αἰτήματα ] Here only in the Johannine writings. Cf. Luke 23:24, ἐπέκρινενγενέσθαιτὸαἴτημααὐτῶν : Philippians 4:6, τὰαἰτήματαὑμῶνγνωριζέσθωπρὸςτὸνθεόν . ᾐτήκαμεν ] The voice and tense emphasize the objective fact and its results. ἀπ ʼ αὐτοῦ ] The Received Text has altered this into the commoner παρ ʼ αὐτοῦ . Cf., however, 1 John 1:5, 1 John 1:2:20, 27, 1 John 1:4:21; 3 John 1:7. In the Gospel παρά is the commoner usage in similar contexts. Thus the reading of א B is truer to the style of the Epistle, while the usage of the Gospel has apparently influenced the later text. om. και … ημων א A 19. 96 | οιδαμεν 1:0] ιδωμεν א c | om. εαν 1:0 vg. Did. | ο ] οτι Ia δ 457-110. δ 463 (209) | εαν 2:0] αν A B K al. sat. mu. Oec. | αιτωμεθα ] αιτησωμεθα Ia δ 353 (999?) | εχωμεν H δ 2. δ 6 Ia 7. 70. δ 353 | αιτηματα ] + ημων Ia 175 (319) sah | ητησαμεν Ia 200f. 64 (83) A πρ 20 (36) Ib 78ff (ητηκαμεν expl. sahb) | απ א B 5. 13 Rev_5] παρ A K L P al. pler. cat. | απαυτου ] a Domino sah. 16, 17. Intercession naturally finds its most obvious sphere in the new society itself. The writer therefore goes on to state its possibilities and its limitations. If any member of the body sees that his brother is committing sin, so long as it be not of such a character as must inevitably lead to final separation from the life of God, it goes without saying that he will exercise his power of intercession for him. And such is the power of intercession that he will be able to gain for him life, in every case where the sin is of the character described. There is such a thing as sin unto death, which tends to final separation from God, and which if persisted in must inevitably lead to that result. It is not clear that in such a case appeal can be made to the Common Father on behalf of a fellow-Christian. For such an one it may be that prayer can only be offered as for one who has forfeited his Christian privileges. But all injustice, every failure to maintain in our action right relations with God or with man, is sin. There is sin which is not of the fatal and final character described above. So there is plenty of scope left for the exercise of brotherly intercession. ἁμαρτάνονταἁμαρτίαν ] cf. Leviticus 5:6, περὶτῆςἁμαρτίαςαὐτοῦἧςἥμαρτεν : Ezekiel 18:24, ἐνταῖςἁμαρτίαιςαὐτοῦαἷςἥμαρτεν . The accusative is added here because of the qualifying clause which succeeds . It does not strengthen the verb. The present participle, “ sinning a sin” (RV.), perhaps indicates seeing the sinner ἐπαυτοφώρῳ . ἐάντιςἴδη ] The subjunctive with ἐάν simply states the possibility. μὴπρὸςθάνατον ] The μή is naturally used after ἐάν ; it can hardly be pressed to make the judgment subjective, that of the τις . αἰτήσει ] The future is used either for the imperative, or because it is assumed as a matter of course that the brother will intercede for the brother. δώσει ] The subject of the verb may be either God, or the man who intercedes. The abrupt change of subject which the former view would require is perhaps decisive against it. And in virtue of his intercession and its power the Christian may be said to “ give” life. Cf. James 5:15, ἡεὐχὴτῆςπίστεωςσώσειτὸνκάμνοντα , and (ver. 20) σώσειψυχὴναὐτοῦἐκθανάτου . τοῖςἁμαρτάνουσιν ] For the construction, cf. ver. 13. ἔστινἁμαρτίαπρὸςθάνατον ] The phrase is probably suggested by the Old Testament conception of sins ב י ד ר מ ה (Numbers 15:30-31 (ו ְ ח ַ נ ּ ֶ פ ֶ ש ׁ א ֲ ש ׁ ֶ ר ְ ת ּ ַ ע ֲ ש ׂ ֶ ה ב ּ ְ י ָ ד ר ָ מ ָ ה . . . ו ְ נ ִ כ ְ ר ְ ת ָ ה ה ַ נ ּ ֶ פ ֶ ש ׁ ה ַ ה ו א מ ק ּ ֶ ר ֶ ב ע ַ מ ּ ָ ה ּ Deliberate and wilful transgression as opposed to sins committed unwittingly, were punished by the cutting off of the sinner “ from among his people.” We may also compare Numbers 18:22, where it is said that after the setting apart of the Levites for the service of the Tabernacle, any of the people who came near to the Tabernacle of the Congregation would be guilty of sin and die, ו ְ ל ֹ ֽ א ־ י ִ ק ְ ר ְ ב ו ּ ע ו ֹ ד ב ּ ְ נ ֵ י י ִ ש ׂ ְ ר ָ א ֵ ל א ֶ ל ־ א ֹ ה ֶ ל מ ו ֹ ע ֵ ד ל ָ ֥ ֵ ש ׂ א ת ֖ ֵ ח ט ְ א ל ָ מ ֽ ו ּ ת , which is translated in the LXX, καὶοὐπροσελεύσονταιἔτιοἱυἱοὶἸσραὴλεἰςτὴνσκηνὴντοῦμαρτυρίουλαβεῖνἁμαρτίανθανατηφόρον , with which may be compared the Targum (Onk.) ל ְ ק ַ ב ּ ַ ל ָ א ח ו ֹ ב ָ ה ל ִ מ ְ מ ָ ת . It is probable that in Rabbinic thought the words ח ט א ל מ ו ת were taken closely together, though this is against the meaning and pointing of the Hebrew text. There may therefore be a direct connection between the verse and the words in Numbers 18:22. Cf. the note on ver. 17.The form of expression would seem to indicate that the author is not thinking of one particular sin, definite though unnamed. “ There is such a thing as sin which leads to death.” Such a state of sin may find expression in different acts. In the author’ s view any sin which involves a deliberate rejection of the claims of the Christ may be described as “ unto death.” If persisted in it must lead to final separation from the Divine life. Πρὸςθάνατον must, of course, denote a tendency in the direction of death, and not an attained result. The whole phrase thus suggests a “ kind of sinning” (if the phrase may be allowed) rather than any definite act of sin, which leads inevitably in a certain direction. Its only possible issue, if it is persisted in, must be spiritual death. Deliberate rejection of Christ and His claims was probably most prominent in the writer’ s thought. It is, of course, possible that in connection with what he has said in the earlier part of this chapter about the witness of the Spirit, he may have had in view the saying of the Lord recorded in Mark 3:29 (Matthew 12:32; Luke 12:10). But nothing in this passage offers any clear proof of such a connection. οὐπερὶἐκείνηςκ .τ .λ .] The writer does not forbid such intercession. He merely abstains from commanding it. Such cases lay outside the normal sphere of Christian intercession. They must be left to God alone. If the meaning often attributed to ἐρωτᾶν as distinguished from αἰτεῖν , “ the request which is based upon fellowship, upon a likeness of position,” is to be pressed, the words contain their own justification. Prayer of “ brother for brother, as such, addressed to the Common Father,” is out of the question where brotherhood has been practically renounced. But this interpretation, which emphasizes not that which the petitioner has in common with him to whom he makes his request, but rather with those on whose behalf he prays, is very doubtful. And the distinction itself between αἰτεῖν , the seeking of the inferior from the superior, and ἐρωτᾶν , which is said to imply a certain equality or familiarity between the parties (see Trench, Synonyms, § l.), is far from being certainly established. The distinction drawn by Dr. Ezra Abbott between αἰτεῖν , “ to ask for something to be given (not done), the emphasis being on the thing asked,” and ἐρωτᾶν , “ to request a person to do (rarely give) something, the emphasis being thus on the person requested,” is perhaps more naturally applicable here. We may hesitate to entreat God to act on behalf of one who has practically renounced his allegiance. But the difference in meaning and usage between αἰτεῖν and ἐρωτᾶν is not very clear. And the evidence of the papyri, while it shows clearly that ἐρωτᾶν was the natural word to use in invitations, and to that extent supports the former of the two distinctions which have been maintained, does not help much in settling the question. ιδη ] ειδη 13 vg. Hil. Aug.: οιδεν Ia 175 (319) | αμαρτανοντα ] αμαρτησαντα Ib δ 368 (823) | μη 10] την Ia 552 (217) | αιτησεικαιδωσει ] αιτησιςκαιδωσις א : petat (petet fu.: petit am. harl.) et dabitur vg. Cf. Tert. sah. cop.: petat pro eo et dabit … deus tol. | δωσει ] dabunt boh | ζωην ] + eternam boh-codd. | τοιςαμαρτανουσινμηπροςθανατον ] τοιςμηαμαρτανουσιναμαρτιανμηπροςθανατον A: peccanti non ad uitum vg.: sed non his qui usque ad mortem peccant tol. | αιτησει ] + τονθν Ia 250f (133) | αυτω ] post ζωην Ia 502 (116) Ib 396f 365-398 Ic 208, 116 (307) τοις … θανατον 2:0] τωμηπροςθανατοναμαρτανοντι Ic 364 (137) | αμαρτια ] pr. η Ia 173 (156) | ουπερι ] υπερ Ic 364 (137) | ου ] pr. και 13 57lect 58lect | ερωτηση ] ερωτησει K: ερωτησης א c arm.: pr. τις 15. 26. 36. 43. 98. 101 dscr vg. syr. Clem. Or. Tert. 17. πᾶσαἀδικία ] Unrighteousness is one manifestation of sin, just as lawlessness is another. The most natural interpretation of the verse is that which sees in it a statement of the wide scope which exists for the exercise of Christian intercession, in spite of certain necessary limitations of its sphere. Windisch suggests that the difficulty might be removed by placing ver. 17 before 16c . καίἐστινἁμαρτίαοὐπρὸςθάνατον ] The fact is stated objectively . The distinction between sins “ unto death” and “ not unto death” is illustrated by Schö ttgen from Rabbinic writers. His first quotation, however, from Yoma 50. 1, is not convincing , as ח ט א ת seems to refer to the animal offered or set apart as a sin-offering (see Goldschmid). The expression in Sota 48. I, ש ׁ ב ו ע צ ו ן מ י ת ה , offers a more satisfactory parallel. παντα [? πασα ] pr. αρα Ia ὅ 454, 175 (794) | αδικια ] post αμαρτια 1:0 H δ 6 : in iustitia arm-ed. | om. ου 13 67**. vg. sah. syr. arm. aeth. Tert. 18. οἴδαμεν ] Cf. 3:2, 14. The knowledge is intuitive. That which is stated follows immediately from the very nature of God, and of the life which He has given to men. πᾶςὁγεγεννημένοςκ .τ .λ .] Cf. 3:9. The perfect expresses the abiding results of the “ begetting.” In so far as they are realized they exclude the possibility of sin. Following his usual custom, the writer states the truth absolutely, without stating the modifications which become necessary as it is applied to individual cases in actual experience. The preceding section as well as the early part of the Epistle sufficiently shows that he recognized the actual fact of sin in Christians. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/iccnt/