Ιωαννουα in A. B. Ιωαννουεπιστοληα Cod. Sin. al. [other Codd. read επιστοληΙωαννουτρωτη; l. r. Ιωαννουτουαποστολουεπιστοληκαθολικηπρωτη.—M.]. I. THE 1 John 1:1-4OBJECT AND PURPOSE OF THE (1 John 1:1-3). DESIGN OF THE EPISTLE. (1 John 1:4) 1That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of 2life; (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and show unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;) 3That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ. 4And these things write we unto you that your joy may be full. AND The exordium (1 John 1:1-4) describes in vivid and definite language the object and purpose of the Apostolical annunciation and of this Epistle.—The affinity of this exordium with the prologue of the Gospel of St. John is unmistakable. The Gospel.The First Epistle.John 1:1. In the beginning (ἐνἀρχῇ) was the Word.1 John 1:1. What was from the beginning (ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς.)John 1:1-2. And it was with God (πρὸςτὸνΘεόν.)1 John 1:2. Which (Life) was with God [with the Father] (πρὸςτὸνθεὸν.)John 1:1-4. The Word (λόγος) in Him was Life (ζωή.)1 John 1:1. The word of the Life (τοῦλόγουτῆςζωῆς.)John 1:5. The Life was the Light of men, and the Light shineth (φαίνει)—1 John 1:2. The Life was manifested, appeared (ἐφανερώθη.)John 1:9. He was the true Light, who lighteneth every man, come into the world.John 1:14. We gazed upon His glory (ἐθεασάμεθα.)1 John 1:2. What we have seen with our eyes, what we gazed upon (ἐθεασάμεθα.)Equally unmistakable is the difference between the two exordia; the prologue of the Gospel is a monologue, a testimony and confession, where the Apostle, soaring aloft like an eagle, is raised in calm contemplation above all the tumults of life; the exordium of the Epistle, however, is written in profound emotion under the impressions of a blessed experience in the past, and of the present in hearty sympathy with and tender anxiety for the readers of the Epistle; its address is eloquent, pathetic and lively. In point of form this exordium differs from that of almost all the Epistles of the New Testament, and resembles only the exordium of the Epistle to the Hebrews; it is alike devoid of the name of the writer, of a description of the readers, and of the salutation. But even in the second and third Epistles, although addressed to individuals, and specifying their name or description, the name of the author is not given, his office only being mentioned (ὁπρεσβύτερος).—As in the Gospel, so in the Epistles, John loves to suppress his name (John 1:35; John 1:40; John 13:23; John 18:15; John 19:26; John 20:3; John 21:20, and cf. J. P. Lange, the Ev. Jo., p. 63. 2). But although he does not name himself, the Apostolical office and vocation of the author are accurately marked; and although the readers are not even designated, his relation to them is made sufficiently prominent, so that we must say that the Epistle is written not only for them, but to them. But the salutation (χαίρειν) may be alluded to in ἵναἡχαρὰὑμῶνᾖπεπληρωμένη. The structure, 1 John 1:1-3, owing to its liveliness, is not quite simple; it is repeatedly interrupted and has been variously given. The fundamental or leading word (the verbum finitum), is doubtless ἀπαγγέλλομεν, 1 John 1:3, which for the sake of clearness is appropriately placed between the object of the annunciation and its purpose. The purpose is simply and definitely indicated: ἵνακαὶὑμεῖςκοινωνίανἔχητεμεθ’ ἡμῖν. In defining the object, the Apostle seems to struggle for the right expressions, and renders it prominent in a double series of clauses, first, 1 John 1:1 : ὃἦνἀπ’ ἀρχῆς—ἐψηλάφησαν; then 1 John 1:1 : περὶτοῦλόγουτῆςζωῆς—ἐφανερώθηἡμῖν. He marks it first according to its import and being, 1 John 1:1. ὃἦνἀπ’ ἀρχῆς, in the second part of 1 John 1:1; περὶτοῦλόγουτῆςζωῆς, and 1 John 1:2, ἡζωήἡαἰώνιοςἥτιςἦνπρὸςτὸνπατέρα, and then according to its manifestation, 1 John 1:1 : ὃἑωράκαμεν—ἐψηλάφησαν, 1 John 1:2 : ἐφανερώθη—ἡμῖν, or first according to its mysterious sublimity and fulness, and then according to the manifold internal relations in which it stood and stands to John and his associates. The Apostle, while strongly marking the object of the Apostolical annunciation after the first series of relative clauses by περὶτοῦλόγουτῆςζωῆς, takes occasion to introduce with the Genitive ζωῆς a parenthesis, 1 John 1:2, which concludes with ἐφανερώθηἡμῖν, and cannot be resolved or broken up. This constrains him to connect the sentence, thus interrupted by the parenthesis, with what goes before by ὃἑωράκαμενκαὶἀκηκόαμεν, and so that, as the sentence begins with a relative, now that the object has been distinctly defined by περὶτοῦλόγουτῆςζωῆς, it also concludes with a relative. We have therefore here no period with protasis and apodosis, but a simple sentence, much enlarged indeed and interrupted by long parentheses, the structure of which however is plain enough and does not allow any other construing. The Object Of The Apostolical Annunciation. 1 John 1:1-3 aa. The First Series of Clauses.1 John 1:11 John 1:1. What was from the beginning.—The opening words remind us of Joh 1:1 : “In the beginning was the Word,” and of Gen 1:1 : “In the beginning God created.” Not the moment of creation, but the purely eternal existence until the beginning of the world and its history. The word ἀρχή must always be defined by the context, e.g., in 1 John 2:7 : “Ye had from the beginning,” the beginning denotes the time when they became Christians, in 1 John 3:8, “the devil sinneth from the beginning,” i.e., from the time when he became the devil, which happened immediately after the creation of the world; in 1 John 2:13-14 : “Ye have known him that is from the beginning,” i.e., from eternity, Jesus Christ.—The beginning of the devil dates from the creation of the world (1 John 3:8), the beginning of faith lies in the life of the readers themselves (1 John 2:7), and the beginning here and at 1 John 2:13, denotes eternity before the creation of the world. The sense is clear from the parallel sentence, 1 John 1:2, “ἦνπρὸςτὸνπατέρα,” and corresponds with πρὸπάντων Colossians 1:17, πρὸκαταβολῆςκόσμου Ephesians 1:4, πρὸτοῦτὸνκόσμονεἶναι John 17:5, or with ἀπὸτῶναἰώνων Ephesians 3:9; Colossians 1:26. But ἀπό does not equal πρὸ, nor is ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς equal to ἐνἀρχῇ, John 1:1.—In the Gospel the Apostle describes and considers the Existence of the Logos with the Father before the Creation, and then proceeds to denote His agency in the creation; but here the Apostle passes from the Existence of the Logos to His manifestations in history. He was therefore before the world was, and He was, before He appeared in history [i.e., before His incarnation.—M.]. The Apostle looks back from his personal experience to the eternity from whence He came; His eye travels over thousands of years from the beginning to the time of His personal experience. As He became not the Logos when He became man, so He became not [began to exist—M.] when the world was made, began to exist. The reference is consequently not to the μυστήριονΘεοῡ (Theophylact, Oecumen.), or to the Gospel of Jesus Christ (Socinus), or to the res a Deo destinatζ (Grotius).—The simplest explanation of the designation of the personal Logos by the Neuter ὃ, is the supposition that the Apostle, moved by the mysterious sublimity and the fulness of essential [belonging to the Being or Essence of Christ—M.] glory (which will not be fully recognized and known before His ultimate revelation in His second advent, 1 John 3:2 : καθώςἐστι), writes with a soaring sense of indefiniteness, and views the Person to whom he refers at the same time as the principle of the world and its history, although this does not pass into a reflecting consciousness [sic in German.—M.]. Similarly τὸκατέχον precedes ὁκατέχων in 2 Thessalonians 2:6; similar terms may also be seen in Luke 1:35; John 3:6; John 6:37; Hebrews 7:7; 1 Corinthians 1:27 sq.; Colossians 1:26; 1 John 5:4. The reference is consequently not to abstraction, the Word of Life, the Life (Huther), or to the connection of the Person of Jesus with His history and doctrine (Lόcke Ebrard), or the taking together of His preλxistence and historical appearance (Dόsterdieck), or to the mere designation of the Apostolical annunciation (Hofmann). [Braune’s explanation lacks perspicuity, and really seeks to combine the views of Huther and Dόsterdieck, with the addition of a reference to the second coming of Christ; we doubt whether it will convince many readers, while Huther’s explanation, which we give in full, supplies a clear and natural reason for the use of the Neuter ὅ. “The Apostle points to the Apostolical annunciation, namely, the personal Christ, by the Neuter because he thinks of Him as ‘the Word of Life,’ or ‘the Life.’ The reference then being to an abstract (per se) or general idea, ζωή, the Neuter ὅ seems to be in place. The Apostle might indeed have used ὅς for ὅ, because this ζωή is to him the personal Christ; but considering that the characteristic import of Christ consists in His being the Life (not only a living individual) and that John, full of this idea, begins this Epistle, it was more natural that he should use ὅ than ὅς”—M.] What we have heard—seen—gazed upon—handled is a rising gradation; hearing is the lowest degree of the climax, it strikes the ear from a certain distance, perhaps unsought for; with our eyes intensifies the word seen; seeing indeed may be involuntary, but the beginning of self-activity is already marked; gazing upon gives prominence to this self-activity [voluntary exercise of the sense of sight—M.], with the secondary idea of continuance; handled with our hands denotes the nearest and most direct intercourse. By “what we have heard” the Apostle naturally passes from the eternal existence of the Logos to His historical appearing; the λόγοςἄσαρκος becomes the λόγοςἔνσαρκος. He makes Himself known first and most naturally in the Word. Not what he had heard of Him in the Word of the Old Testament, in the prophecies until John the Baptist, but that he had heard Himself. “O cannot be another object than in the first clause; the same word, ὅ, is used in all the clauses, and designates the same object, the Logos; the perceptions and modes of revelation only differ. The Apostle had not only heard words of the mouth, words from human lips, but in such human words, and through them the speaker Himself, the Logos; not the Apostle’s ear, but he himself has heard, his soul of course through the instrumentality of the material organ of hearing.—He had seen, as he says, in order to lay peculiar emphasis on the testimony of his ears and eyes, with his own eyes, the form of a servant, the Son of man, but of course what lived therein shown forth therefrom in look and mien, in manner and motion; the soul of John, therefore, looked with bodily eyes into the Nature of the manifested, incarnate Logos. Hence again the same object. Indeed He says Himself: “He that hath seen me, hath seen the Father,” John 14:9 compared with John 12:45. What we gazed upon—handled are Aorists, not Perfects, as just before. This change of tense is neither arbitrary nor inaccurate, but designed and wise. The Apostle had heard and seen in single moments; these are finished acts, facts with their effects; but now he intends by the use of these Aorists to point to the past as an expiring present, how he had ever and anon had continuous intercourse with Him in the most direct nearness and lively self-activity.—The verbs “heard” and “seen” rather denote involuntary perception, while the others, “gazed upon” and “handled,” signify voluntary, intentional perception for the purpose of making sure of the reality and nature of the Logos. (Huther).—The man Jesus only was gazed upon, His body only was handled, but through all that sensuousness the Son of God was recognized and felt, and His Divine glory perceived and experienced. We have, therefore, to deal with the same object throughout. The verb “gazed upon” reminds us of the language of John in his Gospel (John 1:14): “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we gazed upon (ἐθεασάμεθα) His glory;” the verb “handled” is connected with the words of the risen Saviour, Luke 24:39 : “Behold my hands and my feet that it is I myself; handle me (ψηλαφήσατέμε), and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have,” cf. John 20:27. John, who leaned on His bosom, John 13:23 : ἐντῷκόλπῳ, John 13:25; John 21:20 : ἐπὶτὸστῆθος, denotes thereby the most intimate relation, rendering shaking of hands and kissing proper, and thus places the real humanity and bodily existence of Christ beyond the possibility of doubt. “He patiently allowed murderers to handle Him, why should He not have suffered those who love Him to do the same.” (Pfenninger). Thus the Apostle marks here two things, first, the fulness of his perceptions, and, secondly, their authentication. Luther says correctly: “He multiplies words, and thus makes the matter great and important. We have, says he, looked and gazed upon with the utmost care and diligence; we have not been deceived, but are sure that it was not an illusion. He says this in order to make his hearers perfectly sure of the matter.” Thus both the glory of the incarnate Word, so difficult to understand, and the authentication of the testimony, so important in its bearing, are portrayed in such lively colours on account of the object. b. The Second Series of Clauses. 1 John 1:1-3 a. Of the word of the Life is neither an independent appositive addition to the preceding definitions of the object (Huther), nor governed by the last verb, ἐψηλάφησαν (Erasmus, al.), nor, indeed, by ἧνἀπ̓ἀρχῆδ (S. G. Lange, “What happened to the Word of Life from the beginning!”). It is the beginning of a new clause, parallel with the series of relative clauses as to matter (Dόsterdieck), which terminates with them in ἀπαγγέλλομεν. That which before had been taken indefinitely as a Neuter, is here described for the first time as a Person. The Word of Life, per se, may stand both for the Gospel of Life and the Personal Logos of Life, and taken as the Apostolical Word, or the hypostatical Word. If it be taken in the former sense as verbum simpliciter (Bengel), the Genitive τῆδζωῆδ may designate the quality (Socinus, Grotius), like ὁἄρτοςτῆςζωῆδ, John 6:35, τὸφῶδτῆδζωῆδ, or the object (Luther: “we speak of the life,” Dόsterdieck), as in 1 Corinthians 1:18 : ὁλόγοδτοῦσταυροῦ. But this construction of περὶτοῦλόγουτῆδζωῆδ is impossible, because it must be connected with ἀπαγγέλλομεν (1 Thessalonians 1:9 : περὶἡμῶνἀπαγγέλλουσιν); the construction with περὶ instead of the Accusative is designed to guard against the possible misunderstanding of making the Word designate the Gospel and not Christ. To speak the Gospel concerning, respecting the Word, although in the manner of a declaration, pertains rather to the province of science, is more the work of the theologian than of the Apostle. But grammatically it is inadmissible to infer from the parenthesis after ζωῆδ, namely from the words ἀπαγγέλλομεντὴνζωὴντὴναἰώνιον, that λόγοδτῆδζωῆς is equal to said words, i.e., the declaration or annunciation of life. The Word, ὁλόγος, the object of the Apostolic annunciation, must be, as in John 1:1, sqq., the original, eternal, personal Word, the eternal Son of the eternal Father, and fully accords with ο͂ἧνἀπ̓ἀρχῆδ, with the sole difference that the neutrum becomes a masculinum, in order to bring out the personal character of the Logos according to His historical manifestation. On ὁλόγοδ see J. P. Lange, The Gospel According to John, p. 38, sq., Germ. edition.—The Genitive τῆδζωῆδ is explained by John 1:4 : ἐναὐτῷζωὴἦν. The Word has Life in itself, is Life Itself, and imparts Life to others. It is the true, eternal, primal Life, and this Life is the Nature of the Logos, but the object of the annunciation is the Logos Himself. (Dόsterdieck). 1 John 1:2. And the Life was manifested.—καὶ adds in a vivid manner an explanation by introducing a parenthesis and interrupting the sentence; ἐφανερώθη recalls John 1:4-5, “And the Life was the Light, and the Light shineth (φαίνει) in the darkness.” The Life of the Logos appeared, was manifested, so that we may infer His Being and Nature from His Life, and thus acquire a knowledge of the Son. This epiphany is the immediate consequence of the Incarnation, of the ἐνσάρκωσιδ. John 1:14 : ὁλόγοδσάρξἐγένετο. And we have seen—testify—declare.—Antithesis of Joh 1:5, “And the darkness has (Luther: had) not comprehended it.” The climax is: ἑωράκαμεν connected with ἐφανερώθη, he had been a spectator, but did not see in vain; for he became a witness through intercourse with the manifested One, and in his capacity of witness he fixes his eye on what had become visible, the acts and events which he had experienced: what he thus sees and utters is purely objective without reference to his hearers and their wants or relations, but in the interest in and for the matter itself. But he does not stop there; he now declares also what he has seen; he explains and applies at the same time; he unfolds in their fulness, and with a special interest in his readers, the thoughts and facts comprised in his personal experience. The objective is brought near through the subjective. Thus he joyfully recalls to himself that blessed manifestation, and is constrained to testify for himself, and to declare to others, that they also may have such an experience. ̓Απαγγέλλειν=καταγγέλλειν, Acts 17:27; and =κηρύσσειν, Romans 10:14, sq., cf. Matthew 28:8; Matthew 28:11; Acts 26:20. In John’s writings, ὁρᾷν and μαρτυρεῖν are frequently joined together, John 1:34; John 3:32; John 19:35; but the last of these passages, like John 15:27, is without an object, which, however, may be readily supplied from the context. The object of the three verbs is the Eternal Life (Oecumenius, Lόcke, Huther), and not only of ἀπαγγέλλειν (Fritsche, de Wette, Dόsterdieck). The life is called eternal, ἡαἰώνιοδ, because it did not take its beginning in the world, but rather gave a beginning to the world and the life in the world. It is Absolute Life, the source and root of all life in the world, physical and ethical (Lόcke on John 1:4). It was before it appeared, became visible; it did not become [come into being] perchance, when it appeared. On that account the Apostle adds ἥτιδἧνπρὸδτὸνπατέρα.—The relative ἥτιδ is not=ἥ, but = ut quζ, hence, eternal life as which it was, that is to say, which was (ἦν) as such before its revelation in the direction towards the Father, not with, alongside of Him; it denotes not a mere juxtaposition, but a being together, having mutual intercourse; it is directed towards Him, turned to Him, longing for and leading to Him, according to its nature. It is not in the Father, but from Him, and hence directed towards Him. Here is asserted of the ζωή what John 1:1 predicates of the λόγοδ; in Him truly is such life, in Him also it has become manifest. Because John had just had such a lively conception of the Life of the Logos, he was able to begin in the Neuter, ο͂ἦνἀπ̓ἀρχῆδ; for it is without the world, before the world, with and for God in the Logos. And was manifested unto us.—Eternal Life has appeared, and just now become manifest to us the Apostles. Thus closes the parenthesis with a return to the thought at the beginning, and it is because of this conclusion (ἐφανερώθη) that John resumes the interrupted sentence, the words “what we have seen and heard” being placed before, and, in consequence of the prolonged interruption, breaks off and drops the series of clauses beginning with περὶτοῦλόγου, and resumes the first series of clauses, in a brief and concise form. The object is the same as in 1 John 1:1. The Subject of the Annunciation, 1 John 1:3. On ἀπαγγέλλομεν see the notes on 1 John 1:2. 1 John 1:3 a. Declare we also to you.—Καὶἱμῖν places the readers of this Epistle alongside of other Churches who had heard the Apostolical annunciation; hence John, in using the Plural in the verbs from 1 John 1:1 onward and ἡμῖν in 1 John 1:2, probably did not only refer to himself after the manner of authors, but to himself and his brethren, more particularly to the disciples of Jesus and the Apostles; the opposition of ἡμῖν and ὑμῖν is only the opposition of the first Christians and the immediate disciples of the Lord, or the Apostles and the Churches formed by the instrumentality of the former, or founded by the agency of the latter. John is fond of including himself among the whole of Christendom, 1 John 1:6-8; 1 John 2:1; 1 John 2:28; 1 John 3:1. But the comparison of Joh 15:27 seems to render it probable that John in this place speaks of himself as connected with the Apostles, the reference being to the founding and conservation of Christian Churches. He does not stand alone, but like him all the Apostles have heard, seen and handled, and bear witness with him. Purpose of the Annunciation, 1 John 1:3 b. 1 John 1:3 b. That ye also may have fellowship with us.—The word also, καὶ before ὑμεῖδ after the preceding καὶὑμῖν, renders it very prominent that the purpose of the Apostolical annunciation is always and every where the same with all the Apostles in all Churches, namely: unity and fellowship. Fellowship with us is not the same as fellowship such as we have it, like us, with the Father and the Son (Socinus, Episcopius, Bengel); The position of the words forbids such a construction. It is rather the fellowship with us, the Church-fellowship of Christians among themselves.—Μετά (from μέσοδ, between, among) τινοδ denotes the circle into which one enters, consequently cφexistence, whereas σύντινι signifies connection with, coherence (so Krόger). The Church of the first disciples, of the Apostles, is the primitive Church into which they must enter in order to partake [of its fellowship—M.]; mere connection with it is not sufficient. The Apostles are and remain the foundation on which we must take our stand (Ephesians 2:20), the mediators who must take us by the hand (Ephesians 4:11-12); they are the stem out of which the Churches break forth and grow like branches. All (καὶ) the Churches are to be in Church-fellowship with the Apostles.—ἔχητε is not: acquire (Fritzsche), nor does it denote progress (ΰ Lapide [who says: “pergere et in ea, κοινωνίᾳ, proficere et confirmari”—M.]), but indicates simply permanent possession, constancy. And our fellowship indeed is with the Father, etc.—καὶ does not connect with the preceding clause, so that also that which follows depends on ἵνα (Luther: and our fellowship be, so Augustine, Calvin, Grotius, Ebrard); for there is also a δὲ after κοινωνία [see Appar. Crit. 5:3:5.—M.]. The reference, therefore, is to a κοινωνία, here as well as in the preceding clause, hence καὶἡκοινωνίαἡμετέρα; but this fellowship is yet another μετὰτοῦπατρὸδ, etc. The other stands, in some sort of antithesis to this; it must go beyond the former, and in it come to the latter, hence δὲ. Similar is the construction, John 6:51; John 8:17; Matthew 16:18; Mark 4:36; Luke 2:35. Winer, p. 393. We have here a separate clause, in which ἐστί must be supplied, which adds a new and somewhat different particular, as if we did read: καὶἡμεῖδἔχομενκοινωνίανμετὰψοῦπατρὸδκ. τ. λ., so that they have not only fellowship with the Apostles, but also with the Father and the Son. The thought itself forbids a close connection with ἵνα. The purpose of the Apostolical annunciation is not to effect a union with the Father and the Son, for that is the office of Jesus Christ, the Mediator. The Apostle insists upon Church-fellowship, and that is sufficient, because in it is the fellowship with the Father and the Son; a fellowship with God in Christ is not to be created from Church-fellowship; the Church-fellowship is not without the former, and the former is in the latter; otherwise the Church-fellowship would be no Church-fellowship, the Apostolical fellowship, no fellowship with the Apostles. Κοινωνία is a fellowship with the Father and the Son, so that we form part of Them and are personally united with Them, They are in us and we in Them (John 14:23), Their Life is our Life (1 John 1:6). Besides the Father, His Son Jesus Christ is particularly named, and thus the full designation of Him ὅἦνἀπ̓ἀρχῆδ, of the λόγοδτῆδζωῆδ serves to show His identity with the Incarnate Saviour; and thus the conclusion is found. Cf. John 17:22-26. [This κοινωνία is one of essence and being, founded on the circumstance that its subjects are begotten of the same σπέρμαθεοῦ (1 John 3:9), and that the same power of a heavenly and glorified life animates them; so Sander. The definition of Zuinglius deserves transcribing: “De qua loquatur societate, quodque intelligat consortium, exponit; non qua homines hominibus solum pace, concordia et amicitia fraterna juguntur, sed qua homines Deo animo, mente atque adeo fide hic uniuntur indissolubiter et posthanc cum eo aeternum viventes. Hoc est quod Christus orat Patrem, John 17.”—M.]. The Epistle and its Design, 1 John 1:4. 1 John 1:4. And these things we write unto you.—And not only connects, but continues, leads us further, and marks the next progress; the fellowship just described promotes joy, operates in the depth of the heart. Ταῦτα is neither what precedes (Sander), nor what follows immediately (Socinus), but the whole contents of the Epistle (Lόcke Wette, Dόsterdieck, Huther, Ebrard). John considers the Epistle with its contents as documentary evidence connected with the oral annunciation. We write.—Although the personal relation of the Apostle to the readers is here more prominent than in the Plurals of the preceding clauses, the Plural is not used, after the manner of authors, for the Singular. John continues impressed with the convictions of the common Apostolical annunciation; he knows that he is in perfect agreement with all the Apostles, that he speaks as they speak, and that their speech is like his; nor does he stand alone, but has his associates and assistants, like Paul (1 Corinthians 1:1, ΠαῦλοςκαιΣωσθένηςὁἀδελφός; 2 Corinthians 1:1; Colossians 1, 1; Philemon 1:1, ΠαῦλοςκαὶΤιμόθεος; Philippians 1:1, ΠαῦλοςκαὶΤιμόθεοςδοῦλοι; 1 Thessalonians 1:1; 2 Thessalonians 1:1 : ΠαῦλοςκαὶΣιλουανὸςκαὶΤιμόθεος). Writing is indeed another species of μαρτυρία, coφrdinate with oral communication. Bengel:—Testimonium genus; species duζ: annuntiatio et scriptio; annuntiatio ponit fundamentum, scriptio superζdificat.” The Epistle seems only to build up and perfect the life already existing in the readers. Dόsterdieck. That your joy may be fulfilled.—The reading ἡμῶν would make the joy of the Apostles over the Churches [i.e., joy, because their word yields fruit among their hearers. Theophylact: “ἡμῶνγὰρὑμῖνκοινωνούντωνπλείστηνἔχομεντὴνχαρὰνἡμῶν, ἥνταῖςθερισταῖςὁχαίρωνσπορεὺςἐντῇτοῦμισθοῦἀπολήψειβραβεύσει, χαιρόντωνκαὶτούτωνὁ.τιτῶνπόνωναὐτῶνἀπολαύοισι.”—M.]. So does Bede with reference to Philippians 2:2; “gaudium doctorum sit plenum, cum multos prζdicando ad sanctζ ecclesiζ societatem perducant.” John 17:13; John 15:11 cannot be adduced in support of this reading; said passages, besides the reason already stated above in Appar. Crit. [1 John 5:4; 1 John 5:8—M.], may have suggested this reading. The identical language occurs at John 16:24 : ἵναἡχαρὰὑμῶνᾖπεπληρωμένη. To be sure, according to John 15:11 : ἵναἡχαρὰἡἐμὴἐνὑμῖνᾖκαὶἡχαρὰὑυῶνπληρωθῇ, the joy of Christians is the joy of Christ, of which they had become partakers. For Christ has in Himself the Life, Life eternal, true, full, unobstructed Life, which is happiness and peace. Whoso derives Life from Christ becomes a convalescent, recovers health, the health of the soul, and that is peace and joy. Surely, he who is holy, must be happy, and none but the holy and sanctified are happy. If Christ’s high-priestly intercession (John 17:13) still continues the object and ground of great joy, it contemplates also the growth of joy in individuals going on to eternity, even as John remarks in a private Epistle addressed to a friend (2 John 1:12).—Hence Christ speaks of His joy, which shall become our joy, even as Christ’s Life shall become our Life through faith; hence χαρὰπίστεως, Philippians 1:25.—Given is the joy by Him, but only like a grain of wheat, which must grow in order to become perfect and to yield fruit. But that which is to be perfected must exist. The perfection, however, is not instantaneous, magical or miraculous, but has its stages and maladies of development,—struggles—dangers; hence: ᾖπεπληρωμένη. Now this takes place in the fellowship, both in that of the Church and in that with the Father and the Son; there, joy is not only a transient emotion, but an habitual state becoming ever more perfect. Luther (Schol. ed. Bruns.):—“Principium hujus gaudii est, quum incipimus credere; postea quum fides augescit meditando, docendo, studendo, tum fit plenum gaudium.” The reason why the Apostle dwells on joy (χαρὰ) rather than on peace, may be that at the beginning of the Epistle he thinks with reference to the readers of the greeting, χαίρειν, which, apart from the Epistle of Claudius Lysias to Felix (Acts 23:26-30), occurs only in the circular of the Apostles at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:23) and at James 1:1. [Wordsworth contrasts the πλήρωμαχαρᾶς with the πλήρωμα of the Gnostics.—M.] [Dόsterdieck:—“The peace of reconciliation, the blessed consciousness of sonship, the happy growth in holiness, the bright prospect of future completion and glory,—all these, are but simple details of that which in all its length and breadth is embraced by one word, Eternal Life, the real possession of which is the immediate source of our joy. We have joy, Christ’s joy, because we are blessed, because we have Life itself in Christ.” Compare the beautiful extract from Augustine, below in Doctrinal and Ethical, No. 7.—M.] AND ETHICAL1. On the word λόγος cf. J. P. Lange on John 1:1, Vol. IV., p. 41, sq., of the Bibelwerk, German edition.—It is characteristic of John, and perfectly analogous to the Gospel, to start from the historical stand-point, John 10:1-3., cf. John 1:14, and draw the ΰ posteriori conclusion of the Eternal Being and Nature, and then taking there, as it were, a firm position, to trace the epiphanies and operations of the Logos in the world, in time and among men. On this account the Apostle begins here, as in the Gospel, with the Prλexistence of the Logos (ο͂ἦνἀπ̓ἀρχῆςἡζωήἡἀιώνιος, ἥτιςἧνπρὸςτὸνπατέρα). He does not lose himself in the genesis of the Logos, like the Gnostics with their theogonies, but only dwells upon His Being, as ζωὴαἰώνιος, in relation to the Father (πρὸςτὸνπατέρα). Hence we must not connect the λόγος and the ζωὴ as a (third) syzygy with Valentinus (†160 on the island of Cyprus), “that most profound, spiritual, thoughtful, intelligent and imaginative” Gnostic (see Gieseler, K. G., I., p. 155; particularly Kurtz, K. G., I., 136, sqq.). Eternal, true, full life is only the Being of the Logos, as it is the Being of the Father. But this Life He has not only in Himself as a possession, as John 1:4 : ἐναὐτῷζωὴἦν, but He Himself was truly and altogether Life, eternal Life in His Being (1 John 1:2), of the same Life-substance with God the Father, indissolubly united with Him, although different from Him in Person, there is nothing in Him which is not likewise in the Father, but He is self-dependent, turned to and belonging to the Father (πρὸςτὸνπατέρα). 2. Threefold is the mode of existence of the Logos: a. anterior to the world of time; b. earthly-human; c. glorified. The first is made prominent in the beginning of this Epistle: ο͂ἦνἀπ̓ἀρχῆς, ὁλόγοςτῆςζωῆς, the second is intimated in ἐφανερώθη, and in conjunction with the third in υἱὸςαὐτοῦ̓ΙησοῦΧριστοῦ. For λόγος and υἱός are to be distinguished, so that the historical Christ is called Son, cf. John 10:1-3 with John 1:1; John 1:14. But in reality it is the same Person. The incarnate Logos does not become the Son of God, and this designation is not so much of ethical as of metaphysical import. He is called and is the Son of God only because of the relation essential to His Person, and of His eternal and ante-temporal relation to God. 3. The humanity of the Logos is referred to with marked emphasis, in the terms ἀκούειν, ὁρᾶν, θεᾷσθαι, ψηλαφᾶν, John 10:1-3. The Son of Man has become audible, visible, sensible to the children of men. His being ἐφανερώθη to the disciples was only brought about by His human nature, but so that He really σορξἐγένετο and ἐσκήνωσενἐνἡμῖν(John 1:14). He is perfect man. But His becoming man is not brought out as much, by John as by the other Apostles with reference to His humiliation, because John recognized the Divine glory in the form of the Servant, the Divine attributes in the form of His human appearing, sought their traces with peculiar love, and found them with a jubilant soul. John was more concerned with what the Son of God brought with Him, His eternal Life which He had in Himself, than with what He did assume, human flesh and blood. The Apostle sees in all the epiphanies and exhibitions of the Incarnate One, in all the humiliations of His earthly-human Being and Life, the Love, the Wisdom and the Power of Christ; he follows their traces with ardent attachment, and he follows them not in vain. He bears more testimony to the κρύψις than the κένωσις, but also more to the Lutheran intermixture [German: Into-one-another—M.] of the Divine and the Human in Christ.—Traces of the transcendency and immanency of God may also be found and proved here, and how both have to be held fast together. 4. Christ is the eternal principle of the life of men and of the world in general; He is the Mediator of all the activity of the Father exerted with reference to the world. The thought expressed in the Epistle to the Hebrews by φέρωντὰπάντατῷῥήματιτῆςδυνάμεωςαὐτο͂υ is the fundamental pre-supposition of ο͂ἦνἀπ̓ἀρχῆς, ζωὴαἰώνις, ἥτιςἦνπρὸςτὸνπατέρα, κοινωνίαμετὰτοῦπατρὸςκαὶμετὰτοῦυἱοῦαὐτοῦ̓ΙησοῦΧριστοῦ, as well as of ἵνα—πεπληρωμένη. John, by the use of ἀπ̓ἀρχῆς—, which, as opposed to ἐνἀρχῇ, John 1:1, within the beginning, points as a definite sphere, and as opposed to κατ̓ἁρχὰς (Hebrews 1:10) along the beginnings, following the beginnings,—points, although fastened to a longer line, more than ἐξἀρχῆς, John 6:64, out of the beginning as out of a fountain, to a source of history after the beginning—intends to mark the power existing in eternity as present and real in time and the course of history. [The peculiarly involved and occasionally obscure style of Dr. Braune will tax the patience of the reader, as it does that of the translator, who tries his best to express B’s meaning in idiomatic English. The last sentence was peculiarly difficult, but the use of dashes and other marks of punctuation will, it is hoped, enable the reader to catch the author’s meaning.—M.]. But it must be remembered that the Apostle is more concerned with the life of individuals, of the Apostles and of Churches, than with that of the whole world. Still what holds good in the case of individual man, the microcosm, must also apply to the whole world, the macrocosm. Christ could not be the principle of salvation to individuals, unless He were potent and destined for the whole world. Because in the creation He is the Mediator of the beginning of the world’s life (John 1:3) so also in the redemption He is of course the Mediator of the consummation of the world’s life. The earth requires no new suns, and mankind no other Saviour. The truth of Christ is the only and eternal truth for all nations and times. Christ is not a world-historical personage, like Alexander the Great, but the Living One that has the keys of hell and of death (Revelation 1:18). 4. 1 John 1:3 indicates the relation of Churchliness and Christianness, of Church-dom and Christianity, [I am not altogether satisfied with these terms, but they express as nearly as possible the German words, Kirchlichkeit, the quality of being Church-like, Christlichkeit, the quality of being Christ-like, or Christian, Kirchenthum, the state, existence or establishment of the Church, and Christenthum, the religion taught by Christ.—M.] For ἡκοινωνίαμεθ̓ἡμῶν, the fellowship of the Churches with the Apostles and among themselves is Church, while κοινωνίαμετὰτοῦπατρὸςκαὶτοῦυἱοῦαὐτοῦ̓ΙησοῦΧριστοῦ denotes the nature of Christianity. John insists only on Church-fellowship for the promotion of Christianness. It is Apostolical that the Churches should keep to the Apostles and their annunciation, and be united among each other without independentism, but it is equally and only Apostolical that the Christ-like or the Christian-like should be the basis and aim of the Churchly. The Churchly must ever be measured and adjusted by the Christ-like. 5. The Church is a whole, an organization embracing heaven and earth in the Church militant and triumphant, and in the Church militant all the different local Churches (καὶὑμῖν, καὶὑμεῖς, 1 John 1:3), and all the Churches of all centuries (ἀπαγγέλλομεν) gathered by the Apostolical ministry in general, with its continuous activity (Lόcke). What Paul says (1 Corinthians 3:9 to 1 Corinthians 11:16; Ephesians 2:20 sq.; cf. 1 Peter 2:5) of the Church, that it is a building of the temple of God founded on Christ the corner-stone, or a body of which Christ is the head (Ephesians 1:22 sq.; Ephesians 5:23; Colossians 1:18), is here also present to the mind of John, who, with a leaning to John 15:1, seems to think of a growth, in which the Church is the stem founded by Christ, out of which believers come forth on all sides like branches (John 17:20). 6. The Apostolical annunciation, ἀπαγγελία, presupposes an eventful experience from personal intercourse with the Redeemer, and is accompanied by the Apostolical writings (γραφόμεν). All information derived from oral communication must be strengthened, guided, cleared and completed by the written communication. He only is able to work for the Lord and the brethren that has lived with Him in intimate converse, to whom He did yield Himself and whom he did draw to Himself, so that he “cannot but speak the things which he has seen and heard,” (Acts 4:19-20). 7. Joy is the essence of Christianity. Augustine, Conf., 10, 22, says: “Est enim gaudium, quod non datur impiis, sed iis tantum, qui te gratis colunt, quorum, gaudium tu ipse es. Et ipsa est beata vita gaudere ad te, de te, propter te, ipsa est et non altera.”—The Christian faith does not move in a circle of different objects, thoughts, words and works, some of which must be done and others shunned; but it moves in that which it does gladly, and shuns that which it scorns to do. The Word and Life of Christ are as much the Christian’s element as air is the element of birds, and water that of fishes. The exercises of godliness are to him not charms against an evil, or the worship of God a slave-work, or prayer a burden. The godliness, which is kindled by the loving-kindness of God is true happiness and felicity. The fear of God does not bring to the Christian gloomy self-denial and renouncing of the world, as if the Christian’s life consisted solely in the suppression of ardent desires and want, but in joys which he experiences, according to the exhortation of the Apostle Paul in the Epistle for the fourth Sunday in Advent (Philippians 4:4): “Rejoice in the Lord alway; and again I say rejoice.” Or according to the Lord’s promise in the Gospel for the third Sunday after Easter (John 16:22): “Your heart shall rejoice, and your joy no man taketh from you.” Hence the reiterated monition: “Be not afraid,” and the promise of the Comforter and of peace. In the praise and love of God we have a token and a standard of true Christianity. Delight in the Lord (Psalms 37:4) with His creating, preserving, overruling, pardoning, atoning and glorifying (John 3:2) love, is the Christian’s duty and life. Only that he abide, and the joy or Christ abide in him, and that his joy may be full (John 15:1-11). AND Seek Jesus and His light; all without that is unprofitable.—Seek in all your experience in time for that which is from all eternity.—Seek in all sensuous manifestations for the supersensuous kernel with its life, which continues to all eternity, even as it is from all eternity.—Nothing is more sure than that which is of Christ: He is from all eternity, and brings His own into the Kingdom of the Father.—Learn more and more that God is not only above thee, but in the world, not far from thee, but very nigh thee.—Speak of Christ only as His witness. Speak of Him, because thou hast known and felt Him within thee, not because thou art a preacher or a theologian, or because thou art baptized.—Do not despise Church-fellowship; it contains a blessing, even an eternal blessing.—Be not satisfied with thy churchliness (churchmanship) unless it make thee more happy in, and more sure of the Father and the Son.—Christian knowledge, like all science, is possible only in fellowship with the whole, especially in going back to the fountain-head in the writings and the testimony of the Apostles.—Holiness and joy are indissolubly united in the Christian, but impiety and lust in the worldly-minded.—Be ashamed, if for want of faith or courage, or even because of a desponding mind, thou dost not rejoice in thy Lord.—Be afraid lest thy joy in Christ and the Kingdom of heaven decrease.—Strive that thy joy in Christ grow fuller and fuller. Delight in the Lord is thy duty, in order that thy duty become thy joy and honour, not thy task and burden.—A Christian must be joyful, for his is the truth which maketh free, the righteousness that availeth with God, the liberty of the children of God, the peace that passeth all understanding, the joy that no man may take away, the Divine sonship and inheritance, the life which death cannot kill, and the happiness which endureth and groweth forever. Starke:—Christ is Absolute Life, and our life depends upon Him, not only this earthly life, but also blessed, eternal life through faith in Him.—He that despises the word of the Gospel, despises also the Absolute Word of God, for Christ is the star and kernel of the whole Bible.—Christ liveth, and the believers shall live too. Glorious consolation! Mighty strengthening of our faith, in adversity and temptation and in the hour of death! Because Life and Light have appeared unto us in Christ Jesus, we should most diligently use them, for sure he will be without excuse that notwithstanding remaineth in darkness and blindness.—What shall it profit an unconverted teacher, to testify of Christ the Life, and to urge the people to receive Him, if he himself remains in death and in his life and by his works denies Him?—In order to be saved, it is not enough that a man know and believe Christ to have come into the world, but he must know and believe Him to have also risen and shone as the Morning-star in his heart.—The design of the Gospel is to lead men to fulness of joy, for God has not called us to sadness, but to joy.—If our joy turns sometimes into sorrow when affliction without and temptation within, as it were, threaten to take it by storm, we know, for our edification and comfort, that Christ will come again and turn our sorrow into joy. [Cf. Dr. Muhlenberg’s hymn, “I would not live alway.”—M.] Spener:—Our life in Christ is eternal life, and out of (extra) Him there is no life; although hidden now, it shall be revealed hereafter.—The Divine word of the Gospel is given unto us for the purpose of restoring us to the fellowship with God, and it is therefore an inestimable benefit that it gives us not only the knowledge of certain truths, but actually bestows upon us the blessings which it announces.—The written Word of God is not less potent to produce faith than the preached word, and this Word the Apostles have left us as a legacy which may be heard and read at all times, and therefore we ought to consider the written Word as more sure and trusty than the declarations of men. Lange:—In spiritual matters every man should for himself examine and understand the truths of God, and not blindly believe the report of others, lest like a blind man he be led astray and miserably cheated.—All human fellowship should be so arranged and constituted that it do not oppose the fellowship with God. We should regard the Epistles of the Apostles as Epistles of God addressed to ourselves, and know that they are most surely addressed to us in order that we may become, as it were, living Epistles of God, known and read of all men. Besser:—There is no fellowship with the Head of the Church apart from the instrumentality of the joints of the Apostles. Those who are inserted in the edifice of the Church, rest upon the foundation of the Apostles and prophets, with Jesus Christ Himself as the chief corner-stone.—Out of infinite Love the Son of God became what we are, in order that He might give us power to become what He is; He became partaker of our nature, that we should become partakers of the Divine nature. (Irenζus.) Heubner:—Christianity demands a solemn and deep contemplation wholly absorbed in Christ [or entering into Christ.—M.]; hasty and superficial looking and hurrying away is unprofitable; Christianity wants profound natures.—Christianity rests mainly on facts, as external revelations of God, in order that thus the Godhead may become visible to the sensuous man [to our senses.—M.], without any injury being done to its dignity.—The Apostles as such eye-and-ear-witnesses are also most sure and reliable, and it is impossible that their account of so many facts, their harmonious and many-sided account, could have been fabricated or be spurious.—These Apostolical writings compensate us for that which we can no longer see with our own eyes. We have, moreover, the testimony of the Church for those facts, for without them it [the Church.—M.] could not have come into existence.—The vocation of the Apostles was most philanthropic and beneficent: the design of their testimony and of the preached Gospel in general, is to lead all men to the fellowship of the same life which was enjoyed by the Apostles. The Apostles did not wish to keep their life to themselves, but loved to communicate it. The true nature of life is its impulse, wherever it is, to pour itself into others. The Apostles were to the first Christians, and are still to all Christians, channels and conductors to the Life Eternal; without the Apostles we should have neither Christ nor Christianity. The Apostles conduct us to it. Those who reject the Apostles and their testimony, cannot reasonably continue to discourse of Christianity; they have only left to them a Christianity of their own making.—Holy Scripture is a standing monument of history that may not be interpolated; it remains a pure and ever-accessible fountain; oral delivery would have grown more and more unreliable, the memory would have lost much, and our delight in the enjoyment of the Gospel would have lessened.—The evangelical history the most sublime history: 1. We will convince ourselves of it, it comes from God, continues in God, and leads us to God; and, 2. Lay to heart the conclusions we draw: behold the poverty of those who despise and neglect it! Give more attention and diligence to it! Christian joy is from its very nature the highest joy. For, I. a. Whence is it? Of God, of heavenly origin. b. What does it aim at? The eternal salvation of our souls. c. For whom does it exist? For all in the same manner (without exception). II. (Conditions on our part): a. Acquire a thorough understanding of the truth that sin is our common misery, and that none can save us therefrom but Jesus Christ alone, b. Believe in Jesus, the Son of God. c. Animate this faith by habits of devotion. The Apostolical testimony of the Word of Life.—1. How it is attested (as to its verification); 2. How joyful it is (as to its object: the Life was manifested, and as to its effects: Fellowship of Christians among themselves and with God). The firm foundation of our faith.—It rests, 1, upon the Apostolical annunciation of the witnesses of Him who is the Beginner, Fulfiller and Object of our faith (1 John 1:1); 2, on its joyful object (contents, German) 1 John 1:2, which could not have spontaneously entered into any man’s heart; 3, on the testimony of the Holy Ghost in those who receive the word of faith from the lips of the aforesaid witnesses. Spurgeon:—It is indeed written (Proverbs 14:10): “A stranger doth not intermeddle with his joy.” The secret is with them that fear Him, and their joy no man taketh from them. But we would remind you of the proverb, “Still waters run deep.” The brook rushing over the stones dries up in summer, but the deep river flows uniformly along in freshets, or in heat and drought, and yet glides calmly through the fields. We do not speak or boast so loudly of our joys, as you do of your pleasures, because it is unnecessary; ours are as well known in silence as in lively company. We do not want your company to indulge our joy, still less the manifold condiments with which you try to flavour your joy. We require no cups, no banquets, no fiddles, no dance in order to be joyful.—Our joy does not depend on transitory things, but rests in the eternal, unchangeable Creator of all things. I know very well, notwithstanding all we shall say, the slander will continue that the children of God are a wretched people.—We have joy, we have delights, so precious that we would not exchange an ounce of ours with a ship-load of yours; not drops of our delight for rivers of your pleasures. Our delight is not tinsel, painted joy, but solid reality; our joys are such as we take along with us to our quiet resting place beneath the dust; joys which sleep with us in the grave and will wake with us in eternity, joys on which we may courageously look back, and which, therefore, we enjoy a second time in memory; joys also which we enjoy beforehand, and know already here below as the antepast of eternal joy and delight. Our joys are no soap-bubbles which only glitter and sparkle in divers colours in order to burst, they are no apples of Sodom which crumble in your hand into ashes; true joys are real, true, solid, lasting, enduring, eternal! What more shall I say? Joy and true piety are eternally joined together like root and blossoms, as inseparably as truth and assurance; they are indeed two precious jewels, set side by side in the same gold setting.” [Sermons and Sermon-Themes:Ch. I. II. Binning, Hugh: Fellowship with God, or twenty-eight sermons on the first and second chapters of the first Epistle of St. John. Works, II., 177. 1 John 1:1-3. Mill, W. H.: The Word Incarnate, the essential basis of individual and social Christianity. Sermons, (Advent, 1846), I. 1 John 1:3. The same author: The Word Incarnate in the totality of His exhibition in the Church, the true centre of Christianity. Sermons, (Advent, 1846), XXVIII. Bradley, C.: Fellowship with God. Sacramental, 216.—M.] Footnotes: 1 John 1:1. German [“What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we gazed upon and our hands handled, of the Word of the Life.”—M.] 1 John 1:2. German [“And the Life was manifested, and we have seen and testified and declare unto you the eternal Life, as which it was with the Father and was manifested unto us.”—M.] [It, supplied by E. V., not necessary; it is better to construe ἐωράκαμεν, μαρτυροῦμεν and ἀπαγγέλλομεν with ζωὴντὴναἰώνιον. So Lachm., Hahn, Theile, Tischend. and Lillie.—M.] [On the whole, the rendering of E. V., “that eternal Life which was with the Father,” is preferable to the German, and the meaning is clear without the adoption of the Greek idiom, “Life Eternal,” by Wordsworth.—M.] 1 John 1:3. [German: “What we have seen and heard, declare we also to you, that ye us; and our fellowship indeed is with Christ.” καὶ ?—δὲ; the καὶ adds something, and δὲ is slightly adversative, cf. 2 Peter 1:5, also Matthew 16:18; Mark 4:36; Luke 2:35; Acts 3:24; Acts 22:29; Hebrews 9:21; John 6:51; John 8:16-17; John 15:27.—Indeed or truly seem to bring out this slightly adversative sense better than again (Lillie).—M.] Cod. Sin. has καὶἀπαγγέλλομενκαὶὑμῖν. The first καὶ occurs also in Theoph. and Vulg. (Cod. Amiatinus; it may have crept in from 1 John 5:2). The second καὶ is found in A. B. C. Cod. Sin. has before this second καὶ an erased ι, as if ἲνακαὶὑμεῖς was to have followed forthwith; καὶὑμῖν seems therefore to be copied. Cod. Sin. has ὑμῶν after ἡμετέρα, but a disapproval in the margin. 1 John 1:4. B. ἡμεῖς for ὑμῶν, [Cod. Sin. ἡμεῖς and ἡμῶν.—M.] B. G. al. ἡμῶν; so Vulgate with the variation, “ut gaudeatis et gaudium nostrum sit plenum.” Both ἡμεῖς and ἡμῶν have probably arisen from the μεθ’ ἠμῶν and ἠμετέρα of 1 John 5:3, [ἠχαρὰὑμῶν. A. C. K. al. Copt.; Tischend.—M.] [German: “And these things we write unto you that your joy may be fulfilled.” Wordsworth: “filled up to the full;” but fulfilled is better.—M.] [German:—And this is the message, which we have heard from Him, and announce yon again, that God is Light and darkness in Him is none whatsoever.—M.] II. PART THE FIRST 1 John 1:5 to 1 John 2:28IF YE WALK IN THE LIGHT (1 John 1:5 to 1 John 2:2)— TO HIS LAW IN GENERAL (1 John 2:2-6), AND TO THE OF LOVE IN (1 John 2:7-14), NOT MISLED BY THE LUSTS (1 John 2:15-17) AND THE LIES OF THE WORLD (1 John 2:18-23) YE SHALL ABIDE BEFORE CHRIST 1. Leading thought: God is Light5This then Isaiah 9 the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. AND 1 John 1:5. And is not like οὖν (igitur, Beza) or δὲ (Episcopius); for it is neither an inference, nor even a delicate antithesis; it simply connects with the preceding, as does καὶ ?—γράφομεν, 1 John 1:4, with ἀπαγγέλλομεν, and while ταῦτα points to the contents of the now opening Epistle, καὶ connects with the exordium, in which preparation is made for what follows, and αὕτηἡἀγγελία points to the subsequent words [ὅτιὁθεὸςκ. τ. λ.—M.]. This is the message.—Contrary to the usual position of the words (αὕτηἐστίν, 1 John 2:25; 1 John 3:11; 1 John 3:23; 1 John 4:3; 1 John 5:11; 1 John 5:14, cf. John 17:3), ἐστιν is emphatically placed first to denote the existence and reality of the message. The poorly authenticated reading ἐπαγγελία is very awkward, the word denoting not annunciation (Oecumen., Beza, de Wette contrary to the grammatical usage of the N. T.), either here or elsewhere (1 John 2:24; 1 John 3:11; cf. var. 2 Timothy 1:1; Acts 23:31), and if taken in the sense of promise would have required here an enlargement of the thought. Calov: non jubemur tantum in luce ambulare ac mundari sanguine Christi, sed utriusque etiam gratia nobis promittitur, illius per Spiritus Sancti illuminationem, hujus per expiationis Christi applicationem; quia utraque fruimur per beatam cum Deo et Christo communionem. [Huther thinks that the reading ἐπαγγελία in the sense of promise might be justified on the ground that every announcement of the New Testament is fraught with promise, and cites Spener, who says: “Promise, as the sequel indeed conceals a promise. God is not only a light in Himself, but He is also the light of believers. And that is the promise.”—M.].—ἀπαγγελία, which occurs no where in the New Testament, as Socinus and Episcopius read, is an arbitrary correction. The outwardly best authenticated reading is strongly supported by the context, for it seems to rλecho in the following ἀναγγέλλομεν: the message of Christ is announced again by His Apostles. Erasmus: “Quod filius annunciavit a patre, hoc Apostolus acceptum a filio renunciat nobis.” Which we have heard from Him.—The Apostle alludes to 1 John 1:1. He thinks of the first disciples, and more particularly of the Apostles. Hence both the ἀγγελία, the ἀκηκόαμεν, and the contents of the message: ὁθεόςκ. τ. λ̓ ?.., suggest the reference to Jesus, the Christ; this is also rendered necessary by the preposition ἀπό, which indicates the Prophet-speaker, the Person of the Master, on whose lips the Apostles hang as hearers and disciples. John uses ἀκούεινπαρά, John 8:26; John 8:40; John 15:15, but there it is the Father who speaks and the Son who hears; this (παρὰ) presupposes the nearness, the being together, and had to be used when the Son was hearing the Father, the other (ἀπό) denotes distance, and could hardly have been used in the aforecited passages; παρὰ points also to familiarity ἀπό only to derivation in general αὐτοῦ denotes, with reference to 1 John 1:3 : τοῦυἱοῦαὐτοῦ, Christ; the assertion that αὐτοῦ, as distinguished from ἐκεῖνος, which always relates to Christ, invariably refers to the Father (Paulus, Baumgarten-Crusius) is incorrect. The sense then is: From Him, the Incarnate Son of God, whom we have heard, etc., 1 John 1:1, we have received the message concerning God the Father (Dόsterdieck, Huther). Socinus, who takes the relation of God and Christ not as conjunctio esseritiζ, but only as conjunctio voluntatis et rerum aliarum omnium, understands a Deo et Christo, i.e., a Deo per Christum, thus representing Christ as the mere mediator and not as the author of the message. And announce to you again.—Next to the note of Erasmus, as quoted above, we cite the admirable exposition of Bengel: “Quζ in ore Christi fuit ἀγγελία eam apostoli ἀγγέλλουσι; nam ἀγγέλιαν ab Ipso acceptam reddunt et propagant.” ἀναγγέλλειν is not exactly = ἀπαγγέλλειν, the latter denotes to continue announcing [rather to bear tidings from one person (ἁπὸ) to another—M.], the former to announce anew, back, again, as in John 4:25; John 16:25, where, however, ἀπαγγελῶ is the more authentic reading. As our Lord conversed with the Syroph�nician woman as the Messenger of God Reporting what the Father had told Him before, so the Apostles report what the Lord had told them before (John 20:21). God is light.—This is the substance of the ἀγγελία. But Christ did not say so, although He called Himself the Light, John 12:12; Jno 15:46; and speaks of the children of the Light (John 8:36), even as James refers to the Father of the Lights, τῶνφώτων, James 1:17, see the note above ad loc. But Christ, as the Son of God, is ἀπαύγασματῆςδόξηςκαὶχαρακτὴρτῆςὑποστάσεςαὐτοῦ (Hebrews 1:2), and this it is which John and his fellow Apostles (1 John 1:1) had heard, seen and gazed upon, so that the sum-total and centre of the message of Christ, as well as His personal manifestation and revelation in the flesh, may truly be expressed in the words “God is Light.” Christ reveals this, but no philosopher is able to find it; without Christ the wise men of the world pass it by. It is not a light, as Luther translates, as if there were other lights beside and out of Him. The Being of God is Light. Neither is it in the light, as if it were only surrounding Him, nor as the Light. It is not secundum similitudinem (Bullinger), but secundum substantiam. Light is His garment (Psalms 104:2); Ezekiel (1 John 1.) and Habakkuk (1 John 3:3, sqq.) beheld the glory of the Lord as fire, pure and bright as lightning. He is not only the Author of light, to whom belongs His first creative fiat (Genesis 1:3), but the Father of all light (James 1:17), a mighty sphere of light surrounds Him (1 Timothy 6:16); and the marvellous light wherein Christians walk is God’s (1 Peter 2:9). This sentence is parallel to the sentence: “God is Love” (1 John 4:8; 1 John 4:16), with the same fundamental thought, although in the one instance the expression is figurative, and in the other literal, and the figurative expression lays peculiar emphasis on one side of the Divine Being, and this, on account of the antithesis in the following verses (1 John 1:6-10), is also holiness, perfect pureness, but not omniscience, as Calov maintains, although in Daniel 2:22 light is the symbol of the omniscience of God; it may include, however, the wisdom of God. [Alford:—“Of all material objects, light is that which most easily passes into an ethical predicative without even the process, in our thought, of interpretation. It unites in itself purity, and clearness, and beauty, and glory, as no other material object does; it is the condition of all material life and growth and joy. And the application to God of such a predicative requires no transference. He is Light, and the fountain of light material and ethical. In the one world, darkness is the absence of light; in the other, darkness, untruthfulness, deceit, falsehood, is the absence of God. They who are in communion with God, and walk with God, are the light, and walk in the light.”—M.] And darkness in Him is none whatsoever.—This second negative member, stated with marked emphasis (οὐκἒστινοὐδεμία, similar to John 15:5, see Winer, p. 521. [“The two negations produce one negation, which is the more frequent case, and serve, originally, to make the principal negation more distinct and forcible, and exhibit the sentence as negative in all its parts.”—M.]), rejects any and every darkness, i.e., impureness [or absence of all admixture.—M.]. Oecumenius: ἢτοιτὴνἂγνοιαν, ἢτὴνἁμαρτίαν. Rather both: neither an untruth or a lie, nor any sin is in Him. The fulness of the reference contained in this expression is brought out by Lorinus in the following passage cited by Huther: “Deus lux est, quia clarissime se ipsum percipit, omniaque in se ipse, utpote prima et ipsissima veritas; quia summe bonus, ac summa et ipsissima bonitas; fidelis absque ulla iniquitate, justus et rectus, quia fons omnis lucis in aliis, i.e., veritatis atque virtutis, non solum illustrans mentem, docensque quid agendum sit, verum etiam operans in nobis, ut agemus et sic radiis suis liberans mentem ab ignorantiζ tenebris, purgans a pravitate voluntatem.”—John’s speculation or mysticism is so thoroughly ethical, that he is solely concerned with the practical working out of the truth: “God is Light.” As he connects this sentiment with the preceding by καὶ, namely, the fellowship with the Father and the Son, so he develops the nature of this fellowship-life in the sequel (1 John 5:6-21). Now, since the nature of this fellowship and of the life in it depend upon the nature of the Father, he begins with the leading thought (1 John 1:5) and with reference to errors in a sentence of two members, the one positive, the other negative. [Huther: “John properly makes the truth that God is Light, as the chief substance of the ἀγγελία of Christ, the starting-point of his development; for it is the essential basis of Christianity, both as to its objective and subjective substance, and it involves both the consummation of sin and the redemption from sin by the incarnation and death of Christ; both the necessity of repentance and faith and the moral problem of the Christian life.”—M.] AND ETHICAL1. Monotheism and the absolute personal existence of God are with John two chief points, which may be also identified here, although one side only is made prominent. Of the two sentences, “God is Spirit” (John 4:24), and “God is Love” (1 John 4:8; 1 John 4:16),—the former denoting the Being of God physically, the latter ethically; the former describing the nature and substance, the latter the character of God,—the second only will have to be connected with the sentence, “God is Light,” and thus be further defined by a metaphorical expression. Spirit and Love are indeed correlative fundamental ideas, since Spirit denotes “free self-glory in self-consciousness and spontaneity over a substantial fulness of real vital powers,” and Love “free self-surrender with conscious and intentional conservation of the essential original determinateness both of oneself and of others” (Plitt). But the phrase “God is Light,” declares “the superiority of God to all sensuous wants” (Kφstlin), the holiness of God, and thus defines further the character of God, His Love, and this as a holy Love, while it enables us to take the Love of God as contemplating also the communication of His Holiness. We may add, “God is—eternal Life” (John 1:20) as a correlative, so that His Love as well as His Holiness are live. There is no manner of darkness in Him. He is not a God in process of being coming to Himself in the history of creation, the world or in the spirit of man, as Plato maintains: He is operative prior to all the ὒλη of Plato, or the dark Urgrund of Schelling, as a self-conscious, holy, loving and living God. Nor has sin, evil, its original beginning in Him, as was taught by the Gnostics in their doctrine of emanations. [Wordsworth: “A sentence opposed to the error of most of the Gnostics, who asserted the existence of two hostile Deities, one a God of Light, the other of Darkness. Irenζus I., 25. 28, ed Grabe. Theodoret, Hζret., fab. pr�m. Epiphan., Hζres, XXVI., cf. Ittig. Hζres, p. 34; note in his Comment. on John 1:5; and Bp. Andrewes, III., pp. 371–376. Almost all the Gnostics adopted the theory of dualism, derived from the Magians, and afterwards developed by the Marcionites and Manichζans.”—M.] 2. God is Light—must not be taken as a notice, a truth without reality, a reality without efficiency. As the sentence “God is Spirit” (John 4:24) is immediately followed by “and those who worship Him, must worship Him in Spirit and in truth,” so this sentence must be taken as a principle, the application of which is contained in the sequel. The sentence is through and through ethical and practical. John wants no science without practice. He does not allow an enlightenment of the mind without a corresponding bias and purifying of the will. 3. The question “Whence comes sin, evil into the world?” the Apostle here decides very distinctly in a negative form: in no event from God. Evil though connate, is not co-created. 4. Nothing must be taught or announced that does not rest upon or does not agree with the testimony of Christ. Those who pretend to know eternal truth which maketh free, different from Him, do not know it better, and are not servants, but adversaries and rebels.—It is at once Apostolical and Protestant to go back to the beginning of the Gospel in Christ. We are much more the Apostolical Church than the Church of Rome with its claims to Apostolicity. AND God is Light. 1. Whence do you know it? 2. What does it mean? 3. Whither does it point?—Whatever right and true views you may have of God the Father, you have them from Christ, no matter whether a messenger of salvation, a servant of the Church have announced them to you, whether they were told you by your mother or commended by the counsel of a friend, whether Christian hands brought them to you in the Bible, or the Holy Ghost excited them in your heart.—Nothing gladdens the hearts of men more than light; but how have they abused the Word and deprived it of its best part, and try to make it chime in with unholiness in thought, in word and in deed!—The world’s light dazzles without illumining, shines without producing a spring with blossoms or an autumn with fruit.—The world’s light may be useful, build you in this life bridges of honour, bring wreaths to artists and fame to the wise, make account of order in the land and in the streets, rejoice the heart in the social circle and refresh the mind, but also undermine and destroy the salvation of your soul. But it cannot carry a shine of consolation into the night of life, still less into the night of death; it cannot help the soul to find love and the life which death cannot destroy.—The world’s light sets like the sun in the sky; but the Light which is God the Lord, shines through all the night of sin, of life, of death.—Try every light, whether God be in it.—If He, the Holy One, is absent, that light is no light worthy of the name, but a false light, a will-o’-the-wisp.—Do not look for salvation in any light of science or civilization, if it denies the holy light. Fear only the darkness in which God the Father is not found. Starke:—Teachers should not pronounce any thing in things Divine but that which they have heard from the Lord in His Word; for if the Apostles themselves were firmly tied by it, how much more are they bound to cleave to it? The thoughts of man, being fallible, are not sufficient for the foundation of the faith.—Because God is Light, and in Him is no darkness whatsoever, it is wholly impossible that He can be the Cause of sin, which is the greatest darkness.—God is all Light, Wisdom, Holiness, Consolation and Joy; who would not desire to be united with Him? Lange:—Because God is Light we have often to sigh in our fellowship with Him: “Lord, cause Thy face to shine upon us, and be gracious unto us.” Spener:—God is Light. 1. Holiness and Righteousness, showing that He not only has no evil within Himself, but also cannot suffer sin or evil in His creatures. 2. All wisdom and Allwisdom. 3. Glory and salvation. Heubner:—Christianity has showed to all men the light-nature of God in Christ in the clearest brightness; that He is through and through perfect Knowledge, Omniscience, Wisdom, Love, Grace, Holiness and Happiness, and delights in the happiness of His creatures. Why does John specify this as the chief announcement? 1. Because it is of the first importance and indispensably necessary for sinful man to know that it is not by the hostile and malicious purpose of an omnipotent Being that he has been cast into this misery, that God did not plan his ruin, and that it does not come from Him, because He is pure and good. 2. Because salvation, a restoration of happiness may be expected from this God who desires all men to be happy. This belief is man’s first support [holding-point] of salvation. And this His Will God has proved most strongly in fact—through Christ. Besser:—John convicts of falsehood three classes of spirits by declaring the vanity of the boast of fellowship with God on the part of such as walk in darkness instead of walking in the Light, of such as comfort themselves with the assurance of being perfectly pure instead of relying upon the continual cleansing of the blood of Christ, and lastly, of such as, instead of confessing their sins, deny their sinfulness. Worldly-mindedness, boast of sanctity and self-righteousness are exposed by John to the condemnatory light of the truth, and accompanied by an exhortation to a sincere, humble and penitent walking in the Light. [Bp. Hall:—Divine Light and reflections. Sermons, Works, 5, 419.—M]. Footnotes: 1 John 1:5. ἒστιναὒτη, B. C. G. K., Cod. Sin., al. [Syr., Theoph., Oecumen., Tischend., Buttmann, Wordsw. καὶαὒτηἐστὶ, A., Vulg., Lachm., Rec.; this is altered from the original reading.—M.] Instead of ἀγγελία, A. B. G., al. [Griesb., Scholz., Lachm., Tischend., Wordsw.—M.] we find ἐπαγγελία in C., and in Cod. Sin., over ἀπαγγελία, the following correction, probably emanating from the transcriber himself: ἁγαπητῆςἐπαγγελίας; but a later hand has added ἀγγελία as the right reading. [ἀναγγέλλομεν, renuntiamus, announce again, Report (Lillie). Declare, E. V., is too weak, it denotes a repetition of an announcement already made and known, brought out by the preposition ἀνα. See the notes of Bengel and Erasmus in Exegetical and Critical.—M.] 2. First Inference: The True Fellowship. 1 John 1:6-76 If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth: 7But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. AND The sequence is clear: the Apostle concludes from the Being of God the nature of their life who are and live in fellowship with God. He postulates that spiritual fellowship necessitates an affinity among persons in fellowship with one another, and that this internal fellowship must manifest itself externally in their life, so that fellowship with God is impossible without a corresponding godlike life as exhibited in the walk and conversation of men. 1 John 1:6. The negative part of the inference stands first, connecting with the last clause of the preceding verse (“and darkness in Him is none whatsoever”). If we say.—John is very fond of this phrase, 1 John 1:7-10; 1 John 2:1; 1 John 4:12; it is similar to ἐάντις, 1 John 2:1; 1 John 2:15; 1 John 4:20, or ὂςἂν, 1 John 3:17; 1 John 4:15. As to the sense, the following phrases present parallels: πᾶςὁἒχων, 1 John 3:3; πᾶςὁποιῶν, 1 John 3:4; πᾶςὁμένων, 1 John 3:6; πᾶςὁἀρνούμενος, 1 John 2:23; without πᾶς, 1 John 2:4; 1 John 2:6; 1 John 2:9-10. The Apostle is thus wont to describe an objective possibility (Winer, p. 308), i.e., he assumes that it may be so, and that the event would show whether it will be so. The Apostle renders this hypothesis general by the use of the communicative Plural, and thus makes his speech more lively; if we,—not excluding myself and the Apostles, beginning with myself down to the most humble reader of this Epistle, or to any individual Church-member,—should say. Thus John combines in the communicative and hypothetical form generality of application and considerate delicacy (Lόcke). Saying does not denote here the inaudible language of the heart, that is thinking, but articulate utterance and assertion induced by the force of conviction. But it is not on that account nos gerere (Episcopius), as if the reference were to a testimony of our walk and practical conduct, although this saying and alleging must be taken as equivalent to an act, a fact or an action. [Wordsworth suggests that ἑὰνεἲπωμεν contains a reference to the saying of the Gnostics, who alleged that by reason of the spiritual seed in them, and of their superior spiritual knowledge, and communion with the light, they were free to act as they chose, and were not polluted thereby, and were not guilty of sin (Irenζus, I., 6, 20). Some of them even ventured to extol the workers of the most audacious acts of darkness, such as Cain, Korah and Judas, as persons gifted with superior freedom of thought and intrepidity of action, and to affirm that, since the soul could not attain unto perfection except by knowledge, it was even requisite for men to make themselves familiar with all manner of evil, in order that by a universal empiricism of evil they might arrive the sooner at their ultimate consummation. See Irenζus, I., 25, 4, ed. Stieren; p. 103, ed. Grabe; II., 32, ed. Stieren; p. 187, ed. Grabe, and cf. Blunt on the Heresies of the Apostolic Age, Lectures, 1 John 9, p. 179.—M.] That we have fellowship with Him.—See the notes on 1 John 1:3. Here the Father only is mentioned, of whom it was said above that He is Light, in order to draw therefrom a conclusion bearing on the nature of the Christian life. [Fellowship with God is the centre and foundation of the Christian life.—M.] And walk in the darkness.—And combined with say makes one sentence.—Walk, περιπατεῖν, 1 John 2:6; 2 John 1:6, occurs also Romans 6:4; Romans 8:4; its synonymes are πολίτευμα, Philippians 3:20, ἀναστροφὴ and ἀναστρέφειν, Ephesians 4:17, sq., 1 John 2:2, sq.—Bengel: “actione interna et externa, quoquo nos vertimus.” It embraces all our actions, not only those perceptible to men (Ebrard), but also that on which these depend, whereby they are caused, the inward actions of our life. In the darkness indicates the sphere and element in which that walking takes place, cf. John 8:12. Darkness, which is not at all in God, does not in any way belong to Him, is the undivine, the unholy, that which is separate from Him—sin, evil. It is therefore not: to have still adhering to one sin or evil, or failure and falling through haste or weakness in temptation, in the struggle; but as the walk does not denote gross and common sin only, so walking in the darkness does not imply the presence of satisfaction with sin, or the entire passing through the whole territory of sin in all directions; the reference must be to one particular phase of life; some want to be Christians and make good their profession in every thing except honour; others are not severe with themselves or unfaithful to God and His Word in matters of worldly possession or in some master-passions, although in other respects they are strict and faithful. Such men walk, nevertheless, in the darkness, and the words “we lie” apply also to them. It is a contradiction and opposition, cf. 2 Corinthians 6:14, sqq. Not exactly intentional lying and conscious hypocrisy, but actual contradiction between Christian principle and the Christian sphere of life, and the real exhibition of life, certainly not without personal guilt; it is our guilt and our sin, our own lie, we ourselves are liars. Whenever, under those circumstances, we say that we have fellowship with Him, we lie; we lie to ourselves, if we say it only within ourselves, in our heart, think or imagine it, or we lie to others, if we say it to them in our words or our works. Such lying consists, therefore, in thoughts, words and deeds. And do not the truth.—This is not the same as ψεύδεσθαι, as if ποιεῖντὴνἀλήθειαν were identical with ἀληθεύειν, Ephesians 4:15. It is neither the same as agere recte (Socinus), nor sincere (Beza, Grotius, Carpzovius), nor veraciter (Calvin). The truth consists not only in words, but also in thoughts and deeds; its sphere embraces the whole life, the whole man. The truth, according to John’s view, must be done; saying with him implies acting; not to do the truth is here parallel with walking in the darkness, while to do the truth corresponds to walking in the Light. “It is one and the same truth, which is apprehended in faith and confessed with the mouth, which, as a holy, Divine power, recreates the life of the new man and manifests itself in internal and external deeds.” (Dόsterdieck), cf. John 3:19-21 [where ποιεῖντὴνἀλήθειαν is opposed to φαῦλαπράσσειν, and where special reference is made to the ἒργα.—M.]—Thus the Apostle raises his powerful protest against every form of show-, word- or lip-Christianity, but his reference is to Christians, and therefore he passes on to 1 John 1:7, to the positive part of the inference. But if we walk in the Light.—δὲ marks an antithesis. In the Light is explained by the antithesis ἐνσκότει, and by the additional clause, as He is in the Light, with reference to 1 John 1:5. [But this, it seems, is not the only antithesis, for it is also antithetical to ἐὰνεἲπωμεν, ὂτικοινωνίανἒχομενμετ̓αὐτοῦ, 1 John 1:6, viz.: if we not only say that we have fellowship with God and not walk in the darkness, but if we really walk in the Light; so Huther, Ebrard.—M.].—Our walk in the light embraces, therefore, the holiness of our inner and outer life, a holiness which in its consequences operates a communion among the brethren, and fully corresponding to the Light-Being of God, which is also Love, exhibits its essential strength in the formation and preservation of fellowship. As He is in the Light is only formally different from God is Light; the latter phrase denotes Light as the Being of God, the former designates the element in which He is and lives.—ὡς indicates the oneness of element [in which Christians walk and God lives and moves—M.] and ground in God and ourselves; His holiness must be traceable in us if we have fellowship with Him. He indeed is in the Light, while we walk in the light, it matters not how poor and defective our efforts may be. The sense is very similar to 1 Peter 1:14-16; 2 Peter 1:4. [Cf. ἐστι and περιπατῶμεν. God is infinite—man finite.—M.] We have fellowship one with another.—The reading μετ̓αὐτοῦ cannot be right; for to walk in the Light and to have fellowship with Him coincide. But we naturally expect an advance in the argument. It is, therefore, not right to take μετ̓ἀλλήλων as ἡμῶντεκαὶτοῦφωτός (Theophrast., Oecumen.), especially because God and men, the Creator and His creatures, are not of sufficient equality to be comprised in μετ̓αλλήλων. Equally inadmissible is the construction of Beza (cum illo mutuam communionem), and that of de Wette, who renders our fellowship with God. It is the fellowship of Christians one with another, as 1 John 1:3, μετ̓ἡμῶν, cf. 1 John 3:11; 1 John 4:7; 1 John 4:11-12. To have (see note on 1 John 1:3) and to keep this fellowship is not a light matter; it is the fruit of the walking in the Light, of the fellowship with God, of a holy life and of holy aspirations. For sin separates, impedes and constantly destroys that fellowship. [This passage shows that the fellowship of Christians, or the “communion of Saints,” as it is expressed in the Apostles’ Creed, rests on a truly Catholic basis, and that its restriction to the narrow limits of a sect is at once un-evangelical, un-Apostolic and un-Christian.—M.] Hence the Apostle continues: And the blood of Jesus His Son cleanseth us.—The copula καὶ establishes a parallel with the preceding words, and points consequently not to fellowship with God and the brethren to be established, but to a fellowship already existing, and so well established that the first, viz.: fellowship with God, has already yielded the fruit of the second, viz.: fellowship with the brethren. It is impossible to take and interpret καὶ = γὰρ, as alleged by Oecumen., Bede, Calov, Semler, al. The question is not to supply proof of the fellowship with the brethren, but to state a consequence of walking in the Light. The only question is whether the cleansing through the blood of Christ takes place alongside or inside the fellowship of the brethren with one another. The work of redemption is a whole, and not mechanical, but organic and moral, so that this cleansing takes place inside the fellowship of the Church, of the fellowship essential to and established for redemption. Exegetically important is, moreover, the meaning and the Present form of καθαρίζει. This word cannot be the same as ἀφιέναιτὰςἀμαρτίας, because it recurs, 1 John 1:9, by the side of and after that phrase. The reference is, therefore, not to the remission of sins, to exemption from punishment or the pardon of guilt, but to the cancelling of sin and redemption from it. The Apostle does not advert here to justification, regeneration, conversion, the actus judicialis or forensis concerning the sinner, but to sanctification. The Present may suggest the idea of daily repentance and forgiveness of sins, but the meaning of the verb forbids also this reference. But wherein that cleansing consists is defined by the cleansing subject: the blood of Jesus His Son. It is said αἷμα, consequently not: God’s new covenant with us established by the blood of Christ (Socinus), not: our faith in the sufferings of Christ (Grotius), not: Jesus Christ who shed His blood for us, not: the contemplation of the death of Jesus (Paulus), not: the reasonable belief of the moral end of the crucifixion of Jesus (Oertel); τὸαἶμαΙησοῦ is the blood shed upon the cross, the bloody death of Jesus on the cross, as in 1 John 5:6, sqq. [The blood which Jesus, so-called because of His incarnation, shed as a sacrifice at His Crucifixion, or the bloody sacrificial death of Jesus, so Huther, Dόsterdieck, Ebrard.—M.]. This indicates the historical fact when the man Jesus died upon the cross at Golgotha, the sufferings of the Lord when He made experience of the sins of men, suffered for them, carried them also, assumed them (ἀμνὸςτοῦθεοῦὁαἲρων, etc., John 1:29), and took them away as Reconciler, but takes them away also as our Saviour, having died for us, but now lives and works in us, cf. 1 John 3:5. [Wordsworth: “No less a sacrifice than the death of the Son of God was required to propitiate the offended justice of God for sin; and no less a price than His blood, to ransom us from the bondage of Satan, to which we were reduced by sin.”—M.]. The addition of τοῦυἲουαὐτοῦ points to His relation to God the Father, consequently to His Divinity, where two things are to be considered, first, the exaltation and glory, secondly, the humiliation and servant-form of the Crucified One; the blood of the God-Man is the subject which cleanses. Now the death of Jesus is a sacrificial death, His blood sacrificial blood, shed for the atonement of committed guilt, for reconciling the offended majesty of God and the inimically disinclined sinner, a ransom for mankind doomed to death and condemnation. See 1 John 2:2; 1 John 3:5; 1 John 4:9; 1 John 5:6, sqq. He creates to believers justification before God, but the power that creates preserves also that which it creates. The redeemed congregate at the cross of Jesus; sin is forgiven, the debt remitted, sin must now be cancelled and fresh guilt avoided; in believers pecatum manet but non regnat. Thus in the Church congregated at the cross and preserved in unity, sanctification continues in operation, after having begun its operativeness in justification. It is not our walking in the Light, not our own efforts in sanctification, but the blood of Jesus which cleanses us. (See Doctrinal and Ethical, No. 3). [The whole doctrine of this verse is very fully and admirably set forth in Dόsterdieck. The sum of what he says we give in the language of Alford: “St. John, in accord with the other Apostles, sets forth the Death and Blood of Christ in two different aspects: 1. As the one sin-offering for the world, in which sense we are justified by the application of the blood of Christ by faith, His satisfaction being imputed to us. 2. As a victory over sin itself, His blood being the purifying medium, whereby we gradually, being already justified, become pure and clean from all sin. And this application of Christ’s blood is made by the Spirit which dwelleth in us. The former of these asserts the imputed righteousness of Christ put on us in justification: the latter, the inherent righteousness of Christ wrought in us gradually in sanctification. And it is of this latter that he is here treating.”—M.] From all sin—whether sins of thought, word or deed, sins of rashness or sins of ignorance, sins of malice, sins of omission or sins of commission, sins in affectu or sins in defectu, sins of pleasure or sins of pain, sins committed at our work or during our recreation, sins against the first or the second table of the decalogue. Bengel: originale, actuale. [Wordsworth notices the completeness of this doctrinal statement, which declares that Jesus is the Christ, against the Cerinthians (but this rests on the doubtful reading χριστοῦ, see App. Crit., 1 John 5:7; 1 John 5:4), that He is the Son of God, against the Ebionites, that He shed His blood on the cross, against the Simonians and Docetζ, that it cleanseth from all sin, against those who deny pardon on earth to deadly sin after baptism, and that it cleanseth us if we walk in the Light, against the Antinomian Gnostics, who changed the grace of God into lasciviousness (Judges 4), and alleged that a man might walk in darkness and yet be clean from all guilt of sin.—M.] AND ETHICAL1. As He is in the Light, 1 John 1:7—is not a Gnostic dogma simply required to be known and understood, but an ethical principle for the governance of our walk. Light, as it is the Being of God (1 John 1:5), so it is also the element of God, and because it is the Being of God, therefore it is also His element, wherein He dwells and lives. Light must become our element in order that it may also become our Being; we must live in Him that He may more fully live in us, for we are destined to become θείαςκοινωνοὶφύσεως, 2 Peter 1:4. To strive after resemblance of God (Lόcke) is saying too little. Nor is Bengel altogether right in saying: “imitatio Dei criterium communionis cum Illo.” For if the Lord says (Matthew 5:48): “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect” (cf. Luke 6:36), perfection or compassion is not set down as a foreign and distant goal, or held up as an ideal rule, but the experience and enjoyment of the perfect compassion of God is to become an impulse for receiving and appropriating it, in order that we, in our turn, may exhibit it. 1 Peter 1:15-16 is similar. Even Paul says (Ephesians 5:1): γίνεσθαιοὖνμιμηταὶτοῦθεοῦὡςτέχναἀγαπητά. As children they are in their converse with the Father to inhale and receive what they experience at His hands, in order that they may have within themselves a living fountain, causing in its turn the streaming forth of Divine life, and to do as the Father doeth. The reference is not to an artificial imitation, but to a filial following the Father in ardent attachment to Him. The child is not so much literally to imitate as to cleave to the Father, to receive Him, and as the Lord so often requires it, to follow Him. Such a life in converse with God, in the life-sphere of God, John emphatically demands as the chief requirement of individual Christians, as well as of the whole Church. 2. The Person of Jesus is again taken as uniting the Godhead and Manhood, when His blood is spoken of as αἶματοῦυἱοῦαὐτοῦ (of God). The word αἶμα testifies against Docetism, because it is operative as a real power, and against Ebionism the words “His Son,” whose the blood is: the Godhead, in brief, is a factor in the work of redemption. This combined expression opposes as much Nestorianism, which separates the two natures, as Eutychianism, which confounds them, and testifies for the Lutheran doctrine with its communicatio idiomatum, and against the Reformed principle: finitum non capax infiniti. Luther, in his Confession of Faith, A. D. 1528–29 (Guerike: Symbolik, p. 666), says: “Again I believe and know that the Scripture teaches, that - - God the Son - - did assume a whole, full humanity, and was the true seed or child promised to Abraham and David, and was born as the natural son of Mary, every way and in every form a true man, as I am myself and all others; but that He came without sin, of the Virgin alone, by the Holy Ghost. And that this man is truly God, and became (other reading: was born) one inseparable Person of God and man, so that Mary the holy Virgin is a very and true mother not only of the man Christ, as the Nestorians do teach, but of the Son of God.” But if Luther in a Trinity Sermon (Erlangen edit., 9, p. 25), on the ground of Act 20:28, calls the blood of Christ straightway the blood of God, it is to be borne in mind that in that passage κυρίου and not θεοῦ is the best authenticated reading, and that such an oxymoron must not be pressed beyond seeing in it the doctrine of the inseparable God-Man. Calov’s following Luther cannot be regarded as a precedent of great moment, since the Scripture, with its wisdom in the choice of terms, does not require us so to do.—Cf. Doctrinal and Ethical, on 1 John 1:3, No. 3. [Also the last note on 1 John 1:7, in Exegetical and Critical.—M.] [Article II. of the 39 Articles of the Church of England and the Prot. Episc. Church in the U. S. states thus briefly the doctrine of the Person of Christ: “The Son, which is the Word of the Father, begotten from everlasting of the Father, the very and eternal God, and of one substance with the Father, took man’s nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin, of her substance: so that two whole and perfect natures, that is to say, the Godhead and Manhood, were joined together in one Person, never to be divided, whereof is one Christ, very God and very Man; who truly suffered, was crucified, dead and buried, to reconcile His Father to us, and to be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for all actual sins of men.” And the Athanasian Creed, 1:28–35, thus defines: 28. Est ergo Fides recta, ut credamur et confiteamur, quia Dominus noster Jesus Christus, Dei Filius, Deus pariter et Homo est. 29. Deus ex substantia Patris ante sζcula genitus: Homo, ex substantia Matris in sζcula natus. 30. Perfectus Deus, perfectus Homo, ex anima rationali et humana carne subsistens. 31. Ζqualis Patri secundum Divinitatem: minor Patre secundum Humanitatem. 32. Qui licet Deus sit et Homo, non duo tamen, sed unus est Christus. 33. Unus autem, non conversione Divinitatis in carnem, sed assumptione Humanitatis in Deum. 34. Unus omnino, non confusione Substantiζ, sed unitate Personζ. 35. Nam sicut anima rationalis et caro unus est Homo; ita Deus et Homo unus est Christus.”—M.] 3. The work of Jesus is strongly characterized in one direction: “His blood cleanseth from all sin.” This statement involves the following particulars: 1. We can nevermore cleanse ourselves, our cleansing remains the work of Christ. 2. It is just the death of Christ that effects and accomplishes our cleansing; dying for sin, He conquers it; the victory of sin is its defeat, and the defeat of Christ is His victory; fighting unto death, He acquires the life of His own, and sin in its triumph over Him on the cross is discomfited. For His sake God turns to the world His reconciled countenance, and through faith in the Crucified One the world abandons sin, which is enmity against God. The cross, the death upon the cross, possesses an overwhelming power of attraction, and the life of the Son of God shut up in the life of the body breaks through in the life of the Spirit, in the working of the Spirit sent by Him and the Father, who now becomes operative in believers (John 7:39; Col. 16:7; Acts 2:33). 3. Sin still cleaves to the justified; justification does not miraculously or magically cancel sin by a judicial decree, it only absolves us from punishment, guilt and condemnation, but requires the carrying on of the work of redemption (of which it is the beginning), and of its consummation in sanctification; justification does not end, but it does begin redemption. 4. Justification does not even effect the independence of the believer, but merely introduces him into the walk in Light, to the fellowship of the brethren one with another, as into the sphere within which redemption may be carried on and consummated, and also in the individual; redemption, like the knowledge of infinite Love, is a common experience (Ephesians 3:18, sq., σὺνπᾶσιντοῖςἁγίοις). 5. Sanctification is the continuation of justification, it must ever return to it and recur to its power and might. 6. Sanctification is a work gradual in its growth. 7. It has respect to all sin, not only to its manifestation, but to its seat and origin. 8. Justification and sanctification, the power of the death upon the cross and the fellowship with the brethren, the walk in the Light and the cleansing from all sin, all these reciprocally operate on and promote each other; this holds more particularly good of brotherly, of Church-fellowship, and of the hallowing power of the Saviour’s death upon the cross, so that we are reminded of the words of Cicero: “Nisi in bonis amicitia esse non potest.” Or, we must distinguish, but not separate Christ for us, before us, and in us. AND Every thing depends on the reply you give to the question whether sin rules you or as yet only adheres to you. If sin reigns over you, you belong as yet to the darkness, but if the reign of sin is broken in you, though there be still sin in you, you belong to the children of light.—It is not with pride, but with gratitude to God, that the Christian contemplates his being in the light. —Love of God and of the brethren is the power of sanctification, and this is the life of love.—It is just the sanctified who see even the smallest sins with painfulness and perceive that they stand in need of cleansing through Jesus Christ.—If thy sin troubles thee in its deep motions, know that in the cross thou hast a well, whence thou mayest and must draw consolation. It is not sufficient that thou art a Christian who is shone upon, thou must become an enlightened Christian. Starke:—The ungodly are children of darkness without admitting it, they walk in the darkness without perceiving it, they commit the works of darkness without believing it. O, terrible blindness! Lord, open thou their eyes that they may see, tremble and return from their evil way.—How busy are people during the natural day! O, that they would not suffer the acceptable time and the day of salvation to pass by idly and without profit! Walk in the Light!—The virtue of the blood of Jesus Christ effects not only our first cleansing from dead works, but also our daily cleansing. Spener:—We may say it and glory that we have fellowship with God; nor is it spiritual pride to acknowledge the grace of God which we nave received, provided we do not ascribe it to ourselves.—Light is impatient of darkness, and God of sin. By this test thyself, whether thou art God’s. Moses shone beautifully through long converse with this light; why should not the soul wherein He dwelleth do likewise? Let thy light shine, and do not deceive thyself by false conceits. Neander:—To those who sincerely strive to walk in the Light, yet make daily experience of the still remaining influence of sin, and are disquieted in their conscience on hearing that fellowship with God, who is Light, can only be had by those who walk in the light,—to such is offered the comfortable assurance of entire cleansing from the sin as yet adhering to them. But the self-deception of those is also met, who trust to cleansing through the blood of Christ, without a corresponding course of life. The close connection between Christ in us and Christ for us is here indicated. Heubner:—Only among the pure is fellowship, i.e., true concord, love, confluence of the hearts. Evil separates, and is the source of discord.—The kingdom of God is the kingdom of love and peace; that of Satan the kingdom of discord. Ahlfeld:—Which are the seals and evidences of true fellowship with God? 1. That we walk in the light; 2. that we have fellowship one with another; 3. the humble confession that we owe the cleansing from our sins solely to the blood of Jesus Christ.—Providence moves pari passu from the first creative fiat to the last judgment.—Thou knowest that every transgression enshrouds thy heart in night.—True fellowship does not flow from our natural life, not from leagues for the commission of common sin, not from common pleasure or common profit, but only from the walk in Light.—First His passion, then thy passion; first His dying, then thy dying.—As long as Christ is our Righteousness, you also must go with Him into the walk in Light. As long as He is truly your Surety and Sacrifice, you also must with Him present to God your heart and will as a sacrifice of sweet savour. But he that learns to sacrifice himself, remains also in the fellowship with the brethren. Besser:—But how many, who, perchance, do not know the school-name of the modern Nicolaitanes, the Pantheists, yet do their works, while from the fear of a separateness from sin, grievous to the flesh, they change the frontier-line between good and evil, put light for darkness and darkness for light, and then spread a figment of their own thoughts, which they call God, as a pillow for their worldly-mindedness.—Our fellowship with God, whom we do not see, is evidenced by our fellowship with one another, where one sees the other.—There are also will-o’-the-wisp-fellowships, and the mere saying of any Church-fellowship that it has fellowship with God is not sufficient.—Anna, the electress of Brandenburg, ordained in her will: “Our text shall be 1 John 1:7 : The blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanseth us from all sin.” Steinhofer:—“A soul washed in the blood of Jesus Christ has very delicate perceptions. The light which has risen in her shows her the smallest dust-particle of sin and the most subtle motions of the flesh, and makes her perceive whatever accords with her happy frame in gladsome converse with God and the Saviour, and whatever disturbs it.” [Rieger:—The Bible-verse of the blood of Jesus Christ and its cleansing virtue is a verse for the children of God, for the children of the Light, and says to them: your love of the light, your hatred of darkness with its unfruitful works were insufficient to warrant your access to God, your joyous appeal to His Love; with these only your approach of the Light would have caused you to melt away as wax exposed to the heat of fire; but it is the blood of Jesus Christ the Son of God, that is, God’s sending His Son into the world to make atonement for your sins, whatever He did and suffered, especially His sacrificial blood-shedding in the voluntary surrender of Himself, and His present priestly appearance before the face of God with His blood and the treasure of all His merits contained therein, it is this which must be of avail to you. The design of this blood-shedding was the cleansing of your sins; and thus we find it declared in the Gospel, for our use in penitence and faith; thus it was sprinkled over us in Holy Baptism; and thus the Holy Ghost applies it in our daily renovation, bestowing upon us the double benefit of the forgiveness of our sins and the cleansing from all unrighteousness. At every motion of sin in our conscience or in our members, we may, under the influence of the Spirit, apply to this blood and its cleansing virtue, and thus prevent the calling into question or the sundering of our fellowship with God, and that in the power of the power of the high-priesthood of Christ we may ever become and remain nearer to God.”—M.] [Bp. Hall:—As He is Light, so every aberration from Him is darkness; if we then say that we have fellowship with this pure and holy God, and yet walk in the darkness of any sin whatsoever, we belie ourselves, and do not according to that truth which we profess.—M.] [Sermons:— Griffith, M.:—The spiritual antidote to cure our sinful souls. Charnock, Stephen:—The virtues of the blood of Christ. Earle:—The Popish doctrine of purgatory repugnant to the Scripture account of remission through the blood of Christ.—M.] Footnotes: [1 John 1:6. ἐντῷσκότει, in the darkness; so German, Lillie, al., Dutch, Ital., French verss.—M.] [1 John 1:7. ὡςαὐτὸςἐστιν, as He Himself is, etc.; so Meyer, Lillie, Wordsworth, al. Winer: “Among the Greeks, as is well known, αὐτός in the casus rectus does not stand for the mere unemphatic he, nor could any decisive examples of this be found in the N. T.”—M.] μετ̓ἀλλήλων. The best Codd., also Sinait., have this reading; μετ̓αὐτο͂ν is substituted chiefly by Latin Codd., but the less authentic reading, and clearly a correction designed to conform 1 John 5:7 to 1 John 5:6. After ̓Ιησοῦ A. G. K., al. read χριστοῦ, probably on account of 1 John 5:3. [It is omitted by B. C. Sin., al., Lachm., Tischend., Buttm.—M.] καθαρίσει or καθαριεῖ lacks sufficient authority. [Sin. reads ἁμαρτίαςἡμῶν.—M.] [German of the last clause:—“and the blood of Jesus, His Son, cleanseth us from all sin.”—M.] 3. Second Inference.—Perception and Confession of Sins 1 John 1:8-108 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9If We confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10If we say that we have not sinned; we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. AND Connection.—The structure of these verses is unmistakably the same as that of those immediately preceding them: negative (1 John 1:8) and positive (1 John 1:9), while the negation (1 John 1:8) is continued (1 John 1:10) with reference to the positive (1 John 1:9), and the parallel is even indicated in the form: ἐὰνεἲπωμεν. 1 John 1:8; 1 John 1:10. The connection of 1 John 1:8 with the presuppositions at the end of 1 John 1:7 (καθαρίσειἀπὸπάσηςἁμαρτίας) that sin is still inhering in us, is equally unmistakable. But it is just as unmistakable that the perception and confession of sins are here emphatically dwelt upon as following and accompanying the true fellowship with its walk in the Light. The continuance of the Plural form (we, us, our) denotes also the general character both of what is said here and in the preceding verses. After all, we have here a second inference drawn from the leading thought that “God is Light,” (1 John 1:5). 1 John 1:8. Perception of Sin.—If we say, cf. 1 John 1:6, above in Exegetical and Critical. That we have no sin.—̔Αμαρτία in the Singular denotes sin in general; the absence of the Article points out that the reference is neither to a particular sin, nor to the whole, full sin [but to any sin.—M.]. Hence the application of the term to original sin as contrasted with actual sins (peccata actualia), as maintained by Augustine, Bede, Luther, Calvin, Beza, Calov, Baumgarten-Crusius, Neander, Sander and Dόsterdieck, is as inadmissible as that which refers it to a particular sin or a particular kind of sins, as in 1 John 5:16; ἁμαρτίαπρὸςθάνατον, or μὴπρὸςθάνατον, sins of infirmity, light offences, against which so early a writer as Augustine remarks: “Multa levia (peccata) faciunt unum grande.” Nor can ἁμαρτία designate the guilt of sin, as held by Socinus, Episcopius, Lφffler and Grotius, the latter saying: “Habere peccatum non est: nunc in peccato esse, sed: ob peccata reum posse fieri,” nor describe sins committed or inhering anterior to entrance into fellowship with God the Light, where the Greeks Oecumenius, Theophylact and the Scholiasts have the precedence. ̔Αμαρτία is simply sin, nothing more or less, but it is certainly sin. Nor does ἒχομεν make any change in the matter, so as to designate the state “in which sin has not yet wholly disappeared” (Lόcke). But it is less the state which is the result of continued sinning, than the state from which results such sinning, i.e., the state which is not the product of former sin, but the producer of new sin. John says: We have sin, and that denotes, both that original sin gives us still trouble, and that we still do sin in thought, in word and in deed; if not as servants, under the dominion of sin, who looking for reward are in the service of sin, yet by hastiness, infirmity or ignorance, now only suffering it by the force of habit or because of its congenital strength, or again by offering it too little resistance; sin insinuates itself into our good and our good works, even into prayer, partly in affectu (self-love, hardness in firmness, etc.), partly in defectu (gentleness even to parting with virtue, the love of our neighbour, as well as the love of self with fear, etc.). ̔Αμαρτία is a sinful demeanour of any kind, falling away from true, godliness, from that which is well-pleasing to God; here we may name particular inclinations, tendencies, principles, and especially the forms of the life of the imagination [German: Artung des Phantasielebens, an expression of Ebrard, who alludes to the impure representations of a depraved imagination preceding the overt acts of vice and sin.—M.]. This we must not deny. The sentence with its substance and bearing becomes clearer if we take it in connection with περιπατεῖνἐνσκότει. The darkness is the territory of the undivine, well marked off in every direction and containing the whole system of sin,—the sphere of the walk, the life and doings of men. A Christian cannot and may not be said to walk thus in the darkness, but he still has sin. There is still within him a territory which is constantly receiving some kind of admixture from the territory of darkness. He is no longer in sin, but sin is in him; the degrees, indeed, are infinitely different and adjusted to the degree of the cleansing and growth of the inner man. But even John is constrained to say: “We have sin.” We deceive ourselves.—Here we have the Active, not the Middle Voice; ἑαυτὸνπλανᾶν. This form brings out the self-activity which sinks more into the background by the use of the Middle with its Passive form. This brings out a difference like that in the German, “ich selbst δrgere mich—ich δrgere mich selbst.” In the latter case the cause is excluded in others, while in the former it is definitely laid within myself, and thus gives prominence to my own guiltiness, whereas the second case describes only a suffering without any one else’s guilt. The pronoun of the third person εἁυτοῦ in the Plural is used frequently both for the first (Romans 8:23) and the second person (John 12:8). See Winer, p. 163, No. 5. The context removes all doubt that the reference is here to deception, to lying and error, as in 1 John 3:7; Matthew 24:4; Matthew 24:11, and elsewhere. This is also the proper meaning of this verb. It is parallel with ψευδόμεθα of 1 John 1:6, but gives greater prominence to self-guilt; there he lies before others in word or deed, here he lies to himself and this sin works into himself greater perdition. There an unregenerate man wants others to believe that he is a Christian, here a regenerate man deceives himself through pride. [Augustine: Si te confessus fueris peccatorem, est in te veritas: nam ipsa veritas lux est. Nondum perfecte splenduit vita tua, quia insunt peccata: sed tamen jam illuminari c�pisti, quia inest confessio peccatorum.”—M.] And the truth is not in us.—Since deceiving oneself runs parallel with the lying of 1 John 1:6, so this sentence concludes parallel with not doing the truth, (1 John 1:6). The truth, ἡἀλήθεια is to be taken objectively (Dόsterdieck, Ebrard, Huther); the subjective lies in ἐνἡμῖν (Bengel: non in corde, neque adeo in ore”). It is the Divine truth in Christ; the absolute principle of life from God, received into our heart. Hence it is neither studium veri (as maintained by Grotius and Episcopius), nor a truthful disposition (Lόcke), nor the truthfulness of self-knowledge and self-examination, of purity (de Wette), nor that which is true in general (S. G. Lange, Paulus), nor better moral perception, melior rerum moralium cognitio, as Semler interprets. Moreover, the being, the existence of the Divine truth as the principle of life in us is also denied (οὐκἒστιν). Hence this is even stronger than the former οὑποιεῖντὴνἀλήθειαν, 1 John 1:6; the latter is without the deed of the truth, the former without its existence; here the truth being in us is denied, in 1 John 1:6, only its manifestation and expression in our life. 1 John 1:9. Confession of Sins.—If we confess our sins.—The connection of this sentence with the preceding is not like that of 1 John 1:7 with 1 John 1:6, by δὲ, as Luther renders; the negatives of the preceding verse are strongly and abruptly antithetical to the positive of this verse; [Ebrard: “Now follows the second thought-member in a conditional sentence which introduces the opposite case. ̓Εὰνὁμολογῶμεντὰςἁμαρτίςἡμῶν. Here also John scorns a merely tautological repetition; he does not say: ἐὰνὁμολογῶμενὂτιἁμαρτίανἒχομεν, but where he opposes to the negative the positive, Confession, he does not speak of sin in general (as a state), but of definite, concrete, specific sins. For this is the form which the confession of sins must assume, in order to be inwardly true and efficacious. The mere confession in abstracto that we have sin, would be without truth and value and shrink into a hollow phrase, unless it be attended by the perception and acknowledgment of concrete particular sins. It is much easier to make pious speeches concerning repentance and the greatness of the misery engendered by sin, than in a specific case of sin to see one’s wrong, admit and repent it, and to be sorry for it. John requires the latter.”—M.].—The Apostle is not satisfied with εἲπωμεν as before, but uses ὁμολογῶμεν, which is much more comprehensive than the former, and of course involves it as well as the inward opining, thinking, saying and feeling convinced, which finally develops into audible utterance and declaration before men; nor is this all, for it involves the additional particular of confessing one’s guilt before God, and this confession of guilt must be so lively and profound as to become public and ecclesiastically ordained, and stands in nothing behind the former εἰπεῖν. It is therefore not enough to see here only a perception or recognition (Socinus: “Confiteri significat interiorem ac profundam suorum peccatorum agnitionem.” Baumgarten-Crusius: “ὁμολογεῖν is to perceive, to be sensible, and to become conscious of, as contrasted with εἰπεῖνμὴἒχεινἀμαρτὶαν”), or “an inward act grounded in the whole inward bias of the mind” (Neander), all which is taken for granted. Nor is it only the real utterance of sin inwardly identified and confessed to oneself (Huther, Dόsterdieck), for this also is implied as a consequence. Nor must we exclude the acknowledgment before God, and “the confession” ordained for the comfort of a disquieted conscience, from which no truly penitent man will withdraw himself, and which is gladly sought and made by such as are of a contrite heart. [The reference here is to the Lutheran “confession,” which must not be confounded with the R. C. auricular Confession., Luther himself distinguishes three kinds of confession: the first, before God (Psalms 32:6), which is so essential that it ought to be the sum-total of a Christian man’s life; the second, towards our neighbour, and is the confession of love as the former is that of faith (James 5:16. This confession, like the former, is necessary and ordained. The third is that ordered by the Pope to be made secretly into the ears of a priest with an enumeration of sins. Luther condemned compulsory private confession, and left it optional with individuals to determine if, and what they should confess. Still he commends private confession, saying, “it is advisable and good.” The Augsburg Confession, II., IV., says: “Confession has not been abolished in our Churches, and the usage is not to give the Lord’s Body to those who have not been previously examined and absolved,” and Luther in his Larger Catechism supplies a form of confession which is very full of private matters (Catech. Minor., IV., 16–29). The present practice varies in different Lutheran establishments, some retaining private confession, others substituting general confession. The latter custom prevails, I believe, among Lutherans in the United States.—M.].—The proud εἰπεῖν stands in antithesis with the humble ὁμολογεῖν, which includes all the aforesaid particulars. The original ὁμολογεῖν signifies to speak together [hence to hold the same language.—M.], then to accord, assent to, and points to a dialogue between God accusing and reproaching us in our consciences by His Word and His Spirit, and man assenting thereto in humility, faith and prayer, even unto pouring out his heart before loved fellow-men, from his nearest friend to the spiritual guardian of his soul, the servant of the Word, the Minister of the gifts and Steward of the mysteries of God. Hence the object is designated by τὰςἁμαρτίας. The sins are “the particular manifestations of ἁμαρτίανἒχειν” (Huther), “definite, concrete, specific sins” (Ebrard), of whichever kind they may be, lesser and even the least sins, even as repentance goes ever deeper and deeper and attains more clear and distinct perceptions of sin in its endless turns, in its hideousness and wrong. See below on 1 John 1:10, and on 1 John 3:4. He is faithful and righteous.—That is only God the Father (so Lόcke, de Wette and the majority of commentators), who is the ruling subject in the work of redemption, since for Christ’s sake, and through Christ the Mediator, He forgives and makes us happy, although Christ is referred to in 1 John 1:7, and below in 1 John 2:1. The reference to the Father and the Son is inadmissible (J. Lange, Sander, S. Schmid). The subject is not defined, because the reference is to God the Father, who is the principal subject throughout [1 John 1:5-10]. God is faithful, He does not become so through forgiveness consequent upon our repentance. God is faithful because His Essence accords with His workings, and these in all particular manifestations accord with one another and all of them together. The primary reference is to God’s faithfulness towards us, to the truth-and-light-essence which reigns in us, if we confess our sins, and is related to and in accordance with His Own Essence (Ebrard); but to this must be added a secondary reference to His Word with its promises of help, blessings, redemption and remission of sins (Dόsterdieck, Huther, al.), and this secondary reference follows from the context 1 John 1:10, which re-adverts to the Word of God, although it had already been mentioned in 1 John 1:1; 1 John 1:3; 1 John 1:5, and is in perfect harmony with the grammatical usage of both Testaments and the views they express (cf. Psalms 32:3 sqq.; Ezekiel 18:31 sq.; 1 Corinthians 1:9; 1 Corinthians 10:13; 2 Corinthians 1:18-21; 1 Thessalonians 5:24; Hebrews 10:23; Hebrews 11:11). And more than this, the term πιστός, held thus absolute and undefined, has surely a wider bearing. It concerns something which He has produced as Creator and suggested as Regent in dispensations, to which the Father and the Lord have given consciousness in the Word, and which is in perfect harmony with the Light-nature of God. He is faithful to His Own Being, to His doings for, and in man as Creator, Preserver, Governor, Redeemer and Revealer. He is “stiff and firm” (Luther) in cleaving to His holy purpose of grace, that is, His faithfulness; πιστός therefore is not only misericors (S. Schmid). Besides this we have the epithet δίκαιος, righteous, just, which applies to one who acts in accordance with the duties arising from his position; it denotes the disposition and righteousness which gives to every man his due. God is righteous or just when He punishes those who walk ἐνσκότει, 2 Thessalonians 1:5; 2 Thessalonians 1:7, where the reference is to δικαίακρίσις, then He κατακρίνει but blesses those who walk ἐνφωτί, forgiving, cleansing and ultimately glorifying them. It is only the juxtaposition of πιστός and the context which render the limitation of δίκαιος to the judicial character of God with reference to the penitent admissible in this passage. Faithful towards the penitent, agreeably to His Love, His eternal purpose of grace, His Word of promise and His work of redemption, He is also righteous, just, to them as promising them forgiveness and cancelling what is still unrighteous in them in conformity to His appointed laws. Hence δίκαιος is not =bonus, lenis (Grotius, Schφttgen, Rosenmόller, nor = ζquus, benignus (Semler, G. S. Lange, Carpzov, Bretschneider), nor again =πιστός (Hornejus, “in promissis servandis integer”), nor = δικαιῶν (Ebrard). Nor does the righteousness of God appear here as justitia vindicativa, which was revealed in the death of Christ, so that the forgiveness of sins is Christo justa non nobis (Calov), or in that the sinner, appealing to the ransom paid in the blood of Christ, has his sin cancelled, because it would be unjust to insist upon a twofold payment (Sander). Luther’s explanation is excellent; he says, “God is righteous who gives to every man his due and accords to those who confess their sins and believe, the righteousness acquired through the death of Christ, and thus makes thee righteous.” This righteousness of God is closely connected with His faithfulness. But we must guard against the distinction that πιστός relates to peccata mortalia, δίκαιος to peccata venalia, “quia sc. justi per opera p�nitentiζ, caritatis etc. merentur de condigno hanc condonationem” (Suarez). Faithfulness is rather the soil and foundation from which righteousness springs up. [The blessings conferred upon Christians conformably to the δικαιοσύνη of God, are in fulfilment of the Divine promises.—M.]. In Holy Scripture goodness and righteousness, truth and righteousness are syzygies (Nitzsch, System, 6th ed., p. 176). Cf. Psalms 143:1, and notes on 1 John 2:29. To forgive us our sins.—̓ ?̀Ινα is not =ὢστε, so that, or ὂτι with which it alternates, 1 John 1:5, 1 John 3:11. The difference is, whether we have here simply the contents of the message (1 John 1:5), or its purpose (1 John 3:11). The meaning here seems to be: “He is faithful and righteous for the purpose of forgiving. It is His Law and Will to forgive (de Wette), but of course the Will manifests its energy in action (contrary to Huther). [I should prefer putting this with Winer thus: “He is faithful and righteous in order to forgive us,” i.e., the Divine attributes of faithfulness and righteousness are exercised in order to our pardon, as Wordsworth puts it.—M.]. The sins which have been confessed He remits. Pardon, forgiveness of sins, i.e., the cancelling of the debt of sin and its culpability as well as of the consciousness of guilt or of an evil conscience; justification and reconciliation are therefore the first consequence of the confession of sin; the second consequence is: And cleanse us from all unrighteousness.—Neither an epexegetical addition (Semler) nor an allegorical repetition of the preceding (Lange). It is a coφrdinated clause describing sanctification as the continuation of justification, or redemption as the consequent of reconciliation. On καθαρίζειν see notes on 1 John 1:7. Unrighteousness, ἀδικία, is synonymous with ἁμαρτία, and consequently not =p�na peccati (Socinus); the latter denotes the formal, the former the material side of sin; the latter indicates the genesis of sin (or its course of development) which does not coincide with the law, the former the fact of the effect of sin as violating, transgressing and offending against the Law, and on that account liable to punishment and conducing to ruin and perdition. 1 John 1:10. Conclusion.—If we say.—Cf. 1 John 1:8, of which this verse is not merely the repetition, but the intensification and continuation. That we have not sinned goes back to ἁμαρτίανοὐκἒχομεν, but οὐχἡμαρτήκαμεν is a much stronger expression; the former denotes a state or condition of which the latter is the actual expression [1 John 1:10 describes the concrete act, 1 John 1:8 the abstract state—M.]; we have here the conduct (1 John 1:10) in a certain relation (1 John 1:8) in connection with ἀδικία, 1 John 1:9. The use of the Perfect does not warrant an exclusive reference to sins anterior to entrance into the Church (Socinus, Paulus), but denotes active sinfulness reaching down to the present and sins just committed; τὰςἁμαρτίας, 1 John 1:9, show that the separate acts, the actuosity [actuositas—M.] of the ἁμαρτία (1 John 1:8) are here dwelt upon. [Huther: “The Perfect does not prove that ἡμαρτήκαμεν denotes sinning prior to conversion (Soc. Russmeyer, Paulus, etc.); the reference here, as well as in all the preceding verses, is rather to the sinning of Christians; for no Christian would think of denying his former sins. The Perfect is in part accounted for by John’s usus loquendi, according to which an activity reaching down to the present is often expressed by the Perfect tense, and in part by the fact that confession always has respect to sins committed before.—M.] We make Him a liar.—This clause answers to ψευδόμεθα and ἑαυτοὺςπλανῶμεν, but is a much stronger expression; we not only lie for ourselves, we not only deceive ourselves, but we make God (αὐτὸν) a liar, and this takes place not without pride, stubbornness or bitterness even unto blasphemy (cf. John 5:18; John 8:53; John 10:33; John 19:7; John 19:12). He who is πιστός is blasphemed as. ψεύστης, of course only by such men. And His word is not in us, i.e., His word of promise containing the ἀλήθεια, 1 John 1:8; not only the truth and its knowledge are wanting to such persons, but they are also without the Word, the frame and vessel of the truth. As the reference is to Christians, His word probably designates the Gospel of, or concerning Jesus (Socinus, Calov, Neander, Luther, Huther, Dόsterdieck), and not the Old Testament in particular (Oecumenius, Grotius, de Wette, al.), or only the New Testament (Lachmann, Rosenmόller, nor in general the revelation of God absolutely, His entire self-disclosure, including the λόγος, John 1:1 (Ebrard).—It is not stamped into the heart in living characters (Spener), it has remained or become again “outwardly or inwardly strange to us” (Huther); for the regenerate may fall from grace. A man that is not conscious of sin still adhering to him, not conscious, therefore, of the true nature of the holiness for which he was born and born again, cannot be or have been wont to contemplate and examine himself in the mirror of the Divine Law, in the Light of the Divine Word, by the pattern held up to us in the revelation of Jesus Christ. Such a one does actually, carelessly or maliciously accuse of falsehood the Word of God and the God of the Word, who looks upon us sinners and calls us to the consciousness of sin. Such men may remember the Word of God, know it by heart, but it is not to them an animating life-principle and impelling power; it is not extant in their inward life and consciousness. AND ETHICAL1. The want of redemption which is universal is also permanent, which even in the Church of the redeemed has not disappeared (1 John 1:8), although it is disappearing more and more (1 John 1:9). The certainty of the difference between walking in the darkness (περιπατεῖνἐντῷσκότει) and walking in the light (περιπατεῖνἐντῷφωτί) is not greater than the certainty that those who are walking in the light have sin adhering to them (ἁμαρτίανἒχομεν). Vast as is the difference between these two modes and spheres of life, yet the import of the difference among Christians still affected with sin, but experiencing a daily growing redemption from sin, vanishes before the purity of God the Father, no matter how marked and important the difference may be between a John and individual Church members. The perception and cognition of sin, especially of one’s own sin, and the clear consciousness of it in all humility, are indispensable requisites for the walk in the Light. Though your sin, as compared with that of the unregenerate, be light, take care lest you esteem it light. The smallest stain soils a clean garment. If you despise it when you weigh it, be afraid when you count it up. Many little sins make one great sin; many drops make a river. 2. Self-deception is so fearful because it will progress to the denial of the truth and the truthfulness of God and His Word, even to open and formal blasphemy (we lie, 1 John 1:6; we deceive ourselves, 1 John 1:8; we make God a liar, 1 John 1:10). Christians are saints, but only in process of being, and not already complete and perfect. [German:—becoming, not yet become.—M.]. This contradicts the Donatist error. 3. Justification is before sanctification, its antecedent; τὰςἁμαρτίαςἀφιέναι precedes the καθαρίζεινἀποπάσηςἀδικίας (1 John 1:9); this is the fixed order in the kingdom of God.—Both are acts of God; the first an act occurring once only, the second involving the continuous doing of God [the first is a solitary act, the latter a continuing process—M.]. Although the former is only a solitary, momentary act, and not a process like the latter, the former repeats itself whenever there occurs an interruption in the walk in light, or a loosening or sundering of the fellowship with God (1 John 1:9). 4. The forgiveness of sins, as the principal part of justification, consists of different elements: 1. cancelling or diminishing of the punishments of sin; 2. cancelling of the debt of sin and the culpability connected therewith (culpζ et debiti); 3. removal of the consciousness of guilt or of an evil conscience; 4. the inclination of Divine grace to the sinner as actually evidenced in the communication of positive, and especially of spiritual and eternal riches; 5. abrogation of the strength and power of sin, wherewith the blotting out of sin did begin, redemption, loosening from the power of evil, the purification of the reconciled sinner from sin. While the two last elements (Nos. 4. 5) mark the transition from the realm of justification to that of sanctification (καθαρίζειν, 1 John 1:7) that named first and relating to the punishment of sins is so externally related to the subject needing the forgiveness of sins, that its centre may be sought and found only in the other two, viz., the cancelling of the guilt and the removal of the consciousness of guilt, in perfect analogy with the confession of a justified man, as supplied by St. Paul in Romans 5:1-5, a passage which may be called classical in this matter: εὶρήνηνἒχομεν. The centre of the forgiveness of. sins is the non-imputatio peccati. Temporal ills appointed as punishments of sin cease to be punishments to one who has received the forgiveness of sins, they are to him only δοκιμασία or παιδεία; they are not always or altogether cancelled and removed, and are not the worst, particularly as they do not terminate in damnation, ἀπώλεια, whereas guilt and an evil conscience disquiet and cause pain. The forgiveness of sins simply changes the sinner’s relation to and before God, but afterwards there springs up a different conduct of God towards the sinner and of the sinner towards God in sanctification, wherein sins are forgiven and forgotten, the sinner is no longer regarded by God as a sinner, but as another man, and God appears to, and is felt by the sinner no longer as Judge, but as a merciful Father. But such a relationship springing from the forgiveness of sins may indeed be disturbed and impaired and needs therefore repeated renewing and quickening. 5. The factor of the forgiveness of sins is God the Faithful and Righteous with His purpose of grace and its revelation (1 John 1:9). No man can forgive his sins to himself; self-redemption is a lie. Very beautifully says Luther in execrable Latin: “Amor Dei non invenit, sed creat suum diligibile; amor hominis fit a suo diligibili.” 6. The condition of the forgiveness of sins is the confession of sins (ὁμολογεῖντὰςἁμαρτίας) resting upon and conditioned by perception of sins and self-knowledge. After the death of Christ with its sufferings as well as with the proof of His perfect obedience (1 John 1:7) has operated on the sinner’s conscience and caused him by that light to perceive his own sinfulness, and to feel at the same time the mercy of God, as having special regard to, and influence upon him, he ceases in the love of faith in Christ to love himself and sin within himself, is afraid of himself in his ugliness, afraid of sin and its perdition reaching to the bottom of his heart and to eternal damnation, afraid of the wrath of God in the holy energy of holy love, and confesses his sin, which he has discovered, before himself, before God and before men. Thus penitent he not only confesses his sins, but he is also another man, he is regarded as such by God, who now remits to him the debt of sin. This is the initial phase of sanctification, which begins with the forgiveness. The reconciliation of sinners is effected through the reconciliation in the bloody sacrificial death of Jesus, so that as the sons of God by grace, through the Son of God by nature, they make experience of the further communication of His grace, and in virtue thereof grow up into heirs of His glory. This was very correctly perceived by Luther: “Here John meets the objection: ‘What must I do then? my conscience reproaches me with my many sins, and John says, Confess thy sins. Thereby he confounds all such objections as if conscience says: What must I do to be saved? How shall I set about to grow better? Nothing else, says he, but this: Confess thy sins to Him, and pray Him to pardon thy grievous guilt.’ ” “This must be the form of confession,” says Ebrard, “in order to be inwardly true and efficacious.” The mere confessing in abstracto that we have sin, etc. [See above in Exegetical and Critical on 1 John 1:9.—M.] The child after the deed and with his deed, which is evil, is a very different child, if he goes and sorrowfully and truthfully confesses his sins to his father. [“I will arise and go to my Father and will say unto Him, Father, I have sinned against heaven and before thee, and am no more worthy to be called Thy son,” etc. Luke 15:18-19, compared with Luke 1:21-24.—M.] It is wholly unwarranted that the Concil. Trident. XI 1:100:5, p. 37, cites this passage along with Luke 5:14; Luke 17:14; James 5:14, in proof of auricular confession, that auricularis carnificina and alleges “Dominus noster Jesus Christus, e terris ascensurus ad c�los, sacerdotes sui ipsius vicarios reliquit tamquam praesides et judices, ad quos omnia mortalia crimina deferantur.” Likewise ΰ lapide says: “Quam confessionem exigit Johannes? Hζretici solam, quζ fit deo, admittunt; catholici etiam specialem requirunt. Respondeo, Johannem utramque exigere. Generalem pro peccatis levibus, specialem pro gravibus.” Equally unwarranted is the inference drawn in favour of purgatory from καθαρίση as if the forgiveness (αφιέναιτὰςἁμαρτίας) took place here and the cleansing from all unrighteousness (καθαρίζεινἀπὸτῆςπάσηςἀδικίας) not until hereafter in another state of existence; even the reading καθαρίαει would not warrant such a construction. It is Paul’s particular aim to guard his readers against all such false satisfactions and hopes as those in which auricular confession and purgatory entangle men, and pastors and friends also should bear this in mind in private confessions. [See above note on 1 John 1:9.—M.] AND The truth that we are altogether sinners is very bitter, universal in its application and reaches deep. But those who flatter themselves, and think higher and better of themselves than they really are, lose the truth. If you think any thing of yourself, you ruin yourself. God only knows and is able to make something of man. Without the perception of sin no confession of sin, without confession of sin no forgiveness of sin, without forgiveness of sin no cancelling of sin, ergo without grace no salvavation. The denial of our sin and sinfulness will hardly avail with a human judge, but it will ruin us with the Judge Eternal. Without truthfulness and the love of truth you will have no room for God and His word in your heart and lose all susceptibility for them. Be afraid of desiring to know any thing, and especially thy heart, better than God, the Lord. Starke:—We must not look for perfect holiness in this world; those who entertain the fancy that they may be or are perfect are like those who walk on stilts or over precipitous cliffs: before they are aware of it they will fall and come to naught. Whoso seeks righteousness in absolute deliverance from sin, will lose it if he has it already, and never get it if he has it not. Confession of sins before God is necessary to the forgiveness of sins; but we cannot merit forgiveness by confession of sins. The confession of sins is here simply adduced as a sign of hearty, contrite repentance; it comprises all these parts and is founded on a thorough knowledge accompanied by a perfect hatred and detestation of sin; but it must take place without all cloaking and concealment, sincerely and from the heart. Moreover it must take place with the heart and with the mouth, first and foremost before God whom we have offended therewith and who, we hope, may forgive it us; but also before men, whom we have either offended or vexed thereby. It is a congenital fault of men to love making themselves innocent by their own efforts [literally “to burn themselves white”—M.]; but let none act the hypocrite to himself; for God has concluded all under sin, and no man living is righteous before him. Spener:—Those also who walk in the light, stand in fellowship with God and are cleansed by the blood of Christ, have sins adhering to and remaining in them, from which they still require to be cleansed. If God has forgiven your sins, He will also cleanse you from all unrighteousness: now if you desire the one benefit without striving for or refusing to receive the other, you seek to overturn the righteousness of God and therefore cannot get it; for God has ordered that they must remain together. If the word of God is to be profitable to us, it must be kept and planted within us in order that it may be powerful and efficacious in us. [Collect for second Sunday in Advent: “Blessed God, who hast caused all holy Scriptures to be written for our learning: grant that we may in such wise hear them, read, mark, learn and inwardly digest them, that, by patience and comfort of thy holy Word, we may embrace and ever hold fast the blessed hope of everlasting life, which Thou hast given us in our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.”—M.] J. Lange:—If God daily forgives penitents their sins, how much more ought we to forgive one another’s sins; if we have been offended by men and we do not willingly and truly forgive them, neither will God forgive us. If one thinks himself perfectly holy and pure, he comes short of, 1. Daily renovation; 2. The sense of godly poverty of spirit; 3. The daily prayer for the forgiveness of the sins and transgressions he has committed; 4. Spiritual watchfulness and carefulness; 5. Avoiding what may excite his inward desires and appetites; 6. The right use of the means of grace which are appointed for the furtherance of virtue; 7. The proper regard and daily appropriation of the blood of Christ for cleansing from all unrighteousness; 8. Bounden sympathy with, and compassion on his faulty and erring brethren. Thus he will at last fall from the grace of God into abominable selfishness and spiritual pride; and, unless he turn from the error of his ways, into eternal perdition. Whiston:—Although we should like David and Peter fall from fellowship with God, He will, if we humbly and penitently confess those repeated sins and beg for mercy for Christ’s sake, forgive them also and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. We must not however boldly go on sinning, but rather shun sin the more. Heubner.:—The beginning of all wisdom is to know one’s sin. There is a difference between having and doing sin. The first is partly former guilt, partly the remaining bias to sin which misleads us to the commission of many sins of infirmity; the second is living in some master sin, to be wholly the servant of sin. The matter stands thus: God says on every page of His Book: All men, consequently you and I also, are sinners; but man says, I am not a sinner. One or the other therefore must lie. If man denies his sin, he affirms that God has lied in His Word; yea, the whole Christian religion, Christ’s coming into the world would become a lie; for He came for the salvation of sinners—and there would be no sinners! Hence pride, self-righteousness is so dangerous, hateful and loathsome to God, because the proud accuse God of lying. Nitzsch:—I. The warning against the false method of getting acquitted of the burden of our guilt before God. The Apostle warns, 1. Against the false interpretation and depreciation of the law; the precepts, which I have not violated, cannot preserve my righteousness and innocence in the one which I have broken; nor is ignorance of any avail to me, how often I have unconsciously or half-consciously transgressed; more malice may lie concealed in a word than in a deed, and more still in a thought. Knowledge of sin is the only gain we can derive from the law. 2. Against excuses of sin from external or internal circumstances (the world, fate, human nature); we lose more by taking from God what is His, than if we give up all self-praise. Why did you not threaten or entice with God when men threatened or enticed you with the world, and seek to lead those to virtue who wanted to mislead you to vice? and have you always done the good you knew and were able to do? That ignorant sinner remains to be found who has not knowingly transgressed the Divine precepts. 3. Of false satisfactions; for they contain one and all an untrue and unhappy release from the state of guilt. II. The true way of getting acquitted of our guilt before God:1. Ask what the confession of our sins is; and, 2. Consider how on the right confession of sin God the True and Righteous will forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. The man who confesses his sins in Psalms 32, does not make a show of his wickedness, nor regard his transgressions with the fear or carelessness of the natural man, nor say yea to the general situation and complaint, and yet feel his guilt as he feels the regular pulsation of his heart, satisfied with his condition. No, his whole being, thinking, moving and life fully participate in his confession, which insists upon the full act and truth of our separation from sin and the accomplishing of all that to which grace in Christ will lead us. It is full knowledge of sin and of our sin in us; we feel truly the guilt and misery of sin and that sin imperils our life, we confess in despair unto salvation, yet not without faith, but in faith in holy Love. This is the way with the beginning and progress of being cleansed from all unrighteousness. T. A. Wolf:—Of the true constitution of those who live without the knowledge of sin. 1. Its marks: rude security, tender selfishness, self-contented pride. 2. Its consequences: without the light of the truth, without the consolation of forgiveness, without strength for real amendment. 3. Its end: either dying without the knowledge of sin, partly with fearful presumptuousness, partly with a firm courage that might make us doubt our belief, or attaining to a penitent and sincere knowledge of our sin. Krummacher:—The throne of grace—1. Is concealed from ignorant or bad self-righteous men; 2. Unveiled—to believers; 3. Left too soon by levity, idleness, or culpable opinionativeness. Friedrich:—Either God is a liar, or we are altogether sinners. 1. A call to decision as to whether we will believe God’s Word in general or not. 2. A call from sleep whether we will continue to yield ourselves to the dream of self-deception or not. 3. A call of the judgment, whether we will seek the grace of the forgiveness of our sins, or be lost forever. Clauss:—The Confession: 1. What it ?Isaiah 2. What are its effects? Besser:—God grant that the truth be written not only in our confessions, but in our hearts!—No sanctification unless its root be forgiveness; and no forgiveness unless its fruit be sanctification. [Stanhope:—On 1 John 1:9, “That the true purport of this condition be not mistaken, it is fit we remember that nothing is more usual in Scripture than to express a man’s duty by some very considerable branch of it. Thus the whole of religion is often implied in the love or the fear of God; and thus confession here, no doubt, denotes not only an acknowledgment of our faults, but all that deep humility and shame, all that afflicting sorrow and self-condemnation, all that resolution against them, all that effectual forsaking them for the future, all that diligence to grow and abound in the contrary virtues and graces, all that entire dependence on the merits and sacrifice of our crucified Redeemer, all that application of His Word and sacraments ordained to convey this cleansing blood to us, which accompany such acknowledgments, when serious and to the purpose, and which are elsewhere represented as constituent parts of repentance and necessary predispositions to forgiveness. In the mean while, as the mention of this singly was sufficient, so was no part of repentance as proper to be mentioned as this; for it was directed to persons vain and absurd enough to suppose themselves void of sin, and thereby evacuating, so far as in them lie, the whole Gospel of Christ; for the Gospel propounds a salvation to all men, to be obtained only by His death,—a death undergone on purpose that it might propitiate for sin, and consequently a death needless to them who had no sin; a death of none effect to any who do not allow the necessity and trust to the virtue of it, for the remission of their own sins; but to all who do, so beneficial that God can as soon renounce His Word, as disappoint their reasonable expectations. His promise is passed, and He is faithful; the Judge of all the earth cannot but do right; His Son has paid the debt, and He is just; He will not therefore require from the principal what the Surety has already discharged. So sure are we to be happy, if we be but sensible how miserable we have made ourselves; so sure to be miserable, if puffed up with vain confidence in our own real impotence, and insensible that to Jesus Christ alone we owe the very possibility of our being happy.”] [Barrow:—“When from ignorance or mistake, from inadvertency, negligence or rashness, from weakness, from wantonness, from presumption we have transgressed our duty and incurred sinful guilt; then, for avoiding the consequent danger and vengeance, for unloading our consciences of the burden and discomfort thereof, with humble confession in our mouths, and serious contrition in our hearts, we should apply ourselves to the God of mercy, deprecating His wrath and imploring pardon from Him, remembering the promise of John: “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”—M.]. [Sermons: 1 John 1:8-9. Augustine: If we say that we have no sin, etc. Libr. of the Fathers, 20. 947. Trench: Sin forgiven by a faithful and just God. 1 John 1:9. Burnet, Gilbert: God’s readiness to receive returning sinners. Pract. Serm., 2. 321. Hook, W. T.: Auricular Confession. Controversies of the Day, 187.—M.]. Footnotes: 1 John 1:8. [ German: “If we say that we have not gin,” but the rendering of E. V. is better and idiomatically more correct, for ἁμαρτίανἒχειν is to have sin, and ἁμαρτίανοὑκἒχειν denotes to have no sin, to be absolutely free from it.—M.] ἐνἡμῖνοὐκἒστιν A. C. K. al. [Lachm., Tischend., Wordsw.—M.] is a more authentic reading than οὐκἒστινἐνἡμῖν B, G. al. Sin. Vulg.; which is probably a correction according to 1 John 5:10. 1 John 1:9. [German: “He is faithful and righteous to forgive us the sins.” δίκαιος “ocurs other five times in this Epistle, and is always in E. V. so rendered. The opposition, moreover, between God as δικαιος and the ἀδικία from which the Church is cleansed, is lost in E. V.” Lillie.—The omission of our, supplied in E. V., is idiomatic German, but hardly English.—M.] ἠμῶν, Cod. Sin., but otherwise feebly sustained, is probably added from the first clause of the verse. καθαρίσει A. al. [perhaps also in C**] cannot be received as the original reading. καθαρίση has the the weightier authority of Sin. B. The Third Inference.—Reconciliation and Redemption1 John 2:1-21 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man 2sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. AND Connection.—Luther is prepared to call him a theologian who is able to show the consistency and agreement of this passage. He agrees however with Augustine, who says: “Et ne forte impunitatem videretur dedisse peccatis, quia dixit: fidelis est et Justus, qui mundet nos ab omni iniquitate, et dicerent jam sibi homines: peccemus, securi faciamus, quod volumus, purgat nos Christus,—tollit tibi malam securitatem et inserit utilem timorem. Male vis esse securus, solicitus esto; fidelis enim est et justus, ut dimittat nobis delicta nostra, si semper tibi displiceas et muteris, donec perficiaris. Ideo quod sequitur? filioli.—Sed forte surrepit de vita humana peccatum, Quid ergo fiet? Jam desperatio erit? Audi. Si quis, inquit, peccaverit, etc.” So Bede, Calvin, Calov, Dόsterdieck. [Alford thinks that there is more in the connection than this: “It is not corrective only of a possible mistake, but it is progressive—a further step taken in the direction of unfolding the great theme of this part of the Epistle, enounced in 1 John 1:5. The first step for those walking in the light of God was, that they should confess their sins: the next and consequent one, that they should forsake them, and agreeably to their new nature, keep His commandments. This verse introduces that further unfolding of our subject, which is continued, and especially pressed as regards the one great commandment of love, in our 1 John 2:3-11.”—M.]. The difficulty lies not so much in the sequence of ideas as in the ethical relation and agreement of the points under consideration, viz.: the grace of God and reconciliation through Christ, the universality and power of sin and man’s wrestling with it. On the one hand, the aid of God and Christ must neither make us disheartened in the struggle with sin, nor render us confident that we are sure to have it, and, on the other, the power of sin must not terrify us as if all were in vain. 1 John 2:1 a. Call to the contest. My little children.—Thus “tum propter ζtatem suam, turn propter paternam curam et affectum” (Hornejus), and because he was their spiritual father (Galatians 4:9), and as John called out to the lapsed youth (Euseb. H. E. III, 23); τὶμεφεύγεις, τέκνοντὸνσαυτοῦπατέρα; Lorinus (“Diminutiva nomina teneri ac blandientis sunt amoris signa”). So 1 John 2:12; 1 John 2:28; 1 John 3:18; 1 John 4:4; 1 John 5:21, only μου is certain, but in 1 John 3:18, it is uncertain. Here, just in view of the danger, the most tender and heartfelt love is awake. These things write I.—The Plural ταῦτα (not τοῦτο), has respect, not to a particular point, but to the whole in its vital harmony. We should be eager for the contest with sin, because God is light; because walking in the light is the preservative of our fellowship with God, and the means of deriving the benefits of the blood of Christ; because we must not deny having sin, and because God will gladly rid us of it. That ye sin not.—This is the design of his writing. Sinning applies to particular sins, not to small faults and inadvertencies only which would properly be no sins; they might, gradually fall even into mortal sin (1 John 5:16). It is neither = peccatis manere (Socinus, Episcopius), still less = to continue unbaptized (Lφffler). 1 John 2:1 b. The aid. And if any man sin [better: and if any one sin.—M.].—Not an antithesis (Vulg. δὲ), but simple copulation (καὶ); since even in zeal against sin there ever recurs the indubitable case of sinning (ἐάντις cf. the note on 1 John 1:6). [ἐὰν simply admits the possibility of sinning—M.]. Both fighting against sin and sinning, go always together. The reference is general, and hence the apostle continues in the Plural. But the apostle does not affirm an inward necessity, that it must be so, as Calvin supposes: nam fieri non potest, quin peccemus; it may be so in fact, but the conditional particle must not be turned into a causal. Socinus also disfigures the thought; “si quis peccat, i.e., post Christum agnitum, et professionem nominis ipsius adhuc in peccatis manet, necdum resipuit.” The note of time and the intensification of the thought, are purely arbitrary; “for, on the one hand, a true Christian may sin, but he cannot remain in sins, and on the other, to one remaining in sins Christ is not the παράκλητος” (Huther). “If any one sin—not with the wilfulness of sin, but in spite of the will of his mind, which says no when sin is present.” (Besser). We have an advocate with the Father.—On παράκλητος see Lange on John 14:16 Vol. IV. p. 311 sq. [German edition.—M.]. The word has here undoubtedly a Passive sense, viz.: advocatus, orator, causζ patronus (Luther, Vormund), intercessor. Its application to Christ, although its application in the Gospel, is limited to the Holy Spirit (John 14:16; John 14:26; John 15:26; John 16:7), is anticipated in the first of these passages by the words ἄλλοςπαράκλητος; Christ is also Paraclete, the Holy Ghost only another Paraclete; this is clear from the context. [“Christ is the real παράκλητος, the Holy Ghost His substitute” Huther.—M.]. Here Christ is παράκλητοςπρὸςτὸνπατέρα (cf. on 1 John 1:2), there the Holy Ghost is μεθ’ ὑμῶνεἰςτὸναἰῶνα. The Holy Ghost carries on the work of Christ in His followers, the world with its threatenings notwithstanding, but Christ pleads the cause of His followers before God the Father, interceding for them with Him, even as Hebrews 4:14-16; Hebrews 7:25-28; Hebrews 8:1 sqq.; Col. 9:24, relate to a transaction between the Father and the Son. The ὑπερεντυγχάνειν of the Holy Ghost, Romans 8:26, is a different matter, and does not affect the difference marked by John. The apostle says Father, not God, because the new relation into which those who are reconciled through Christ have been translated, is assumed as already existing; hence not only because the Son intercedes with Him, but because He intercedes for believers who, through Him, have become τέκνατοῦθεοῦ (1 John 3:1-2). The activity of the Paraclete is ἐντυγχάνεινὑπὲρἡμῶν (Romans 8:34; Hebrews 7:25).—Ἔχομεν indicates two things. 1. The Plural, as in 1John 1, 6 sqq., denotes the general character of the intercession and the universal want of Christians of such an intercessor. Augustine’s note is capital: “Non dixit: habetis, nec: me habetis dixit, sed et Christum posuit, non se, et habemus dixit, non habetis. Maluit se ponere in numero peccatorum, ut haberet advocatium Christum, quam ponere se pro Christo, advocatum et inveniri inter damnandos superbos.” [The same Father says in the same connection after the words cited at the head of this section under Connection: “Ille est ergo advocatus: da operam tu ne pecces: si de infirmitate vitζ subrepserit peccatum, continuo vide, continuo displiceat, continuo damna; et cum damnaveris, securus ad judicem venies. Ibi habes Advocatum: noli timere ne perdas causam confessionis tuζ. Si enim aliquando in hac vita committet se homo disertζ linguζ et non perit: committis te verbo et periturus est?”—M.]. 2. The Present indicates that the intercession is continued and permanent in its operation. Jesus Christ the Righteous.—Δίκαιος is evidently put in antithesis to the still sinning children of God, and is not=ἅγιος, innocens et sanctus (a Lapide), but His sinlessness and holiness as manifested in His life, “righteous, unblemished and sinless” (Luther). While the sense of bonus, lenis suggested by Grotius is too weak here, as also in 1 John 1:9, that given by Ebrard=δικαιῶν, says too much, and is incorrect, because it is not the province of the intercessor to δικαιοῦν, and that of Bede, who says, “justus advocatus, injustas causas non suscipit,” is equally inadmissible, because δίκαιος is not the adjective belonging to παράκλητον. Nor can it be taken in the sense of “fidelis et verax” (Socinus), like πίστος 1 John 1:9. It corresponds exactly with the description of the interceding High-priest, Hebrews 7:26; cf. 1 Peter 3:18. Moreover here, where we have neither χριστὸν alone, nor υἱοῦαὐτοῦ, but χριστὸν, preceded by ’Ιησοῦν, with emphatic force, the reference is not to the λόγοςἄεαρκος, but to the λόγοςἔνσαρκος, who has shed His blood (1 John 1:7). For both in Hebrews 7:25 sqq.; 1 John 4:14 sqq., and Romans 8:34, the intercession of Christ is connected with His suffering on the Cross, as part of His high-priestly work and office. If Grotius supplies, and on the strength of 1 John 5:16; Galatians 6:1; 2 Corinthians 2:6, puts after ἐάντιςἁμάρτῃ “Et se ecclesiζ regendζ sanandζque tradiderit” remarking, “non dicit: habet ille advocatum, sed ecclesia habet, quζ pro lapso precatur,” and “preces ecclesiζ Christus more advocati deo patri commendat,” (John 16:26,) it is not a Spiritu Sancto, sed a Grotiana audacia, as Calov expresses himself. The Plural ἔχομεν does not involve the idea of the Church, but designates rather every individual, even the most advanced Christian, for every one is the object of our holy Saviour’s intercession. And this very thing is the comfortable help vouchsafed to those who fight against sin.—All this shows that Christ, who died for us and is now at the right hand of the Father, is our Advocate pleading the cause of every Christian with the Father, provided that, clearly and profoundly conscious of his guilt, he appear before God as a penitent, and fight manfully against the sin in his heart. Christ, as the Sinless and Righteous One, lays before the Father the supplication of the penitent sinner, supported by His intercession, and as He has died for him on the cross, as He has wooed and drawn him to Himself to walk in light, so He desires to preserve him therein, and to aid him towards the attainment of sanctification, in the continued activity of an advocate in glory, even as He did intercede for His followers in the days of His humiliation (John 17:9; Luke 22:32; Luke 23:34). 1 John 2:2. The assurance. And He is the Propitiation, for our sins.—Καὶ is here the simple copula, which adds a further particular, and, therefore, neither=quia (a Lapide), nor=nam (Beza). This particular relates to the Person of the Intercessor (καὶαὐτος=et ipse, idemque) and is of perpetual validity and operation (ἐστὶ), like and parallel to the preceding ἔχομενπαράκλητον. The word ἱλασμὸς occurs only here and in 1 John 4:10, and there also connected with περὶἀμαρτιῶνἡμῶν. The verb ἱλάσκεσθαι is also found in a Passive sense, Luke 18:13 : ἱλάσθητίμοιτῷἁμαρτωλῷ, where the reflexive sense is not wholly quiescent; be (become thou) mercifully disposed, suffer thyself to be mercifully disposed, it is consequently ἵλεωνγενέσθαι, propitium fieri. Or with the obliteration of the reflexive force peculiar to the Middle, it has an Active sense, e.g., Hebrews 2:17 : ἱλάσκεσθαιτὰςἁμαρτίαςτοῦλαοῦ, to atone, expiate for the sins of the people, expiare. In classical Greek ἱλάσκεσθαι denotes only propitium facere aliquem, indicating the attempt of the pagan sacrifices to reconcile God. In Holy Scripture, and especially in the New Testament, God is not reconciled by us, but reconciles, as we learn from the instructive passage, 2 Corinthians 5:18-19, cf. Colossians 1:20; Ephesians 2:16. Man is καταλλαγείς, God only καταλλάξας, ἀποκαταλλάξαςἑαυτῷ, εἰςαὐτόν. In Clement Rom. we find already ἐξιλάσκεσθαιτὸνθεόν, but it does not occur in a canonical writing. The Socinians have not overlooked this. Schlichting says: “Non est ergo cur quispiam ex hac placandi voce concludat, deum a Christo nobis fuisse placatum” (see Delitzsch, Note on Heb., p. 97). The same view is very distinctly contained in our parallel passage, 1 John 4:10 : αὐτὸςἠγάπησενἡμᾶςκαὶἀπέστειλεντὸνυἱόναὑτοῦἱλασμὸνπερὶἁμαρτιῶνἡμῶν, God the Father has constituted the propitiation by sending there for His Son. He Himself is the propitiation, which comprises the High-priest and the sacrifice. For according to Kόhner 1, §. 378, p. 418, ἱλασμὸς denotes “the intransitive relation of the stem verb.” It is, therefore, neither=ἰλαστήρ (Grotius, al.), for He is also the propitiatory sacrifice, nor=ἱλαστήριον (Bengel, Lόcke, de Wette al.), for He is the Agent accomplishing the propitiation (or expiation). As He is the Light of the world, the Truth, the Life, the Way in Himself, and not only has, shows or brings it, so He is Himself the Propitiation; it is “really existing in His Person” (Dόsterdieck); He is “not the Reconciler or Propitiator through something external to Him, but through Himself” (Lόcke). Thus He is called our ἁγιασμός, 1 Corinthians 1:30; cf. 2 Corinthians 5:21.—Nor is He ἱλασμὸςθεοῦ, but περὶτῶνἁμαρτιῶνἡμῶν. The sins are the points with which the propitiation is concerned, to which it has reference (περί); neither substitution is mentioned here, nor the manner and means how this propitiation is accomplished and brought about. John evidently designates church-members by ἡμῶν (fidelium, as Bengel explains the word); he writes to Christians, not to Jews. The sequel also simply contrasts Christians and non-Christians. Bengel justly observes with reference to 1 John 5:19 : “quam late patet peccatum, tam late propitiatio.” On that account the apostle adds: Yet not for ours only, but also for the whole world.—Here is simply oratio variata. He might have said: ἀλλὰκαὶπερὶτῶνὅλουτοῦκόσμου, joining what precedes with ἁμαρτιῶν, or connecting before with ἱλασμός, οὐπερὶἡμῶνδὲμόνον, which would answer to the conclusion as it stands. See Winer p. 599; [also Appar. Crit. 1 John 2:2; 1 John 2:2.—M.]. A similar variation is found Hebrews 9:7. The point is, therefore, not breviloquence (Ebrard), nor the supplying of τῶν (Grotius, de Wette, Dόsterdieck). Nor was it because of the evil inhering in the κόσμος, since it is equally applicable to Christians (contrary to Huther). The Apostle’s design was manifestly to show the universality of the propitiation, in the most emphatic manner, and without any exception. This renders any and every limitation inadmissible. We must not except with Calvin the reprobos, because of predestination; it is rather the double decretum absolutum which is here excluded. Neither is it admissible to take κόσμος as ecclesia electorum per totum mundum dispersa (as Bede does), nor to explain it of the heathen only (Oecumenius, Cyrillus, Hornejus, Semler, Rickli). In like manner we must not think only of the apostle’s age, but rather of the totality of unbelieving mankind in general (Spener, Paulus, de Wette, Lόcke, Sander, Neander, Dόsterdieck, Huther). As in 1 John 1:7, the work of Christ extends to all the sins of His people, so it extends here to the sin of the whole world, without distinguishing between contemporaneous and successive generations (Baumgarten-Crusius), or finding here any reference to the difference between sufficientia and efficacia. This renders it also perfectly clear that while Christ is the Paraclete of believing penitent Christians only, His propitiation has respect to, and is sufficient for all men in general. The idea of παράκλητος is, therefore, not wider than and including ἱλασμὸς, as Bede supposes [“advocation habemus apud patrem qui interpellat pro nobis et propitium eum ac placatum peccatis nostris reddit.”—M.]; or, vice versa, ἱλασμὸς is not the wider idea including παράκλητος (de Wette, Rickli, Frommann); the two ideas are rather cφordinate, yet so that παράκλητος, pre-supposes ἱλασμὸς; Christ has made a propitiation sufficient for all men. He is Himself the propitiation, and would fain appear before the Father as the Paraclete of all men. There are two different parts of the Redeemer’s work, each having its real mode of action and effect, but of course in an ethical life-sphere. AND ETHICAL1. The frontiers of Christianity. Systems which, like Pelagianism, do not acknowledge the necessity (ἐάντιςἁμάρτῃ) or like Manichaeism with its fundamental dualism, deny the possibility (ἵναμὴἁμάρτητε) of redemption, if the question bears on the objects of redemption, and systems which, like Ebionism, deny the Divinity (δίκαιον), or in the opposite case, like Docetism, the humanity (’Ιησοῦν) of the Redeemer, if the question bears on the subject of redemption; such systems are wholly foreign to Christianity. 2. Of Christ. a. Sinlessness and holiness is the fundamental trait of His Being. He requires neither an expiation nor the help of an advocate, but He makes the one and accords the other. b. His work on earth is indicated by His being ἱλασμὸςπερὶτῶνἁμαρτιῶνἡμῶν—καὶὅλουτοῦκόσμου. This implies, α. As He is δίκαιος, and according to 1 Corinthians 1:30 : σαφία—δικαιοσύνητεκαὶἁγιασμὸςκαὶἀπολύτρωσις, so He is Himself, so there is existing in Him, also ἱλασμός; and beside Him and without Him there is no propitiation for our sins. β. As He only is δίκαιος, and all men ἄδικοι, so it is He only who has made and does make a propitiation for all men; this affirms the universality of the only ἱλασμὸς. γ. The atonement extant relates to the sins which violate the majesty of God, disturb the holiness of the order of His Kingdom, and are the products of an enmity to the Glorious One, so that they arouse the reaction of the ὀργὴ; and therefore, as distinguished from καταλλαγή, reconciliation which bears on sinners and creates a disposition, reconciliatio, ἱλασμὸς is to be taken in the sense of atonement, propitiation [or expiation] expiatio, and as regulating a disturbed relationship. Expiation renders quiescent the ὀργὴτοῦθεοῦ, whereas reconciliation allays the enmity of man in his ἁμαρτία, cf. Nitzsch, System § 135. δ. The effect of the ἱλασμὸς is that he, whose sins are expiated, ceases to belong to the κόσμος, but not irresistibly, nor by a physical process, but only as a real beginning and supporting foundation, on which we must take our stand, and progress, in order that the καταλλαγή may ensue, and that we may become partakers thereof; in our ethical demeanor we must do our part whenever occasion and aid are afforded us, otherwise we shall lose the ground of salvation, the beginning of blessedness, and the receptivity for the same. But our passage is silent as to the manner how it is done; even the αἶμα (1 John 1:7) is tacitly pre-supposed. Nor may an inference respecting substitution be drawn from this passage, as Nitzsch (System, p. 284) has done. η. Christ is and remains the ἱλασμός—both for all sins and the sins of all, and for all ages and generations; His atonement is permanent in its operativeness. Not only in a general way, but the individual, every individual, is the object of expiation and reconciliation. This passage teaches the predestination of the salvation of all men. c. His work in heaven is indicated by παράκλητοςπρὸςτὸνπατέρα; which imports, α. That it concerns a work after His entrance into His original glory, consequently that which the glorified Redeemer does for us in heaven; He is not only a historical person and power, whose influence is felt for centuries, like Luther and his reformation, and the Greeks with their civilization, but He is an ever living person above, and at the same time in the world’s history. β. Jesus, the Christ, is consequently the Paraclete, not only as to His Divine, or as to His human nature, but in His Divine-human person in its glory with the Father. γ. This work concerns our need of help remaining after our expiation and reconciliation effected by Him on earth, which need of help consists in our repeated sinning anew, and the consequent peril threatening anew our filοal relation to God the Father effected by him; He desires “to cancel again the effects of our sins on our relation to God,” (Hofmann, Schriftbeweis 11, 1, p. 545), on the object of this work, are “believers still sinning in their walk in the light” (Huther), and that without any exception. δ. This work of the exalted Redeemer is an intercession for Christians belonging to Him in faith; it is a real work of the Lord, since He not only silently waits for the effects of His reconciliation, but is actively engaged in pressing His merit with the Father, and that, as a vocalis et oralis intercessio. Our passage excludes all the intercessions of Romanism, those of the Virgin Mary, and of all the saints, who, as well as St. John, stand in need of intercession. See Conf. Aug. XXI., Apol. XXI. 10, sqq. For the saints are not deprecatores, still less propitiatores, ut orent, non tamen invocandi. It also dismisses the “grossly sensuous view” combated by Calvin when he says: “nimis crasse errare eos, qui patris genibus Christum advolvunt, ut pro nobis oret;” the intercessio is not humilis. But it is equally false to regard it as only symbolical, as nuda interpretiva (per ostensa merita), as Bede does, or only as the continuing effect of the work of redemption consummated by Christ in His death (Baumgarten-Crusius). Unfounded is the view of Kφstlin (Lehrbegriff, pp. 31, 192), who understands παράκλητος to denote the eternal High-priest, who does not pray, but, as the Father for His sake loves also those who believe in Him, directly excludes intercession, because John 16:26 expressly deprecates ἐρωτᾷνπρὸςτὸνπατέραπερὶὑμῶν. The intercession of the Paraclete, which contemplates the perfection of believers and their preservation in the Sonship, must be well distinguished from the asking intercession of the High-priest, which contemplates the acceptance of the Sonship, cf., Lange on John 16:26, Vol. 4, p. 343, n. 16. [German edition, M.]. 3. Of Christians. a. Sinfulness continues even in the most advanced Christians, and manifests itself in the constant recurrence of particular sins. b. The warfare against sin, however, is earnestly insisted upon. John does not say whether it is possible to a believer not to sin; nor does he say that he must sin (Calvin: “nam fieri non potest, quin peccemus”), but demands that Christians should strive not to commit sin. The Apostle’s love of the Church (τεκνίαμου) constrains him to charge them not to sin, because those who sin not, keep themselves, (τηρεῖἐαυτὸν, 1 John 5, 18) preserve their sonship with God and their regeneration (1 John 3, 6, 9). He views sin as man’s ruin and ungodliness. c. The Christian requires no other human mediator, or priest; he has become spiritual himself, and no longer secular, himself a priest and not a layman. These antitheses vanish to those who live in faith in Christ the Redeemer, do every thing through Him and for His sake, and refer every thing to Him. AND Sin should not be denied, but fought and conquered. Seek with Jesus the Sinless One for true humility in the knowledge of thy sin, and thou wilt find with Him the right courage to overcome thy sin. As thy perception of sin grows more keen, thy sensibility even of the most secret and most trifling sin more acute and delicate, thy sorrow for sin more profound, thy struggle with it more desperate, so thy perception of the Saviour’s life and work will also grow more keen, thy hearing of God’s still small voice more acute, thy joy over the cleansing power of His word and work more profound, the Lord’s victory over thee and thy triumph with Him more certain. Although a man sanctify himself, he still sins. It is Jesus Christ, the Righteous, in His glory, who prays for the fallen, for an unrighteous world, that cannot forgive and forget any thing that judges and condemns. The demand not to sin is not devoid of consolation, if we do sin; but he only that strives to satisfy the demand will be satisfied with the consolation. Never forget that Christ has expiated sin, and that He had to expiate it, and thou wilt take a serious view of sin. Augustine:—“Ibi habes advocatum, noli timere, ne perdas causam confessionis tu�. Si enim aliquando in hac vita committit se homo disertζ linguζ et non perit, committis te verbo et periturus es?” Luther:—The righteousness of Jesus Christ is on our side; for the righteousness of God is ours in Jesus Christ.—It is a certain fact, that thou art a part of the world: lest perchance thy heart might deceive thee and say: “The Lord died for Peter and Paul—not for me!” Starke:—Teachers should deal with their hearers as a father deals with his children; but then the hearers should so demean themselves that such a course is possible.—Whoso serves the Church of Christ with his writings, should examine himself as to the motive which prompts him; if he does unite with the motive of ambition or covetousness, it is sin to him; but if his motive is really and truly the glory of God, and he desires to make his gifts useful to men, it is well-pleasing to God.—Blessed consolation! Christ is our advocate and spokesman, who has taken our cause in hand! Rejoice, ye tempted ones! there is no danger. Our Saviour claims His right.— Heubner:—The Christian promises of grace are holy and not designed to abet idleness; they are not given to careless and hardened sinners, but to sorrow-stricken, contrite and penitent sinners.—Here is expressly taught Christ’s intercession for His people. It is of infinite value before God, because it is the intercession of the Righteous, of the perfectly Holy One, who may dare to intercede with God. [Cranmer, Abp.:—“Christ was such an High Bishop, that He, once offering Himself, was sufficient by one effusion of His blood to abolish sin unto the world’s end. He was so perfect a Priest, that by one oblation He purged an infinite heap of sins, leaving an easy and ready remedy for all sinners, that His one sacrifice should suffice unto all men that would not show themselves unworthy, and He took unto Himself not only their sins, that, many years before were dead and put their trust in Him, but also the sins of those, that until His coming again, should truly believe His gospel. So that now we may look for none other Priest or sacrifice to take away our sins, but only Him and His sacrifice. And as He dying once was offered for all, so, as much as pertained to Him, He took all men’s sins unto Himself.”—M.]. [Church Homilies:—“All men are God’s creation and image, and are redeemed by Christ.”—M.] [Beveridge:—“If any man’s sins be not pardoned—it is not for want of sufficiency in Christ’s sufferings, but by reason of his own obstinacy or negligence in not performing the conditions required for applying the sufferings of the human nature in Christ unto his own particular person. For seeing that that death, which was threatened to all mankind in the first Adam, was undergone by the whole nature of man in the second: hence all particular persons comprehended under that general nature, are capable of receiving the benefit of those sufferings, if they will but apply them rightly to themselves.”—M.]. [Barrow:—“The whole world is here mentioned in contradistinction from all Christians to whom St. John speaketh in this place: that the whole world of which he says below, that it ‘lieth in wickedness.’ Ch. 5, 19. In this and in various other places, where Jesus is called the Saviour of the world, that the world, according to its ordinary acceptation, and as every man would take it at first hearing, doth signify the whole community of mankind, comprehending men of all sorts and qualities, good and bad, believers and infidels; not, in a new unusual sense, any special restrained world of some persons, particularly regarded or qualified, will, I suppose, easily appear to him, who shall, without prejudice or partiality, attend to the common use thereof in Scripture, especially in St. John, who most frequently applieth it as to this, so to other cases or matters.”—M.]. [Neander:—“What now is the practical significance of this truth, that Christ, the Holy, is our ever-abiding Advocate with the Father? To this perpetual mediation through the living Christ, to His ever-abiding priesthood for those who are reconciled to God through Him, corresponds the ever-remaining need of mediation in believers, their constant dependence, upon the priesthood of Christ, in union with whom they are a generation consecrated to God. Under every feeling of sin and infirmity, in all their temptations and conflicts, they may securely trust in their indissoluble union with this Divine human Personage, who Himself has felt all their necessities, and is near to them in the intimate sympathy of perfect love. Moreover, their whole inward and outward Christian life, flowing as it does from this sense of continual need of redemption, will take its character from this ever-continuing mediation of Christ, and their own conscious connection therewith.”—M.]. [1 John 2:1. Bunyan, John: The work of Jesus Christ as an Advocate, clearly explained and largely improved, for the benefit of all believers. Many editions. Charnock, Stephen: The Intercession of Christ. Works, 8, p. 1. Fuller, A.: Christianity the Antidote to presumption and despair. Sermons, 326. Hook, W. F.: Jesus Christ the Righteous. Sermons, 307. 1 John 2:1-2. Crisp, T.: Sermons, 2, pp. 251–386. Revelation of grace no encouragement to sin. The faithful Friend at the bar of justice. Christ’s advocateship for all the elect. Christ’s righteousness only dischargeth the sinner. The act of believing is not our righteousness. Faith the fruit of union. Christ alone our Mercy-seat. Beveridge, Bp.: The satisfaction of Christ explained. Works, 4. 162. Seabury, Bp.: The atonement of Christ. Disc. 2. 113. M.]. Footnotes: [1 John 2:2. καὶαὐτὸς—ἐστι. “And He is Himself.” Lillie: “Here the emphatic or exclusive force of αὐτὸς is important. He is the only propitiation for sin. The penitent may trust the Advocate who, righteous Himself, died for him. Such an Advocate God will hear.” The emphatic force is retained by Tyndale, Cranmer, Geneva (he it is that); Syr. Latin versions except Castal. (ipse), German (the same); French vss. (c’est lui qui) Bengel (ipse. Hoc facit epitasin. paracletus valentissimus, quia ipse propitiatio).—Lachmann following A. B. Vulg. places ἐστι before ἱλασμός.—M.] [German: “But also for the whole world.” Winer, p. 599, specifies this clause as an instance of oratio variata, pointing out that in περἰτῶνἀμαρτιῶνἡμῶν, οὐπερὶτῶνἡμετέρωνδὲμόνονἀλλὰκαὶπερὶὅλουτοῦκόσμου, instead of the last words περὶτῶνὅλουτοῦκόσμου, or instead of the first περὶἡμῶν might have been used.—M.] 5. Mark of the walk in the light. Obedience to the commandments of God, especially brotherly love1 John 2:3-113 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. 4He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 5But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him. 6He that saith he abideth in him 7ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked. Brethren, I write no new commandment unto you, but an old commandment which ye had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word which ye have heard from the beginning. 8Again, a new commandment I write unto you, which thing is true in him and in you; because the darkness is past, and the true light now shineth. 9He that saith he is in the light, and hateth his brother, is in darkness even until now. 10He that loveth his brother abideth in the light, and there is none occasion of stumbling in him. 11But he that hateth his brother is in darkness, and walketh in darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth, because that darkness hath blinded his eyes. AND The Connection. The call to the contest with gin on the ground of the Saviour’s antecedent propitiation and lasting intercession is connected with this section of the mark of the true knowledge of and fellowship with God, as that of vital Christianity: see whether thou really art the object of the intercession of the Sinless One with Him who is Light! The mala securitas and the utilis timor move the Apostle to set this section with the given marks of a true Christian into close connection with the immediately preceding section of the atonement for the sins of the whole world, and namely, as a link in the chain of thoughts depending on 1 John 2:5.: “That God is Light.” His object is to excite a salutary, moral seriousness of purpose in his readers; their obedience to the commandments of God, and especially their practice of brotherly love are given to them as tokens by which they may determine whether they are really in God’s kingdom of grace. He warns, therefore, “against the false security of a show-Christianity,” and guards his churches “against false confidence and carnal security” (Neander); similar are the views of the greater number of commentators, from Episcopius and Calov down to Dόsterdieck, who, however, confines himself to pointing out the dependence of this section also on the leading thought in 1 John 1:5-6, while the former take too narrow views of the connection with 1 John 2:1-2. The copula καὶ denotes the close connection and appurtenance of the sequel to the preceding section. Hence it is not correct to make here the beginning of a new section, (Sander: “Having thus far spoken of the proofs of salvation, he now proceeds to exhort his readers to its preservation”), or to connect with 1 John 1:5-6 (Huther). Obedience to the commandments of God is the general characteristic of true Christianity, (1 John 2:3-6). 1 John 2:3. And hereby we know.—John uses ἐντούτῳ in order to refer to the sequel, as here, 1 John 3:16; 1 John 3:19; 1 John 3:24; 1 John 4:9-10; 1 John 4:13; 1 John 4:17; 1 John 2:2, or to the preceding, as in 1 John 2:5; 1 John 3:10; the reference is generally plain from the context. In the former case the Apostle is wont to indicate the mark whereby we know, by the addition of the preposition ἐκ (1 John 4:13), or by ὅτι (1 John 3:16; 1 John 3:19; 1 John 4:9-10), or ἵνα (1 John 4:17), or ἐὰν (1 John 2:3; 1 John 2:5), or ὅταν (1 John 5:2), according as he wants to supply either “a really existing, historically given and objectively sure token” (Dόsterdieck), on one only ideally existing and described as possible or conditional. The Apostle, who lays a strong emphasis on knowing, understands to express in writing the different shades of thought with the same nicety and correctness. [“John uses the formula ἐντούτῳγινώσκομεν first as referring the demonstrative pronoun back to what has gone before, as e.g. in our 1 John 2:5, and in 1 John 3:10. If, however, the demonstrative pronoun in this or a like formula, looks onward, and the token itself, with the circumstance of which it is a token, follows, he expresses this token variously and significantly, according to the various shades of meaning to be conveyed. Sometimes the token implied in the demonstrative, follows in a separate sentence, as in 1 John 4:2; sometimes the construction is slightly changed, and the sentence begun with ἐντουτῳ is not regularly brought to a close, but continued in a new and correlative form; e.g. 1 John 3:24, where ἐντούτῳγινώσκομεν is taken up by ἐκτοῦπν. And this way of expression is closely parallel to that where ὅτι completes the construction begun with ἐντούτῳ. So 1 John 3:16; 1 John 3:19; 1 John 4:9-10; 1 John 4:13. In these cases the full objective reality of the token, as a fact, is set forth. It is an undoubted fact that He has given us of His Spirit, that He has sent His Son: and from these facts our inference is secure to the other facts in question, that He abideth in us, etc. But in other passages we find instead of this ὅτι an ἵνα, 1 John 4:17, or an ἐὰν, as here, John 13:35, or ὅταν, 1 John 5:2. This ἐὰν, ὅταν, mark the token implied in ἐντούτῳ as one not actually existent, an historical or objectively certain fact; but as a possible contingency, something hypothetically and conditionally assumed: in other words as ideal.” Dόsterdieck, pp. 172, sq.—M.]. He is concerned with the fact, That we have known Him.—The context must determine who is meant by αὐτὸν, God the Father or Christ; the reason must be sought in the section itself, where in 1 John 2:3-6 we have first the repeated forms αὐτοῦ, αὐτῷ and αὐτὸν and once ἐκεῖνος, 1 John 2:6. As the latter evidently denotes Christ, so the former applies with equal certainty to God the Father. Hence it was not the immediately preceding verse in which Christ is spoken of, which induced the Apostle to use αὐτὸν and to understand thereby the Father, but rather the all-controlling thought, “God is Light,” 1 John 1:5.—So Bede, Oecumenius, Erasmus, Lόcke, Jachmann, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Brόckner, Dόsterdieck, Huther, Ebrard. It is referred to Christ by Augustine, Episcopius, Grotius, Luther, Calov, Wolf, Lange, Sander, Neander. Socinus and Calvin are undecided. The word γινώσκειν, occurring twice in juxtaposition, bears each time substantially the same meaning: to know. But to know God is not a matter of the understanding only, a knowledge, a knowing, but matter of the whole man; it is an inward life, both matter of the will and of the mind; an entering into, a perceiving in order to be penetrated thereby, in order to receive it in receptivity. The object of this knowing becomes the substance of him that knows; the nature of the object of our knowing determines His coming near us and entering into relationship with us. God cannot be known without Himself; it is. only by converse with Him that He allows Himself to be known (Oecumenius; συνεκράθημεναὐτῷ), Clarius “societatem habemus cum eo.”); the knowledge of God presupposes and promotes life-fellowship with Him. This last particular is also intimated by the perfect ἐγνώκαμεν; the real fact of having known Him is described as finished, attended by an after-effect and still further development in continued and ever-growing knowledge; it is parallel κοινωνίανἔχεινμετ̓αὐτοῦ, 1 John 1:6. Colossians 3. “Inward affinity of life, real appurtenance is the unconditional pre-supposition both of knowing and loving; for only those in affinity with each other know and love each other” (Dόsterdieck). We, the Christians, renewed in Christ, created to His image, are those who know. Hence it is false to take γινώσκειν like the Hebrew ιָ ?ψַ ?ς in the sense of to love (Carpzov, S. G. Lange), or only as a theoretical understanding of Divine truth (Socinus, Episcopius); nor may we intermingle knowledge and love, and regard the latter as essential to the former (Bede, Oecumenius, Lόcke), although knowledge is conditioned by love (de Wette).—[It is not mere theoretical knowledge, but vital, experimental knowledge flowing from God, being received into the heart, and His influencing our thoughts, our will and our actions.—M.]. If we keep His Commandments.—The verb τηρεῖν, probably connected with τέρας, [more probably with τήρος, a watch, M.], a sign, denotes properly to pay attention, to observe, ἄνεμον (Ecclesiastes 11:4), τὴνφυλακὴν (Acts 12:6), the beloved disciples (John 17:11, sqq.), τὴνἐνότητατοῦπνεύματος (Ephesians 4:3), ἐαυτόν (1 John 5:18). Hence to preserve [keep in safety] [observare, servare) from loss, danger, injury. Fear, selfishness, hatred or love may be the motives of such preserving; the object of τηρεῖν enables us to infer the motive. His commandments=the commandments of God the Father; for the reference to Christ here is valid not so much because He gave commandments as because He kept them (cf. 1 John 5:6). To keep the commandments is not the same as ἐνφωτὶπεριπατεῖν (1 John 1:7), but an indispensable part of it, and moreover a distinct, cognizable part of the greater, wide and profound whole, and as a sign or token peculiarly fitted to mark a conclusion. The commandments of God are clear, simple, well-defined; the expression of His will, given as much for His glory as for our salvation, evidences of His holy love, of His sanctifying compassion, and of His salutary righteousness; they answer to His Being, and in like manner to the nature of His Law, and particularly to the nature of His creatures. If they originate in the love of God, the motive of obedience to them must also be the love of God, who gave them, and the love of themselves as the gifts of His love. But the words themselves do not warrant the opinion of Augustine and Bede, that John insists here upon love. He only demands the unexceptional keeping of the commandments of God, and by the use of the Article and the Plural (τὰςἐντολὰς), excludes any and every arbitrary selection. He lays down a sure and infallible token; and the erroneous view just stated proves it to be such. But he does not lay down this keeping as a fact by the use of ὅτι, but as a supposition by ἐὰν; with this agrees also the choice of the word τηρεῖν instead of ποιεῖν (which is likewise conditioned by the words of our Lord in Matthew 28:20 : τηρεῖνπάνταὅσαἐνετειλάμηνυμῖν). We cannot do, but only keep the commandments of God. And even this is very limited, unsatisfactory, liable to frequent and manifold interruptions. Least of all can it be John’s meaning (according to 1 John 1:8-10) to suppose Christians capable of fully keeping and practising the commandments of God. But notwithstanding all the shortcomings of obedience to the commandments of God, and despite all the imperfections and sins of Christians and their life, there still remains a sharp contrast between those who remember the commandments of God to do them (Psalms 103:18), and those who do not mind them at all, or only know them. However great may be the difference of believers among themselves, their knowledge of God and their obedience to the commandments of God will be reciprocally related, and the latter will always remain a sure token of the former, which cannot be a fact in the life of Christians without the latter. On that account the Apostle, as is his wont, (as in 1 John 1:8-9), gives prominence to the opposite with a progression in the thought and by way of explanation. [Huther thinks it note-worthy that John never designates the Christian commandments by νόμος, a term used by him only with reference to the Mosaic code of laws, but mostly by ἐντολαί (only occasionally λόγοςθεοῦ, or χριστοῦ); nor by the verb ποιεῖν (except in Revelation 22:14), but τηρεῖν. Paul uses the term τηρεῖνἐντολήν only at 1 Timothy 6:11; it occurs besides in the N. T. at Matthew 19:17 (cf. Matthew 28:20). M.]. 1 John 2:4. He that saith I have known Him, and keepeth not His commandments, is a liar.—The progression in the development and unfolding of the thought lies in the Singular, which sets it forth not as indefinitely general, but as general and true in its application to each individual. It lies moreover in the negative form, so that we may and must not only infer the knowledge of God from the keeping of God’s commandments, and from other facts as well, but that the keeping of the Divine commandments, obedience, cannot and must not be wanting where there is a knowledge of God, which deserves that name. The words “he is a liar,” moreover, are intensive and stronger than “he lies” (1 John 1:6), or “he deceives himself” (1 John 1:8). Not a single act, but his whole nature and being, is thus designated; the lie reigns in him. There may first of all be wanting self-examination in the light of divine truth, or it may be self-deception and unconscious hypocrisy, but the conscious lie will follow; one desires to appear more than one is. The further particular, And the truth is not in him, gives emphatic prominence to the status, the emptiness of such a person, cf. ad. 1 John 1:8, in Exegetical and Critical. 1 John 2:5, similar to 1John 1, 8–10, in antithesis with 1 John 2:4, refers back to 1 John 2:3, δὲ, but progressing both in the subject-clause and in the predicate-clause. But whoso keepeth His word; literally: “but whoso keepeth of Him the word.”—Τηρῇ, keepeth, stands emphatically first, so αὐτοῦ precedes τὸνλόγον, and λόνον instead of the manifold λόνον, in order to mark the unity. “Prζcepta multa, verbum unum,” observes Bengel, and a Lapide correctly says: “Dicit verbum ejus in singulari, quia prζcipue respicit legem caritatis: enimceteras omnes in se comprehendit.” Hence ὁλόγος is not the synonym of αἱἐντολαί (Huther), nor the comforting message of the gospel, nor the requirement of faith, but the revelation of the will of God as a unit, or the revelation of His commandments in their relation as a unit to His purpose of grace (Ebrard). As this sentence corresponds with “if we keep His commandments” (1 John 2:3), and is more definite by the pron. rel. than is the other sentence by ἐὰν, so the ἐγνώκαμεναὐτὸν is parallel with ἐντούτῳἡἀγάπητοῦτοῦθεοῦτετελείωται. It matters not how much we distinguish knowledge and love, and warn against their being confounded, they are nevertheless intrinsically connected and correlatives: “Amor prζsupponit cognitionem” [says Grotius, which Huther admits, and adds M.]: “Cognitio prζsupponit amorem.” Both are true. From this it is evident both that we must apply αὐτὸν, 1 John 2:3, to God the Father, and that ἡἀγάπητοῦθεοῦ must denote our love of God (as 1 John 2:15; 1 John 3:17; 1 John 4:12; 1 John 2:3.) The knowledge of God and the love to God must correspond with each other. This is the view of the majority of commentators, viz.: Bede, Oecumenius, Luther, Beza, Lorinus, Socinus, Grotius, S. G. Lange, Lόcke, Jachmann, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Brόckner, Neander, Huther, Dόsterdieck, and others. Others (Flacius, S. Schmid, Calov, J. Lange, Bengel, Sander), understand the love of God to us (as in 1 John 4:9-10), first in opposition to the Romish exposition of the meritorious perfectio caritatis nostrζ aut operum nostrorum, and secondly on account of τετελείωται, which, they say, cannot be predicated of our love. But neither is it “the love commanded by God” (Episcopius) in which we have to exercise ourselves, nor the relation of reciprocal love between God and man, the communio, societas and conjunctio, mutua amicitia et conjunctio (Ebrard following several commentators, chiefly [German] Reformed), nor “the love of God in us, comprising both God’s love to us, through which, and our love to God, in which we live.” (Besser.) The explanation of τετελείωται, is perfected, perfect, is difficult. We have no right to dilute the word with Beza, as if John were speaking not of perfecta caritas, but of an adimpleta caritas, without all show and hypocrisy, so that the reference were only to sincere love and τελειοῦν were only mettre en exιcution [to put into execution.—M.]. Nor can it be right to hold with Socinus and his successors, the rationalists, that the reference is to a relative perfection adapted to the powers of man, because ὰληθῶς prohibits such an interpretation. It signifies, as in 1 John 4:12; 1 John 4:17-18, perfected, has become perfect. “John supposes the case that somebody really keeps the word of God, and from this ideal stand-point says with the fullest right that such a keeping of the Divine commandments evidences a perfected love to God in practice (cf. Lόcke). The more the ideal keeping of the sentence becomes apparent to us, so much the more do we perceive in it a paracletical power, an incentive to the realization of that ideal, a holding up of Christian duty, ὀφείλει, 1 John 2:6.” (Dόsterdieck). Calvin says: “Si quis objiciat, neminem unquam fuisse repertum, qui deum ita perfecte diligeret, respondeo, sufficere, modo quisque pro gratiζ sibi datζ mensura ad hanc perfectionem adspiret. Interim constat definitio, quod perfectus dei amor sit legitima sermonis ejus observatio. In ea nos progredi sicut in notitia proficere decet.” But Huther is perfectly right in his strictures of Calvin’s view which approaches that of Socinus, who says: “Est autem perfectio ista caritatis in Deum et obedientia prζceptorum ejus ita intelligenda, ut non omnino requiratur, ne ei quicquam deesse possit, sed tantum ut ejusmodi sit, qua Deus pro sua ingenti erga nos bonitate contentus esse voluit.”—M.]. “Where the word of God is perfectly fulfilled, there the love to God is perfect; perfect love shows itself in perfect obedience. It is certainly true that the Christian at no moment of his life has reached this perfection, but is always only growing in that direction. John, however, does not refer to that here.” The Apostle now quickly subjoins the concluding thought: Hereby (not “by the perfection of love” (Socinus), but “by obedience to the commandments of God,” Huther, Ebrard; for this thought concerning, obedience as the token of the knowledge of God and of life-fellowship with Him governs this whole thought-complex) we know that we are in Him. ’Εναὐτῷἐσμέν is the final and summary expression of ἐγνώκαμεναὐτόν, 1 John 2:3, and of κοινωνίανἔχομενμετ̓αὐτοῦ, 1 John 1:6, of the inward life-fellowship of Christians with God. It is more than man’s dependence on God in virtue of his inward relation to Him (as in Acts 17:28). As having known Him is not without being in Him, obedience of His commandments must stand as the mark of the knowledge of God, while the love of God [i.e., our love to God, M.] must supervene. What is said here amounts therefore to more than the explanation given by Grotius: “Christi ingenii discipuli sumus.” 1 John 2:6 is the final and full conclusion of this section. He that saith he abideth in Him, ought himself also so to walk.—First: “Synonyma, cum gradatione: Illum nosse, in Illo esse in Illo manere, cognitio, communio, constantia,” (Bengel); then ἐντολὰςτηρεῖν, τὸνλόγον, περιπατεῖνκαθὼςἐκεῖνος. ’Εναὐτῷ, particularly by the side of ἐκεῖνος (Jesus), and different from it, evidently denotes God the Father, and not Christ, as maintained by Augustine, Wolf, Neander, al., although the recollection of μένειν, the favourite expression of Jesus, which occurs ten times in John 15:4-11, may have influenced the language of the Apostle in this passage; at all events, the abiding spoken of in the Gospel is also connected with a reference to the commandments. “Being and abiding in God denote one and the same fellowship with God. The latter term merely superadds the description of its permanence and continuance, which is not contained in the former.” (Frommann.) Ought (ὀφείλει) does not designate a mark or sign, but only the obligation. So to walk even as He walked.—(i.e. Christ). This walking is not a mark or sign, which exists or might exist, or given as a touchstone to determine the Christianity of individuals, but simply designates the duty and obligation of Christians, as the disciples of Christ. Nor is it consequently a moment of abiding or being in God, a part thereof, but a goal to be reached, and a problem to be solved by every Christian, with the obligation of which none may dispense. So (οὕτως) to walk as Christ walked—is a requirement, compliance with which involves constant learning and ceaseless labour. The reference to Christ by καθὼςἐκεῖνος occurs several times in this Epistle, 1 John 3:3; 1 John 3:7; 1 John 4:17. As He walked points neither to particular traits in the life of Christ, e.g. prayer for His enemies (Augustine), contempt of the world and its pleasures, and patience in sufferings (Bede), nor, as in 1 Peter 2:21, sqq., to His self-humiliation and suffering, nor only to His perfect obedience of the commandments of God, nor to His doing only; but it is the concrete representation of walking in the Light (1 John 1:7), of the Divine life in Christ, whose essence and kernel is love. So that Paul may even exhort us to imitate, copy, follow God (Ephesians 5:1,) and to walk in love (1 John 2:2). But this must not be confined to the inward disposition, but must have an adequate expression in all our doings, in our whole conduct, at every step of our life; hence περιπατεῖν. John and his mysticism are certainly not afflicted with sentimentalism. The emphatic οὕτως can hardly be dispensed with here [See Appar. Crit. 1 John 2:6, note 7.—M.]. Brotherly love in particular is now specified as a mark of true Christianity (1 John 2:7-11). 1 John 2:7. Beloved, so in 1 John 3:2; 1 John 3:21; 1 John 4:1; 1 John 4:7; 1 John 4:11; in the last two passages it is particularly connected with the commandment of brotherly love. Beloved of God the Father in Christ, whom they ought to follow in that they walk in love to the brethren, as He did. [Huther: “Such an address does not necessarily indicate a new paragraph, but it bursts forth also in cases when the matter in question is to be brought home to the hearts of readers or hearers; which is the case here.”—M.]. I write not a new commandment to you.—The whole context, both what immediately precedes and what follows, requires us to regard this ἐντολή as a commandment, even as the commandment of brotherly love. The consideration of 1 John 2:6 teaches first that ὀφείλει constrains us to hold fast to the meaning of ἐντολή, commandment, and secondly exhorts us to walking after Christ; while 1 John 2:9 treats of love to the brethren. The latter is the definite and explicit declaration of what is implied in the former. It is improper to say that the reference here is to the different commandments; the commandment, to walk after Christ, and the commandment, to love the brethren; the two commandments are not alongside one another, but inside one another, and so that the latter is included in the former, not vice versa, that consequently the former is more general and less definite than the latter, whereas the latter is particular and clearly defined [i.e. Walking after Christ is the general, loving the brethren the particular.—M.]. A separation is impossible here; nor must 1 John 2:7-11 be subdivided as if 1 John 2:7-8 treated of something different from. 1 John 2:9-11. That which is stated in such explicit and definite terms in the second half, with reference to the first half of the whole section, must be already contained and intimated in the first half. The argument proceeds from the formal, as given in the walk of Christ, to the material which is contained therein. The connection is supported by the Apostle’s mode of treatment. For in 1 John 3:11; 1 John 3:23; 1 John 4:7; 1 John 4:21, he uniformly passes from general precepts to the commandment of love. John 15:13; John 15:17, and particularly John 13:34, present an analogy, and supply the basis for this part of the Epistle. 2 John 1:4-6 is the perfect parallel passage which specifies walking in truth, walking after His commandments, walking in the new comandments, which we had from the beginning, and which they had heard. The corresponding points here are walking in the light, walking as He walked, after the commandments of God, in love of the brethren. But the reference cannot by any means be to walking after Christ per se in 1 John 2:6, because just there the ἐντολὴ is described as ὁλόγοςὅνἡκούσατe. The commandment given is therefore, not Christ’s walk which is seen, but His Word, which is heard; the commandment was not only given in acts, but spoken in the word. Of course we must not understand ὁλόγος as designating the Gospel which is preached, and make it the ἐντολή. Lastly, the general grammatical usage forces us to take ἐντολή [in its usual sense—M.] as commandment, and not in the sense of doctrine or truth, as Flacius, Calov, J. Lange, Rickli, Ebrard understand it. We ought therefore to agree with Augustine, Bede, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Luther, Calvin, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Neander, Sander, Huther and Dόsterdieck, who understand the commandment of brotherly love, and not with expositors like Beza, Socinus, Episcopius, Lόcke, Frommann and others, who hold that the commandment applies only to walking after Christ. [It is doubtful whether Braune’s view of the relation between walking after Christ and loving the brethren is correct. It strikes me that the case is stated with greater lucidity and correctness by Huther, who says with reference to the two views of the commentators: “These two views seem to be opposed to each other, but they are opposed only when it is assumed that John’s design was to specify a particular commandment in contradistinction from other commandments. But that assumption is erroneous: the commandment to keep the commandments (or the word) of God after the pattern of Christ, or to walk in the Light, is none other than that of loving one’s brother. From 1 John 1:5, onwards John does not refer to different commandments, but to a general commandment of the Christian life, which flows from the truth that God is Light. The reference is to this commandment when John, in order to bring the matter right home to the hearts of his readers, says: οὐκἐντολὴνκαινὴνγράφωὑμῖν, so that ἐντολή does not refer to a commandment he is about to specify, but to the commandment he had already specified before (however, not in 1 John 2:6 only), and which he is about to define more clearly in the sequel as its concrete substance.” This view Huther pronounces in agreement with that of Dόsterdieck: “The solution of the riddle is … that the holy commandment to walk as Christ did walk, is fully and essentially contained in the commandment of brotherly love.” “We encounter here the view that as the whole exemplary life of Christ is contained in His love of us, so our whole walk in the Light is substantially nothing else than following after Christ in this full brotherly love.”—M.]. The words “not a new commandment” are explained by what follows: But an old commandment, which ye had from the beginning; this old commandment is the word which ye heard.—The commandment, therefore, is not new, but old, because the readers do not only now learn to know it by his writing, (γράφω), but because they have it already, and had it from the beginning. It is also said how they did receive it; they had heard it, that is, it had been announced to them. This renders it necessary to refer ἀπ̓ἀρχῆς to the beginning of Christianity, and the Christian standing of the readers; for the beginning, as far it concerns their life, cannot be anterior to their time, but must coincide with their life and the time when it was announced to them. So, also, 1 John 2:24; 1 John 3:11; 2 John 1:5-6. Ye can never mean majores vestri (Grotius), but designates the readers themselves, the Church, to whom the Epistle is addressed. Nor is there room for a distinction between Jewish Christians who had it already formerly, and Gentile Christians who had only heard it by the preaching of the Gospel, as Wolf draws it, and for saying that the beginning in the case of the former denotes what is written in the Old Testament by Moses (Flacius, Clarius), and that in the case of the latter the beginning dates even from the creation, written in their heart and conscience (the Greeks, fully corresponding with what Luthardt, on free-will, p. 12, sq., 22, observes as a characteristic of the Greek Church which is fond of connecting Christianity with the sphere of the universally human as contradistinguished from the Latin Church, which prefers to give prominence to the specific newness of the Christian, Baumgarten-Crusius, Credner). But we must not say that ἀπ̓ἀρχῆς bears precisely the same meaning as in 1 John 1:1; 1 John 2:13-14; 1 John 3:8, since the meaning is determined by the context, which points here to the beginning of the Christian life. This is the view of most commentators, viz,: Calvin, Beza, Socinus, Episcopius, Lange, Rickli, Lόcke, de Wette, Sander, Neander, Besser, Dόsterdieck, Huther and al.—The Article in the addition (ἡἐντολὴἡπαλαιά) marks once more, the age of the commandment which had already been indicated by the antithesis (οὐκ-καινήν, ἀλλὰπαλαιάν). It is called straightforth ὁλόγος, because, as all ἐντολαὶ run together in the one ἐντολὴ, as this one ἐντολὴ runs through and fills the whole λόγος, the evangelical ὰγγελία: “We should love one another as Christ has loved us;” wherefore ὁλόγος is not the chief substance of the word, but the word itself. As εἵχετε meant that they had, knew and used the commandment, so ὴκούσατε adds how they came to possess it: by the preaching of the Apostles. The addition is, therefore, not a correction of γράφω, as if John wanted to say: it is not I that give it to you now while I am writing, but you have heard it long ago of Christ (Baumgarten-Crusius), [for ὴκουσάτε has no immediate relation to γράφω, but to εἵχετε.—M.]. 1 John 2:8. Again I write unto you.—Πάλιν indicates a close connection with the preceding verse, rendered unmistakable by the repetition of the same word in the same form: γράφω, 1 John 2:7,—πάλιν belongs to the verb (Lόcke, de Wette), although ἐντολὴνκαινὴν stands before γράφω, and signifies again, once more, a second time, and Erasmus, with whom most commentators agree here, is not wrong in saying (against Huther): “et contrarietatem declarat et iterationem,” because πάλιν is used by Homer and Hesiod in the sense of back, backward, and against, πὰλινἐρεῖν to gainsay [i.e., say against—M.], but in Herodotus and Attic, and later writers generally, it bears almost the exclusive signification of again, once more, anew; but Erasmus errs when he adds: “hic non repetitionis sed contrarietatis est declaratio;” it is here corrective and epanorthotic (Beza, Episcopius, Calov, Wolf, Lόcke, al.).—Τράφω, both here and in 1 John 2:7, denotes the present act of the Apostle, and has its ordinary, literal sense, not=I prescribe (Baumgarten-Crusius), nor does the Accusative following γράφω admit the construction=I write of, concerning the commandment. [As] a new commandment, which thing is true in Him and in you.—[Knapp’s paraphrase πάλιν (ὡς) ἐντολὴνκαινὴνγράφωὑμῖν (τοῦτο) ὅἐστινἀληθές is the basis of as bracketed in the text.—M.].—This is a further proof of the close connection of this verse with 1 John 2:7; John adheres to what he had just said, writes still on the same point, and it is, therefore, simply impossible to make 1 John 2:8 begin a new paragraph, as does Ebrard. The clause ὅἐστινἀληθὲς relates to the preceding matter, as is evident from the relative pronoun, and cannot be connected with the following clause introduced by ὅτι, as Ebrard thinks. The Neuter forbids our regarding it as a relative clause belonging to καινὴἐντολὴ, as maintained by Dόsterdieck, who assumes a constructs ad sensum, and says that “the real substance of ἐντολὴ is declared to be true, both in Christ and in the readers,” but this would require ἡ ?—ἀληθής (Lόcke), and “the thing required by ἐντολὴ is nothing else but the ἐντολὴ itself” (Ebrard). We must take it rather as coφrdinated with ἐντολὴνκαινὴν, and construe it like ἐντολὴνκαινὴν, as the object of γράφω. The above-mentioned paraphrase of Knapp is the most simple construction, although we must not attach to the inserted ὡς the meaning of “tanquam si nova esset,” as Knapp does, for then it could not be called a new commandment; yet both the Apostle and our Lord Himself describe it by the epithet new (John 13:34); ὡς, moreover, denotes the reality (Romans 15:15, and elsewhere), and is well adapted to being supplied, in order to point out the right explanation.—But we have to begin with the explanation of ὅἐστιν, which stands emphatically first; the reference is consequently to that, which is—in Him and in you. Αὐτός by the side of ὑμῖν denotes a person, so that ἐναὐτῳ is not=per se ac simpliciter (Socinus), and the context requires its being explained of Christ and not of God (Jachmann, who is then compelled to understand ἀληθὲς in connection with ἐναὐτῷ, in a different sense from the same word in connection with ἐνὑμῖν; in God it has its reason, in you it has its evidence). There is no reason why the preposition should be rendered respectu, in respect of, or by (which something may be known, identified as true, de Wette); it simply means: in or with Christ and you. At the same time ἀληθὲς bears of course the sense of real, as in Acts 12:9 [i.e., it denotes actual reality (Huther, Meyer)—M.]. The sentence, moreover, must not be torn to pieces after the manner of Erasmus, Episcopius and Grotius: “quod verum est in illo, id etiam in vobis verum est, esse debet.” But brotherly love evidenced in the walk is true in Christ the Head and in the readers of the Epistle, as the members of His Body. No matter how great the difference of that reality may be, it is still there [is actually, really extant.—M.]. This stands as a new commandment, and, therefore, John writes it thus. He considers the ἐντολὴ as the main point, places it first, and then predicates of it that it is new, after having previously called it old.—He called it old from the stand-point of the present with regard to the former entrance into Christianity, which took place long ago; he describes as new that which is true in Christ and His people, and sees first in Him what is now also in His people, what Christ required of His followers as a new commandment (John 13:34), and from this stand-point, from their entrance into Christianity and their fellowship with Christ, he, like the Lord Himself, calls this a commandment which is new. The Apostle consequently does not refer here to the permanent duration of the commandment of brotherly love, which requires to be constantly inculcated anew (Calvin: “perpetuo vigere,” Socinus, Knapp, al.), nor to man’s new birth (Augustine, Bede, al.). It is new by the very words added by Christ Himself in John 13:34 : “καθὼςἠγάπησαὑμᾶς,” as He has proved it in fact, and as he does effect and operate it in His people. [Huther: “The sense is: that which is already true, i.e., a reality, in Christ and in you, to wit: the τηρεῖντὰςἐντολὰςτοῦθεοῦ (cf. John 15:10, where Christ says of Himself: ἐγὼτὰςἐντολὰςτοῦπατρόςμουτετήρηκα), I write to you as a new commandment,” and then he adds in a foot-note, “It is manifestly not more surprising that John sets up before his readers anew as a commandment that which has already become a reality in them, than that he announces to them truths, of which he says himself that they know them already.”—M.]. Because the darkness passeth away and the true light shineth already.—This sentence answers the question: Why does the Apostle write as a commandment which is new that which is true in Him and the readers of the Epistle? Hence ὅτι is simply causal, because; and this whole sentence corresponds exactly with the preceding (Dόsterdieck, Huther). ̔ ?́Οτι, consequently, is not merely dependent on ἀληθές or ἐντολή (Socinus, Bengel, Ebrard), so that it has declarative force=that; the point is not to prove that the light shineth and that the darkness passeth away, nor could that be the substance of a commandment. Nor can we divide (with Lόcke and Brόckner) the sentence that the commandment of walking in the light manifests itself as new in Christ (in whom the true light has appeared), and in the readers (in whom this light diffuses itself and shines already, scattering the darkness), and refer the former to ἐναὐτῷ, which is not said at all, or to τὸφῶςφαίνει, and the latter to ἐνἡμῖν or ἡσκοτίαπαράγεται. We have no occasion or warrant for doing so. The antitheses ἡσκοτία and to τὸφῶςἀληθινόν must be taken in an ethical sense, and denote the sinful and the holy, as the elements in which one lives and walks; and this construction is rendered necessary by the subsequent verses and the whole context. Both are opposed to each other, but they exist alongside each other, increasing or decreasing (παράγεται—ἥδηφαίνει). The former consequently does not denote the economy of the Old Testament or paganism, which indeed were never without light, nor the latter only the person of Christ, as in John 1:9 (Oecumenius, Bengel), nor “Christus una cum doctrina ejus et effectus fide et caritate” (Lange); for the expression has a wider reach. The σκοτία denotes the whole power and sphere of the ethical life, separate from communion with God (the Light in Whom there is no darkness), still fighting against the Light, but evermore condemned (John 3:19), constantly overcome and consuming itself; but the Light, which is God (1 John 1:5), embraces whatever belongs to His Kingdom, and keeps believers in communion with Himself (Dόsterdieck). The Light is called τὸἀληθινόν, which is not only real (ἀληθὲς), but the true light answering to the real truth, embracing and effecting the real truth. (Ibid.) [Eternal, essential Light, of which earthly light is only a transitory image.—Huther, Neander.—M.]. So Luke 16:11; 1 Thessalonians 1:9. It is just the life of the Lord, wherein is that which shines, bursts and shines forth with ever increasing strength; this real Being is the Light, the true Light (John 1:4). In παράγεται we have first of all to preserve the Present form. The Vulgate renders falsely “tenebrζ transierunt;” so do Luther, “is past,” Calvin [and E. V. “is past”—M.]. It is unnecessary to construe it passively with Besser, Sander, Bengel, (traducitur, commutatur, ita ut tandem absorbeatur); it is Middle, like παράγει, 1 Corinthians 7:31 (so Oecumenius, Wolf, Lόcke, de Wette, Dόsterdieck, Huther): it is passing away, vanishing, disappearing. With this corresponds ἤδηφαίνει, said of the Light, it shineth, shineth already, not now (Luther, E. V.); the darkness makes room for the light, the light begins already to break through. [Huther, who adds, “so that neither the darkness is entirely past, nor the light entirely established.”—M.]. The transition from the reign of darkness to that of the Light is thus indicated and referred to the future, when the conflict thus begun will end in the full victory of the Light. Hence in the words ὅἐστινἐνὑμῖν John expresses not so much an encomium on his church, as a declaration of his joy in the continued working and the commencing and progressing victory of the Lord and His Kingdom. From this point of view the reading ὑμῖν only can be received as authentic, as bringing out the true sense of the passage in an undiluted form, which would certainly be awakened by the reading ἡμῖν, and lessen the Apostle’s pure rejoicing over his church, as the work of Jesus Christ. [Rickli: “John says this in relation to the time in which they live, and during which the great work of the Lord took a wondrously rapid course of development. The true Light, the Lord in His perfect revelation of Divine truth, shines already;—already the great morning dawns for mankind. When the Lord returns, then will be the full day of God. This revelation … believers go to meet.—M.]. 1 John 2:9. He that saith he is in the light and hateth his brother. For the form cf. 1 John 2:4, for the thought see 1 John 1:6-7. Φῶς here denotes neither Christ (Spener), nor the Church (Ebrard: “The Church of those in whom the fact ὅτιτὸφῶςἤδηφαίνει has become an άληθές”); for since to τὸφῶς, 1 John 2:8, denotes the holy, the sphere of the Divine life, no other sense can be admitted here. The Apostle regards as his brother particularly the believer in Christ, as γεγεννημένοςἐκτοῦθεοῦ (1 John 5:1); the love of the brethren, as the children of a loved Father, rests on the love of God, who has regenerated them (1 John 5:1; 1 John 3:10.). Likewise in the Gospel (John 3:16; John 15:12, sq.; John 13:34; John 20:17; John 21:13); St. Peter also gives φιλαδελφία in the same sense (1 Peter 1:22, sq.), and actually distinguishes it from ἀγαπὴ which he takes in the sense of φιλανθρωπιά (2 Peter 1:7), (Luther, common love). “Ipsa appellatio amoris causam continet (Bengel). Whether ἁδελφὸς denotes elsewhere an actual brother or a cousin, John 7:3; John 7:5 [see my article “Are James the son of Alphζus and James the brother of the Lord identical,” in Princeton Review, January, 1865—M.], or members of the same nationality, Acts 23:1, or=ὁπλησίον, ὁἕτερος, (Matthew 18:35; Matthew 7:3; Luke 6:41; James 4:11), the context must always determine the sense, and the context here refers decidedly to Christian fellowship. Hence Grotius is wrong: “sive Judζum, sive alienigenam; fratres omnes in Adamo sumus”), as well as Calov and Lange [who give a similar exposition.—M.]. It is improper to take μισεῖν as “post habere, minus diligere, non colere” (Bretschneider); it means to hate; but it is not specified here to which degree of hatred he has come to whom reference is made; it is left undecided whether his hatred be germinating and initial, or mature and fully developed. Not even the faintest degree or colouring of hatred can be compatible with this ἐντῷφωτὶεἷναι. That saying and this hating are so little in agreement, and this hating imports so much more than that saying, that John continues, saying, Is in the darkness until now—in sin, in the atmosphere of the sinful, until now, yet, at this hour, this very moment. But along with all this severity and profound earnestness which insists upon one thing or the other, runs the intimation of a hope of return. [Huther: “Like φῶς and σκοτία, μισεῖντὸνἀδελφόν and ἀγαπᾶντὸνἀδελφόν mutually exclude each other. They are two diametrically opposed biasses of life; a man’s doings belong either to the one or to the other; that which does not belong to the sphere of the one, appertains to that of the other. Each denial of love is hatred, each conquest of hatred is love.” Dόsterdieck:—“Nothing can be more shallow and weak as compared with the ethics of the whole Scripture. All the truth, depth, and power of Christian ethics rest on the ‘aut … aut,’ so distinctly insisted on by St. John. On the one side is God, on the other the world: here is life, there is death; here love, there hate, i.e. murder; there is no medium. In the space between, is nothing. Life may as yet be merely elementary and fragmentary. Love may as yet be weak and poor, but still, life in God and its necessary demonstration in love, is present really and truly, and the word of our Lord is true: “He that is not against me is with me,” Luke 9:50; and on the other side, the life according to the flesh, the attachment to the world, and the necessary action of this selfishness by means of hatred, may be much hidden, may be craftily covered, and with splendid outer surface; but in the secret depth of the man, there where spring the real fountains of his moral life, is not God but the world; the man is yet in death, and can consequently love nothing but himself, and must hate his brother; and then the other word of the Lord is true, “He that is not for me is against me,” Luke 9:23. For a man can only be either for or against Christ, and consequently can only have either love or hate towards his brother.”—M.]. 1 John 2:10. He that loveth his brother, abideth in the light, and a stumbling-block is not in him.—Not only an antithesis to 1 John 2:9, but also a progression in the argument: μένει, for every thing depends on the abiding which must be the result of being cf. 1 John 2:6. The sentiment is prepared in ἕωςἄρτι 1 John 2:9 by the fine allusion that hatred of the brother and being in the darkness, must be overcome, and that being in the light and in love must be maintained. Hence we cannot say with Ebrard: “The exercise of brotherly love is of itself a means of strengthening and confirming the new life; from brotherly fellowship there flow for the new man refreshing and quickening streams of his faith.” But the love of the brother acts and moves within the sphere of light, not without growth which strengthens itself there; the impelling power is that which evinces itself in brotherly love, faith in the Father, faith in the Only Begotten of the Father, who gives us the power to become the children of God. He that loves his brother ever grows more firmly rooted in holiness, the kingdom of light; growth takes place in brotherly love, but brotherly love does not produce it; He only produces it who produces fellowship with Himself and the love of the brother. John knows only aut—aut, hating or loving: “ubi non amor est, odium est, cor non est vacuum” (Bengel). The sentence, σκάνδαλονἐναὐτῷοὐκἕστιν fully corresponds with 1 John 2:4; ἐντούτῳἠἀλήθειαοὐκἔστιν. The comparison of these two verses facilitates the understanding of our passage, τὸσκάνδαλον, or ὁσκάνδαλος (Hesychius) is [the rendering of the LXX, M.] for ξִ ?λְ ?ωׁ ?εֹ ?μ or ξεֹ ?χֵ ?ωׁ properly ἐμπόδισμος, σκανδάληθρον (τὸἐνταῖςμυάγραις), προσκόμμα; hence βάλλειν, τιθέναισκάνδαλον. So λίθονπροσκόμματος, πέτρασκανδάλου Romans 9:33; 1 Peter 2:7; cf. Isaiah 8:14; Isaiah 28:16; Romans 14:13. It is always a stumbling against, an offence given, but it is left undefined whether it is given with or without guilt. Christ Himself, the Crucified One, Isaiah 1 Corinthians 1:23 : Ἰουδαίοιςσκάνδαλον. The guilt of the σκάνδαλον may reside in him to whom it is given, who takes it, who is offended at it and falls. Here it is said: ἐναὐτῷοὐκἔστιν. In him, who loves his brother and abides in the Light, in the holy, is not σκάνδαλον, is not that which offends, gives offence, causes himself or others to stumble and fall, such as envy, suspicion, want of sympathy, harshness of judgment, pride—all σκάνδαλα to himself and also to others. “Qui fratrem odit, ipse sibi offendiculum est et incurrit in se ipsum et in omnia intus et foris; qui amat expeditum iter habet. Bengel. This seems also to be the exposition of Dόsterdieck, who says: “Occasion of stumbling and falling, the lust of the flesh is still extant in believers, but they are always sure of the virtue of the blood of Christ which hallows and increasingly removes every σκάνδαλον (1 John 1:7, sqq.). It is inadmissible to explain ἐναὐτῷ ?=αὐτῳ, as Grotius does (est metonymia et ἐν abundat; sensus: ille non impingit. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ 6. Consolatory warning against the love of the world 1 John 2:12-1712I write unto you, little children, because your sins are forgiven you for his name’s sake. 13I write unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning. I write unto you, young men, because ye have overcome the wicked one. I write unto you, little children, because ye have known the Father. 14I have written unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning. I have written unto you, young men, because ye are strong, and the word of God abideth in you, and ye have overcome the wicked one. 15Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in 16him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. 17And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth forever. AND The structure of 1 John 2:12-14.—The six members are evidently divided into two triads: the thrice repeated Present γράφω, and the thrice-repeated Aorist ἔγραψα, as well as the address τεκνία, πατέρες, νεανίσκοι joined to the Present, and παιδία, πατέρeς, νεανίσκοι joined to the Aorist, clearly intimate as much. The sentences subjoined by ὅτι exhibit the same correspondency, and confirm this arrangement. This has to be proved by the exegesis. The addresses, 1 John 2:12-14. Τεκνία must be taken here in the same sense as in the other passages of the Epistle where it occurs, 1 John 2:1; 1 John 2:28; 1 John 3:18; 1 John 4:4; 1 John 5:21. It applies to all readers, the whole Church, and should not be made to designate a particular age (as has been done by Erasmus, Socinus, J. Lange), or a peculiarly near relation to the author. The diminutive form is chosen for the sake of intimacy and cordiality, and is indicative of the paternal relation and advanced age of the Apostle. The addition μου, 1 John 2:1, may have a still more intimate sound, but there is no want of intimacy here or in 1 John 3:18; 1 John 4:4; 1 John 5:21, although μου is wanting. It is altogether parallel to ἀγαπητοί, 1 John 2:7; 1 John 3:2; 1 John 3:21; 1 John 4:1; 1 John 4:7; 1 John 4:11, or to παιδία, 1 John 2:18; 1 John 3:7, (var lect.). Although παιδία is thus rarely used, nevertheless it is used, and, if we take it here=τεκνία, it is used thrice. Hence there is no reason whatsoever why παιδία, 1 John 2:13, should not be applied to the whole Church, but, like πατέρες and νεανίσκοι, be understood to designate a particular age (with Calvin, Luther, Calov, Sander, Neander, Besser, Ebrard, al.), and to disturb the harmony of the structure of this group of sentences. Particularly as the comprehensive παιδία, little children, offered a more natural sequence to πατέρες and νεανίσκοι than τεκνία, little sons. The order in which τεκνία and παιδία occur, forbids their being referred to a particular age, for either νεανίσκοι, πατέρες would have to follow, or πατέρες, νεανίσκοι to go before. Hence τεκνία and παιδία must be construed as denoting the general address, and πατέρες and νεανίσκοι the specialization of church-members, πατέρες describing those of maturer years (πρεσβύτεροι, γέροντες, heads of families, the more experienced), and νεανίσκοι those younger in years. This is the view of most commentators. Augustine’s view, according to which the Apostle refers throughout to the same persons, only designating them by different names from different points of view, is consequently untenable; he says: “filioli, quia baptismo neonati sunt, patres, quia Christum, patrem et antiquum dierum agnoscunt, adolescentes, qui, fortes sunt et validi;” nor must we refer, with a Lapide, the different addresses to a “triplicem Christianorum in virtute gradum; pueri enim reprζsentanti incipientes et neophytos; juvenes proficientes, senes perfectos.” Similar explanations are given by Clement, Oecumen., Grotius (with reference to 1 Corinthians 13:11-12; Hebrews 5:13; Ephesians 4:13-14) and others. The tenses of the otherwise clear verb, γράφω and ἔγραψα, 1 John 2:12-14, present great difficulties. It is clear that ὅτι does not denote the substance of his present or former writing. John writes not that their sins are forgiven, and that they have known the Father, that they have known Him that is from the beginning, that they have overcome the wicked one, that they are strong, that the word of God abideth in them, all this he does not write, and has not written to his church, but other things. Hence ὅτι can only be taken as a causative particle; it denotes the reason and cause of his writing, and must be rendered “because.” It is self-evident that ὅτι, if translated “because” once, must be translated thus throughout, in all the six consecutive places where it occurs, and not be rendered with Luther the first, fifth and sixth time “that,” and the second, third and fourth time “for” (=because).—Socinus, Schott, Sander, Neander translate “that;” Calvin, Beza, Lόcke, de Wette, Huther, Dόsterdieck, al. “because;” while Erdmann gives to ὅτι a declarative meaning in the first three sentences, without determining whether it should be construed objectively and causatively in the last three sentences. I write—simply defines the act of writing: I write just now what I write, because—. The object is the Epistle, even this Epistle. Now, if John, after this thrice-repeated γράφω signifying this Epistle, says again three times, ἔγραψα, the reference cannot be to the Epistle, neither to the preceding exhortations (Grotius), nor to the first chapter (Calov), neither in respect of the thrice-repeated ἔγραψα to 1 John 1:5-7; 1 John 1:8-10; 1 John 2:3-11 and γράφω to 1 John 2:15-17; 1 John 2:18-27; 1 John 2:28 to 1 John 3:22 (Rickli and Lόcke), nor so that the reference is general, the Aorist denoting that part of the Epistle which is already written, the Present the part as yet unwritten, but in process of development [the very act of writing, i.e., the Epistle itself.—M.] (so de Wette, Brόckner, Huther) nor can the reference be to 1 John 2:12-13, as if the apostle had said “I write, and I have written, it is a settled thing” (J. Lange, Neander, Sander, Ewald, Heubner, Bengel [“innuit commonitionem firmissimam”), nor are Beza and Dόsterdieck any more satisfactory, who suppose the Present to indicate the present stand-point of the Apostle, his present act of writing, and the Aorist to describe the standpoint of the readers after they had received the Epistle, when, of course, it was written;—all these explanations are so many attempts whose very forced and artificial character shows them to be mere make-shifts, which, even in their more simple forms, do not remove the appearance of trifling, and explain as little the position of the Present relating to what follows before the Aorist relating to what goes before, as that the author by this change of tense tears asunder that which he has written from that which he is about to write, both of which belong together as one. If we are thus constrained to think of another writing, we must not think of a previous Epistle (Michaelis), but of the Gospel (Socinus, Lange, Schott, Baumgarten-Crusius, Ebrard, Hoffmann), to which this Epistle is not only nearly related in the exordium, but also in its very kernel and essence. Cf. Introduction, § 8, 3. The consciousness of the importance of the Gospel he had written, fully justifies in the Epistle the threefold repetition of ἔγραψα in consideration of the reasons relating to different groups of persons in the Church, and warranting such repetition; nor can it be thought singular that he had no other reasons (ὅτι) for having written the Gospel than those for writing the Epistle. Nor may an objection be raised to the Apostle’s not specifying the object either of ἔγραψα or γράφω, and his not describing the writing to which he refers, because both the Gospel and the Epistle were in the hands of the readers, and enabled them both to find the necessary explanation, and to prevent possible misunderstanding. [The peculiarly involved statement of Braune renders it desirable to supply the English reader with a more lucid account of the views he advocates. Γράφω, denotes the present act of writing, not only the particular sentence in which that word occurs, but the present Epistle; ἔγραψα, a writing already written, finished and complete in the hands of the readers of the Epistle, to which they might refer; and that writing was the Gospel, which would clear up every doubt, remove every difficulty, and furnish a commentary on the statements and exhortations contained in the Epistle. It must be confessed that this is, on the whole, the most simple and satisfactory solution of a very knotty question, although that advocated by de Wette, Brόckner and Huther is not so trifling as Braune, echoing the words of Ebrard, asserts. Said authors explain ἔγραψα of that part of the Epistle which the Apostle had already written, and γράφω of the immediate act of writing, that is, to the Epistle in general; in their view it is proper that John should begin with γράφω while his reference to the part already written by ἔγραψα may be explained by the fact that that part (especially 1 John 1:5 to 1 John 2:11) contains the fundamental principles of the subsequent exhortations and developments. Personally we prefer the view of Braune, but many readers will, doubtless, incline to that set forth by Huther and others.—Ebrard gives the following synopsis of, the two triads: TRIAD THE FIRST.TRIAD THE SECOND.γράφω.ἔγραψα.. τεκνία=all readers.1. Children (in point of age).. Fathers.2. Fathers.. Young men.3. Young men.and Wordsworth (who, however, does not discuss the details of his arrangement, and carries the series down to 1 John 2:28) makes a series of seven, closed by an eighth, the octave of the first, with a symbolical reference to the number seven and eight. His arrangement is this: γράφωὑμῖν, τεκνία, 1 John 2:12. γράφωὑμῖν, πατέρες, 1 John 2:13.ἔγραψαὑμῖν, πατέρες, 1 John 2:14.γράφωὑμῖν, νεανίσκοι, 1 John 2:13.ἔγραψαὑμῖν, νεανίσκοι, 1 John 2:15.ἔγραψαὑμῖν, παιδία, 1 John 2:13.παιδία, ἐσχάτηὥραἐστί, 1 John 2:18.καὶνῦν, τεκνία, μένετεἐναὐτῷ, 1 John 2:28. This arrangement is more curious than valuable or logical, and merely added to complete the catalogue of representative views begun above. M.]. The reasons of the Apostle’s writing 1 John 2:12-14. First series, 1 John 2:12; 1 John 2:18 b. 1 John 2:12. I write unto you, little children, because your sins have been forgiven you.—The Perfect ἀφέωνται (See Winer, Grammar, § 14, 3, p. 98, on the form of this word) points to the forgiveness of sins, mentioned 1 John 1:8, sqq.; 1 John 2:1-2, as a completed fact, which, as a ground whereon they stand, as a sphere wherein they move, as a benefit they have received, has and is to have on them and the rest of their life a lasting effect and an efficient power. [The forgiveness of sins is the ground of the Christian life.—M.]. Vulg., Augustine and Calvin render falsely “remittuntur,” so Luther, “are forgiven you,” [and E. V.—M.] For His name’s sake. The reference is not to Him who forgives sins, God the Father, but to Him, for whose sake the Father forgives; that is Christ; for διὰ with the Accusative is not per, through (instrumental), but propter, on account of, for the sake of, indicating the ground of the forgiveness of sins, and here, where the cordiality of the address (little children), and the direct application to the persons addressed (I write unto you, your sins have been forgiven you), are to be brought out, it denotes the objective ground, rendered subjective: since His name is with you, in you and among you; His name is He Himself and what He is, but revealed and known, believed and confessed; hence=since ye have believed on Him, confess and invoke Him, individually and collectively, and since He has manifested Himself and may yet further manifest Himself as ἱλασμὸς, παράκλητος; consequently for Christ’s sake in you. Thus we might combine with Neander the explanation of Dόsterdieck, who insists with the majority of commentators on the objective ground of the forgiveness of sins, and that of Luther, who understands the subjective ground. [Neander says: “He comforts them with the assurance of sins forgiven through the mediation of Christ. For the name of Christ are their sins forgiven; that is, for the sake of what Christ is as the Son of God and the Son of Man, the divine-human Redeemer—it being as such that they invoke Him as their Mediator.”—M.]. 1 John 2:13 a. I write unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning.—Ὁάπ̓ἀρχῆς, according to 1 John 1:1 and the context, can only signify Christ, with reference to His eternal, Divine Nature; for the ἀρχή reaches beyond the beginning of time and of the world, into God’s eternal life, and must not be weakened into “initium novi f�deris et evangelii patefacti” (Socinus). Grotius and a Lapide, without all contextual sanction, explain “novistis Deum, qui Senex dierum,” Daniel 7:9; Daniel 13:22. Ἐγνώκατε consequently denotes only the more profound understanding of the nature and eternal glory of Christ, spiritual knowledge, and not personal acquaintance, not even on the part of some (Bengel: “vivebant patres eo tempore, quo Christus in terris fuerat conspiciendus, et eorum nonnulli eum et facie et fide, omnes fide cognorant”) so the ἐγνώκατετὸνπατέρα, 1 John 2:13 c must on no account be explained of personal acquaintance. Nor does this exhortation warrant the idea that the Fathers, the aged, love to hear and talk of old things, and that to them, in particular, knowledge ought to belong. (The Greek Fathers, Augustine, Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, Neander). But more profound knowledge in general, and knowledge of Jesus Christ, His Person and work in particular, is peculiarly suited to the calmness and experience of old age. 1 John 2:13 b. I write unto you, young men, because ye have overcome the wicked one.—While young men are exposed to the power of temptation in respect of the world, both within and without, they have also fresh vigor and courage to fight against and overcome the wicked one, τὸνπονηρόν, the devil, who is thus designated in the N. T. in general (Matthew 13:19, cf. Matthew 13:28; Matthew 13:38, sq.; Ephesians 6:16); and in this Epistle in particular (1 John 3:12; 1 John 5:18 sq.) Carpzov: “Viris fortibus et robustis tribuitur supra fortissimum et robustissimum victoria.” But we must not narrow the idea with Bengel, who says: “Insigne quoddam specimen virtutis a juvenibus, quibus scribit, exhibitum, cujusmodi erat constantia confessionis in persecutione Domitiani, itemque reditus juvenis illius, quem apostolus summa mansuetudine a lactrocinio ad p�nitentiam reduxit, suavissime descriptus a Clemente Al. lib. quis dives salv. c. 42, ab. Eusebio H. E., lib. 3, cap. 20 et a Chrysostomo, Parζn. 1 ad Theodorum lapsum, cap. 11. We may think of it, but take it in the widest reach. That which John says to all, the τεκνίοις, that their sins have been forgiven, applies indeed to all, and it does not apply exclusively to the fathers, that they have known the Lord, or exclusively to the young men, that they have overcome the wicked one; for it may be that there are fathers who have just gained the victory, and young men who have acquired profound knowledge; but besides the general truth of the forgiveness of sins, those particular affirmations are admirably distributed among the different classes, and only possible and real on the condition of that general declaration. “Christian life-truth is essentially one; in whichever direction its riches may be developed, or to whichever relations it may be applied, all these different exhortations and instructions are always of one casting, resting on one foundation, and animated by one spirit” Dόsterdieck). But John has a particular word, a word of peculiar application for the whole Church, as well as for the separate groups and individuals. Second series, 1 John 2:13 c–1Joh 2:14. 1 John 2:13 c.—I have written unto you, little sons, because ye have known the Father. To know the Father, that is, to know God as our Father, to cast deeper looks into the peace-thoughts of His heart concerning us, into the holy Love which is His Being, is possible only in the more intimate converse with Him which He opens in the forgiveness of our sins and our reconciliation. The child, with its child-like ways and mind, with its humility, attachment, diligence, teachableness and receptivity, is nearer to God than an adult. Here also apply the words, “Become as little children” Matthew 18:3. It is easy to see that we have here the parallel of the clause, “Because your sins have been forgiven you;” adoption and forgiveness of sins interpenetrate each other, and more than mere correlates. He now writes to the fathers precisely the same thing as before: 1 John 2:14. I have written unto you, fathers, because ye have known Him that is from the beginning.—His object is not to write something else; for he has rightly divided the word. I have written unto you, young men, because ye are strong, and the word of God abideth in you, and ye have overcome the wicked one.—“Alii juvenes corpore, vos fide.” (Bengel). Matthew 12:29; Luke 11:21, sq.; Hebrews 11:34. It is the strength of the Spirit for the combat and victory, the strength of their own spirit, and derived from the Spirit of God, given from above, through and with the adoption and the forgiveness of sins. The ἀγγελία (1 John 1:5). with the ἀλήθεια 1 John 1:6; 1 John 1:8; 1 John 2:4), in the word of God, (1 John 1:10; 1 John 2:2; 1 John 2:5; 1 John 2:7), creates and moves this vital strength and vital courage for the combat. Hence ἰσχυροίἐστε is immediately followed by καἱὁλόγοςτοῦθεοῦἐνὑμῖνμένει. Ὁλόγοςτοῦθεοῦ, therefore, does not denote Christ, although He is the centre and star of that word. The word of God, with its eternal power, must not only be brought to them, but it must have entered into them and remain in them; then it happens: καὶνενικήκατετὸνπονηρόν. The strength is grounded on the word of God, which abides in them (μένει), and in virtue of this strength they have overcome the devil [the thought belongs to Huther—M.]; the decisive battle, of course, has been fought by Jesus Christ, but His people ought to follow up His victory by continuous warfare, and gain further triumphs in their heart and sphere of life, cf. John 16:33. A retrospective view of the preceding verses, assigning the reasons for the Apostle’s writing and having written, characterizes the readers as possessing not a small degree of Christian knowledge and ability, and the writings in question as taking for granted such a degree of Christian culture. While we may therefore think of the Epistle and the Gospel, we cannot say with Ebrard that the Gospel is wholesome and pleasant food for the little ones (παιδία), but that the Epistle can be understood by adults only. Now has been laid down an important and sure foundation for the subsequent warnings and exhortations (Luther, S. Schmid, Episcopius, Bengel, Lόcke, de Wette, Dόsterdieck, al.): You have received and acquired so much, and succeeded so well, that you ought to progress, and not to retrograde! You stand in life-fellowship with God—do not dissolve it! The warning. 1 John 2:15 a. Love not the world, neither the things in the world. The correct exposition of the whole depends on the meaning of ὁκόσμος, which signifies according to Suidas: εὐπρέπeιαν, τὸπᾶν, τάξιν, τὸπλῆθος, or according to Hesychius: κάλλος and then the beautiful fabric of the material universe. “Quem κόσμον Grζci nomine ornamenti appellaverunt, eum nos a perfecta absolutaque elegantia mundum” (Plinius. H. N. 2, 3). The LXX do not apply the word κόσμος, strictly taken, to the universe. In the New Testament we find it used in all these senses, 1 Peter 1:3=εὐπρέπεια, τάξις; Acts 17:24; John 21:25; John 17:5; Matthew 24:21; Revelation 12:8; Revelation 17:8=τὸπᾶν, and especially by John in the Gospel, John 1:9; John 11:9; John 12:19; John 18:36; 1 John 2:2; 1 John 4:1; 1 John 4:3; 1 John 4:9; 1 John 4:14.=the creation of the earth, especially of the world of man (Dόsterdieck)=τὸπλήθος. Now the difference between οὖτοςὁκόσμος=τὰκάτω and τὰὃνω (John 8:23), which is at the same time the opposite of both, makes κόσμος to denote the whole kingdom of sin and death, inimical to God, under Satan its prince, and more particularly the world of man as fallen away and estranged from God (John 12:31; John 14:30; John 16:11, 1 John 4:4; 1 John 5:19; 2 Corinthians 4:4; Ephesians 6:11, sq.). But all this without the faintest trace of dualism. For the κόσμος, as originally created by God, was very good (cf. Genesis 1:31, with John 1:3; John 1:10), but became evil and is the object of redeeming love (John 3:16; 1 John 2:2; 1 John 4:14), so that the children of the world become the children of God in their faith in Christ and His Word (John 1:12; John 12:45-50); there is no man who is not first born flesh of the flesh, and yet born spirit of the spirit may not and should not become the child of God (John 3:6; 1 John 3:9; 1 John 3:14),—Now the sum-total of this earthly kingdom of evil is alternately applied in a real sense to the earthly sphere in general, and in a personal sense to the world of man, sinful, and abiding in sin; and these two conceptions frequently and easily play the one into the other. The present passage must be interpreted by the usus loquendi current in the N. T., and we must “lay down the rule that κόσμος bears the same meaning in all the three verses, so intimately connected together” (Dόsterdieck). We cannot say with a Lapide “omnibus hisce modis” (i.e. three different meanings: “1. homines mundani, in his proprie est concupiscentia; 2. orbis sublunaris, in hoc mundo proprie et formaliter non est concupiscentia; sed in eo est concupiscentia materialis i.e. objectum concupiscibile: 3. ipsa mundana vita vel concupiscentia in genere): omnibus hisce modis mundus hic accipi potest et Johannes nunc ad unum, nunc ad alterum respicit; ludit enim in voce mundus.” Points of support necessary to the right explanation of our passage are these: κόσμος is the opposite of God, it is a whole consisting of various parts and members, it is easily the object of love: it has a life, but lacks permanence and endurance. Hence it is evidently the earthly sphere of life, especially as filled with the world of man and opposing God, whose real side often alternates or concurs with its personal side; as applied to things, we have to think not so much of trees, flowers, mountains and stars as of whatever forms part of and constitutes the world of man, such as rank or dignity, possessions and gifts of the mind and of the body and such like. Consequently the κόσμος must not be taken as the sum-total of transient creatures as far as they are natural things as Lόcke (sum-total of all sensuous manifestations, exciting sensuous pleasure), with whom we must rank, de Wette, Brόckner, or J. Lange (systema totius mundi), Neander (the world and worldly things), and others construe the word. But equally objectionable is the interpretation which makes κόσμος=the evil inhering in the world, as given by Greek authors (ἡκοσμικὴφιληδονίακαὶδιάχυσις), Luther (=the world, i.e. ungodliness itself, human passions according to which man does not rightly use the creature), Calvin (omne genus corruptionis et malorum omnium abyssum), Morus (malum morale) Semler (vulgata consuetudo hominum, res corporeas unice appetentium), Erdmann (totus complexus et ambitus mali), Ebrard (τὰἐντῷκόσμῳ ?=kinds of sinful living, thinking and demeanor e.g. covetousness, ambition, sensuality.—M.]). Lastly, we must not limit the application of κόσμος to “the heathen world” (Lange), “the mass of ordinary men” (Oecumenius: ὁσυρφετὸς not συνφυτός, as Braune corrects M.] ὄχλος, ὅςοὐτὴντοῦπατρὸςἔχειἀγάπηνἐνἑαυτῷ; Calov.: homines dediti rebus hujus mundi), “the major part of men” (Grotius: humanum genus, secundum partem majorem, quζ in malis actionibus versatur), “to that part of the world which constituted the anti-christians” (Storr, Socinus). Cf. Dόsterdieck and Huther ad loc. [the latter giving all the passages cited by Braune.—M.].—Now while John, according to the Lord, urges love, notwithstanding John 3:16 : οὕτωςἠγάπησενὁθεὸςτὸνκόσμον he says here: μὴἀγαπᾶτετὸνκόσμον. There is a difference, if the Lord our Saviour and Redeemer, who is above the world, loves, or if we love that are of the world, needing salvation, although salvable. To love is to surrender oneself; God surrenders Himself in order to save, overcome and glorify; the creature can only surrender itself to the world to be ruined, swept along and carried off. The creature is forbidden to enter into intimate and vital communion, or entire life-fellowship with that sphere of humanity which has fallen away from God. The Saviour does it in order to save from it those who suffer themselves to be seized by Him.—Μηδέ=but not even, or no, not even. The Apostle consequently draws a sharp distinction between τὸνκόσμον and τὰἐντῷκόσμῳ, the whole or the general, and the particular or the specific. You are not even to love a particular, a specific part of the κόσμος; one may be fascinated by this thing, another by that, it all amounts to the same; the love of the world is there where we find the love of the particular or of one particular in the world, be it the gold of the earth, which is highly valued among men, or human wisdom, or honour with men, or power and dominion, or only influence of a less degree and in a limited sphere.—This warning is obviously addressed to all, the πατέρες and νεανίσκοι. “Omnibus hζc generaliter ecclesiζ filiis scribit” (Bede). It is not said to the children only (Oecumenius); for παιδία and τεκνία, denote the whole church (see above); nor to the young men only (Bengel, Sander, Besser), although it follows the last address. The next verse, which is purely general, as well as the import of this warning, require us to understand it as being universal in its application. The reasons. 1 John 2:15 b–17. First reason. 1 John 2:15 b, 16. If any one love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.—“Unum cor duos tam sibi adversarios amores non capit.” (Bede) “Contraria non sunt simul” (Bengel). Since ὁκόσμος is the object of love, since the Apostle is concerned with the love of the world and the heart of man which loves, ἡἀγάπητοῦπατρὸς is of course our love of the Father; for the love of the Father is not incompatible with the love of the world (John 3:16). Hence ἀγάπητοῦπατρὸς denotes neither “amor Patris erga suos et filialis erga Patrem” (Bengel), nor “the love of God toward us” (Luther II., Calov.), nor the “caritas quam Pater prζscribit” (Socinus). We have here the same antithesis which is noted in Matthew 6:24 : θεῷκαὶμαμωνᾷδουλεύειν, Romans 8:5 (σάρξ and πνεῦμα), 1 John 2:7 (φρόνηματῆςσαρκόςἔχθραεἰςθεόν); 2 Corinthians 6:15 (Χριστὸς and Βελίαρ); James 4:4 (ἡφιλίατοῦκόσμουἔχθρατοῦθεοῦ and in this Epistle 1 John 1:5 (φῶς and σκοτία). This is the reason of the warning against the love of the world; the love of the world is incompatible with the love of God, as our Father; the love of the world cannot consist with the sonship of God. [Christians are the children of God, God is their Father; their vocation is to love their Father, not to love the world.—M.]. This is explicitly brought out in 1 John 2:16. Because all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. The connection of this verse with the one preceding by ὅτι=because, compels us to emphasize πᾶν; for, because there is nothing in the world, the κόσμος, which is of the Father, the love of the world is utterly incompatible with the love of the Father.—Πᾶντὸἐντῷκόσμῳ is evidently not identical with τὰἐντῷκόσμῳ (1 John 2:15); the Singular denotes the transition from the particular to the unit: what is in the world is conceived as a whole, a totality comprehending the particular; hence the reference is not to objects only, as all those maintain who make it identical with τάἐντῷκόσμῳ (although Ebrard’s exposition correctly adverts to particular forms of demeanour, and Dόsterdieck speaks of a “transformation of the conception of the objects of the love of the world into the conception of subjective love itself and its essential modes of representation”); still less to persons (“omnes mundi dilectores non habent nisi concupiscentiam” Bede); but as Huther excellently puts it: “All that which constitutes the substance, i.e. the essence of the κόσμος, its inward life, which animates it.” The apposition indicates the nature of πᾶντὸἐντῷκόσμῳ, and shows how we are to take, and what is the true import of these words. The apposition has obviously respect to life-manifestations in the world of man; the whole, the sum and substance, the totality of those life-manifestations in the God-forsaken world of man, is not of God, but without, and opposed to God. In dealing with the difficulty connected with the exposition of the apposition: ἡἐπιθυμίατῆςσαρκὸςκαὶἡἐπιθυμίατῶνὀφθαλμῶνκαὶἡἀλαζονείατοῦβίου, we have to remember that all the three clauses must be taken as coφrdinated, and that the Genitive must be construed alike in all three cases. The three ideas are placed in juxtaposition by καί. Hence Dόsterdieck errs in making ἡἐπιθυμίατῆςσαρκὸς the principal idea governing ἐπιθυμίατῶνὀφθαλμῶν and ἀλοζονείατοῦβίου. This is confirmed by the explanation of the separate ideas. In ἐπιθυμίατῶνὀφθαλμῶν we have evidently the Genitive of the subject; it cannot mean: lust after the eyes. We have therefore three times the Genitive of the subject. In ἐπιθυμιατῆςσαρκός the Genitive of the subject is analogous to the idea: ἡσὰρξἐπιθυμεῖ (Galatians 5:17), and to the grammatical usage of the N. T., where, with the exception of 2 Peter 2:10, the Genitive connected with ἐπιθυμία always denotes the subject; but σάρξ denotes here what it signifies elsewhere, e.g. in Ephesians 2:3 (ἐπιθυμίαιτῆςσαρκὸς.) 1 Peter 2:11 (αἱσαρκικαὶἐπιθυμίαι), the desire, the lust of the flesh, as suggested by the antithesis of πνεύματιἄγεσθαι, ἐνπνεύματιπεριπατεῖν. Limitations like those of Augustine (“desiderium earum rerum quζ pertinent ad carnem, sicut cibus et concubitus et cζtera hujusmodi”), Grotius, Baumgarten-Crusius, Sander and Besser, who agree with him, or those of Brόckner, who suggests “carnal lust in the strict sense,” Bengel (“ea quibus pascuntur sensus qui appellantur fruitivi: gustus et tactus,) Gerlach (“every kind of the lust of enjoyment”) and Ebrard (“sexual enjoyments”)—are not in agreement with the context and more or less arbitrary. Only the limitation required by the coφrdinated ἐπιθυμίατῶνὀφθαλμῶν is justifiable; but even this is an ἐπιθυμία, and as such equal to the former, yet not τῆςσαρκὸς, but τῶνὀφθαλμῶν. This ἐπιθυμία must not be subordinated to the former (as is done by Lόcke, de Wette and Dόsterdieck), but it is coφrdinated with it. Nor must the Genitive be taken at once subjectively and objectively: “the lust of the eyes, and at the same time that, wherein as the sensuous-worldly, the eyes delight themselves” (Brόckner). The lust of the eyes has respect to seeing, consequently the lust to see, and to see that which is the object of such lust. Hence Spener explains correctly: “all sinful lust which seeks for enjoyment in the very seeing,” and so does Huther: “the desire of seeing that which is unseemly, and the sinful gratification afforded by seeing it.” Hence it must not be restricted to “omnis curiositas in spectaculis, in theatris” (Augustine, Neander); nor is it sufficient to say with Calvin: “tam libidinosos aspectus comprehendit, quam vanitatem, quζ in pompis et inani splendors vagatur.” Nor may it be referred with Bengel to “ea, quibus tenentur sensus investigativi, oculus sive visus, auditus et olfactus.” Nor must extraneous ideas be added thereto, so as to make it denote a desire of possession excited by sight (Rickli), or straightforth πλεονεξία (Luther, Socinus, Grotius, Lorinus, Wolf, Baumgarten-Crusius, Gerlach, al.), or even “the whole sphere of the desires of selfishness, envy, covetousness, hatred and revenge” (Ebrard). Thus the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes are arbitrarily distinguished from each other or rather confounded, since the former is taken as sensuality and the latter as covetousness, or vice versa. The eyes, instruments of the senses, are preλminently the ministering members of the life of the soul and the spirit: here is flesh, become transparent, whereby surrounding objects and manifestations produce impressions on the life of the soul, and the soul requires insight of them. As the Scripture draws a distinction between grass and the flower of grass, and understands thereby the flesh and the glory of the flesh (1 Peter 1:24 : σὰρξὡςχόρτος and πᾶσαδόξααὐτῆςὡςἄνθοςχόρτου), and thus points beyond the nearest sphere of carnal life to the life-sphere of the soul, so we may distinguish the ἐπιθυμίατῆςσαρκός from the ἐπιθυμίατῶνὀφθαλμῶν in such manner that the former denotes absolute, purely sensuous lust, and the latter lust which through the instrumentality of the soul, points to the spiritual sphere of life. It is noteworthy that as Peter subjoins the words (1 John 2:25) “τὸδὲῥῆματοῦθεοῦμένειεῖςτὸναἰῶνα,” so John has almost the identical addition: “ὁδἐποιῶντὸθέληματοῦθεοῦμένειεἰςαἰῶνα.” Hence the former includes all the desires of possession and enjoyment, of covetousness and sensuality, of vulgar or refined form, while the latter embraces the desire which longs for, seeks and finds gratification in social intercourse and the manifestations of social joys, in works of art down to the rude outbreaks of festal joy.—To this is now added as a third καὶἡἀλαζονείατοῦβίου. While ἐπιθυμία refers twice to acquisition, ἀλαζονεία has respect to spending. The noun occurs, besides this place, in the N. T. only at James 4:16 : ἐνταῖςἀλαζονείαιςὑμῶν, the adjective in Romans 1:30, after, and in 2 Timothy 3:2, before ὑπερήφανος. In classical Greek it signifies arrogance and vaunting, with the secondary idea of untruthfulness and boasting about one’s rank or wealth. In James it evidently denotes the outbreaks of that arrogance which overlooks the vanity and nothingness of earthly happiness, and boastingly confides in it. The ἀλαζών is the vain braggart at whom and with whom one may perhaps smile; the ὑπερήφανος is the haughty man, who is irritable and injurious; the one recognizable in the national character of the French, the other in that of the English. The Genitive τοῦβίου, of the life, with reference to sustenance and necessaries, as is evident from 1 John 3:17; Mark 12:44; Luke 8:14; Luke 8:43; Luke 15:12; Luke 15:30; Luke 21:4; 2 Timothy 2:4, designating occasionally personal property (living), indicates the side on which this braggart arrogance does and is wont to appear, as well where there is little or great abundance as where it is merely coveted and want is concealed; braggart arrogance is wont to appear in connection with bodily sustenance and necessaries. Augustine: “Jactare se vult in honoribus, magnus sibi videtur, sive de divitiis, sive de aliqua potentia.” Bengel: “Ut velit quam plurimus esse in victu, cultu, apparatu, suppellectili, ζdificiis, prζdiis, famulitio, clientibus, jumentis, muneribus, etc., Revelation 18:12. Chrysostomus appellat τὸντῦφοντὸνβιωτικὸν et τὴνφαντασίαντοῦβίου.” Examples occur in Genesis 11:2-4; 1 Chronicles 22:1, sqq.; Ecclesiastes 2:1, sqq.; Ezekiel 28:12-19; Daniel 4:27; Revelation 17:4-6; Revelation 18, 4-7. So Lόcke, Sander, Besser and Huther; Neander, Gerlach and Dόsterdieck may be included in this category. Hence it is not correct to restrict the meaning to ambition, superbia, ambitio (Cyrillus, Socinus, al.).—We should hold with Bengel that: “Non coincidunt cum his tribus tria vitia cardinalia, voluptas, avaritia, superbia: sed tamen in his continentur.” The hypothesis that this trinity contains, a complete indication of all the forms in which evil is apt to manifest itself, has become traditional, and goes so far that Bede following Augustine said: “Per hζc tria tantum cupiditas humana tentatur; per hζc tria Adam tentatus est et victus; per hζc tentatus est Christus et vicit.” A Lapide actually discovered in them the correlatives of the three Persons of the Holy Trinity answering to the three primariζ virtutes, continentia, caritas, humilitas [which according to Huther are closely connected with the three monastic vows of chastity, poverty and obedience.—M.]. The majority of practical expositors have followed this track with various modifications, even Pascal (Pensιes, 28, 55) says: “libido sentiendi, sciendi, dominandi.” Lόcke very rightly opposed this interpretation and maintained that the point in question did not relate to cardinal vices, but to the chief forms (Brόckner; “leading Masses”) of worldly-mindedness. These, as Bengel observes, sustain an intimate relation to one another: “Etiam ii, qui arrogantiam vitζ non amant, tamen concupiscentiam oculorum sectari possunt, et qui hanc superarunt, tamen concupiscentiam carnis persζpe retinent: hζc enimprofundissima et communissima, apud minores, medioximos et potentes: apud eos etiam, qui abnegationem sui colere videntur; et rursum, nisi vincatur, ab ea facile progreditur homo ad concupiscentiam oculorum, ubi materiam habet; et ab hac ad superbiam vitζ, ubi facultatem habet; tertioque includitur secundum, secundo primum.” Thus ambition is ἐπιθυμίατῆςσαρκός only in so far as it wants to cast others in the shade, it is ἐπιθυμίατῶνὀφθαλμῶν as far as it aims at recognition and marks of recognition, and it is ἀλαζονείατοῦβίου as far as it is indulged in the consciousness of position and wealth, and in every form there are degrees of intensiveness and coarseness. The same holds good of avarice, voluptuousness and the love of pleasure. We have here by no means a complete catalogue of the biasses and forms of manifestation of evil. Unlovingness specified above (1 John 2:2-11) and mendacity mentioned below (1 John 2:18-20) although connected with this [trichotomy M.], are not contained in or denoted by it. Hence Luther, followed by Sander, rightly observes: “These three particulars are not of the Father: 1. Hatred of the brethren. 2. The three idols of the world. 3. False and corrupt doctrine.—The terms ἐκτοῦπατρός, ἐκτοῦκόσμουεἶναι denote origin and indicate similarity, congruity and connection. This is the profound truth that nothing is esteemed with God except His own Image; whatever is to have respect to Him, to belong to Him, to be, and able to be united with Him, must come from Him; 1 John 2:29; 1 John 3:7 sqq.; 1 John 4:2 sqq.; 7 sqq.; 1 John 5:1 sqq.; John 8:44. So Dόsterdieck, Huther, and Ebrard in opposition to de Wette [Paulus and Baumgarten-Crusius—M. ], who deny the reference to origin and restrict the application of the terms to congruity and similarity. The antithesis, intensified by the repetition of ἐστί “is not of the Father, but is of the world” marks with peculiar pointedness the world as the source of ungodliness. The world will not tolerate any thing that does not derive its being from it or belongs to it. We see therefore how God and the world are just here opposed to each other, irreconciled and irreconcilable; both are inflexible and neither can yield the place to the other. [Dόsterdieck: “Through our whole Epistle runs the view which is also manifest in the Gospel of St. John, that only the mind which springs from God is directed to God. He who is born of God, loves God, knows God, does God’s will. God Himself, who first loved us, viz. in Christ His incarnate Son, begot in us that love which of moral necessity returns again to the Father, and of like necessity embraces our brethren also. This love is hated by the world, because it springs not from the world. It depends not on the world, any more than that perverted love which springs from the world and is directed towards the world, the lust of the flesh, etc., can be directed to the Father or to God’s children. So that John grasps in reality down to the very foundations of the moral life, when he reminds his readers of the essentially distinct origin of the love of the world, and the love of God. The inmost kernel of the matter is hereby laid bare, and with it a glimpse is given of the whole process of the love of the world and the love of God, even to the end; and this end is now set forth expressly with extraordinary power.”—M.]. But The second reason: 1 John 2:17. And the world passeth away and the lust thereof; but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.—The world can only be taken here in the same sense as in the preceding verses, viz.: the world of man fallen away from and opposing God, which is a power, and as a power awes many, but does and has great things. But what is true of the σκοτία, 1 John 2:8, applies also to it: παράγεται, it passeth away, it is passing away and disappearing; the sense must not be limited to the transitory world, to be destroyed in the judgment (Bede: “mundus transibit, quum in die judicii per ignem in meliorem mutabitur figuram, ut sit c�lum novum et terra nova”), nor must the term be so construed as to express the consciousness of the approaching advent of Christ and the judgment of the κόσμος connected with it (Luther, with reference to 1 John 2:8; 1 John 2:18 : ἐσχάτηὥρα). It is, in effect, the uninterruptedly peculiar nature and destiny of the world (Oecumenius: “τὰκοσμικὰἐπιθυμήματαοὐκἔχειτὸμένοντεκαὶἑατὼς, τὰδὲκατὰτὸθέληματοῦθεοῦδιακρῆκαὶδιαιωνίζοντα (Dόsterdieck: “because of its alienation from God, doomed to passing away, to death”). The antithesis μένει requires and confirms this view. Although Dόsterdieck distinguishes his view, according to which he finds here more permanently valid axiomatic truths concerning the course of the love of God or the love of the world, from that of Oecumenius, who gives prominence to the properties of the love of the world and of the obedience to the commandments of God, the two views ought really to be combined thus: it fares with the world according to its nature, and the nature of the world agrees with its passing away. And as it passes away, so also passes away its lust, the lust which inheres in it, emanates from it, and governs it. Hence αὐτοῦ is the Genitive of the subject, as maintained by most commentators; it cannot mean lust after it or in it, as if αὐτοῦ were the Genitive of the object (Lόcke, Neander, Sander, Besser, al.). Of course, the lust of the world refers also to the world and the things and manifestations in it, and not to God and the riches of His Kingdom. If the whole, the world, belonging to death, passes away, then also its parts, the life that is in it, its separate manifestations and exhibitions of life in individuals, must pass away. This makes one thoroughly loathe the love of the world—the ἀγαπᾷντὸνκόσμον. Who wants to seize and hold as the object of his love that which is perishable, doomed to death and perpetual defeat? The clause ὁδὲποιῶντὸθέληματοῦθεοῦ supplies not only an antithesis, but affirms that the ἐπιθυμίατοῦκόσμου does not the will of God, that the ἀγάπητοῦπατρός shows and verifies itself in the ποιεῖντὸθέληματοῦθεοῦ, even as unfolded in 1 John 2:3, sqq., that the child does not trifle with the will of the Father, for the Father is God. To such applies the μένειεἰςτὸναἰῶνα, the antithesis of παράγεται, he abides therefore unto, into eternity, sharing and assured of the imperishable and beatific life: redeemed from θάνατος, from the σκοτία, he gains φῶς, ζωὴαἰώνιος. [Huther: “The destiny of the κόσμος is θάνατος, that of the children of God ζωὴαἰώνιος.”—M.]. This antithesis points to the fact that the παράγεται of the world will sooner or later have run its course, and that the world will have ceased to exist. Most singular and arbitrary is the opinion of Ebrard, who says that “αἰὼν is the ζon which will gloriously begin with the visible establishment of Christ’s Kingdom on earth,” and that consequently ὁποιῶν–εἰςτὸναἰῶνα signifies that “he that does the will of God will abide until then, until the Kingdom of Christ is established, and be suffered to witness the victory of Christ’s Kingdom.” The addition, “quomodo et deus manet in ζternum,” found in several Latin translations, but not in Jerome’s, is rather remarkable. AND ETHICAL1. The gift of the forgiveness of sins (1 John 2:12), which is, at the same time, the gift of adoption, [of being made the child of God—M.], 1 John 2:13 c, establishes a relationship which must verify itself in corresponding conduct, in the way of sanctification. God has taken the initiative, but man must seize it and hold fast, keep and verify it in striving after more profound knowledge, and in struggling for the peace of victory. On the gift of the forgiveness of our sins, and on that of our adoption with the Father, rest the more intimate knowledge of Christ, the victorious fight against Satan, and the enjoyment of the fruits of victory. In the fellowship with the Father and the Son are given us life, light, forgiveness, truth, wisdom, and understanding, and victory over the world and the devil. The victory of Christ (John 16:33) is the presupposition of all true victories, and His victory must continue in ours. John grounds the duties of Church members on the high privileges and immunities of the Christian state, and makes gratitude the principle of morality. 2. The peace-work of profound meditation and mature knowledge in men can only take place and prove successful if preceded by the struggles and triumphs of young men [i.e., the man must have passed through the discipline of the young man.—M.]. Great purity and integrity are indispensable to the clear perception and more thorough knowledge of the glory of Christ, of His Person, His Word, and His work. True knowledge presupposes life in fellowship with the Person known; it is a living reality and not a mere dogmatical formula (concerning the Person of Christ). Nothing but fighting against Satan will facilitate our knowledge of the eternal glory of Christ. 3. The κόσμος is diametrically opposed to God, and the heart of man cannot combine the love of the world and the love of the Father; the latter cannot thrive because of the former, or the former must be overcome, and disappearing, yield the place to the latter in the course of its growth and development. Where the life of [emanating from—M.] God is extant there may still be the world, but its power must be broken, it must wane more and more, and its still surviving remainder must recede before increasing and waxing knowledge and joy. Worldly life and godly life are not only two different biasses, but two opposite inclinations, incompatible and destroying each other. 4. It is not in point of space that we must flee from the world, but it is with reference to ethical principles that we must shun it, without loving it, turned away from it, to prevent our dying and perishing in and with it; some one thing may so effectually lay hold of one or another as to sweep him along with the fearful destruction of the whole κόσμος. 5. The definite superiority of the divine to the worldly may be gathered from the transitoriness of the world. Here is “afforded a vista through the whole process of the world’s history, as well as of the love of God, right on to the end” (Dόsterdieck), and at the same time an insight into the biography of individuals. 6. He that has separated himself from God, has estranged himself from Him, falls into the power of death; the world contains death in the love of itself. None but those who love the Father have the life; yet none love the Father but those who have and with true fidelity keep His word. But there exists no eternal kingdom of evil, the principially dualistic predisposition to evil, but only a condition which has become so, from which any and every man may and shall be redeemed, who does not offer any resistance. AND The gift of the forgiveness of sins sets us the task of fighting against the destroyer, and acquiring the knowledge of the Saviour. The gift of the forgiveness of sins is sonship with God and the knowledge of the Father. Holy Scripture directs us first to the knowledge of sin, then to fight against and overcome the wicked one, and lastly to acquire the knowledge of the God-man. Holy Scripture addresses first children—that is to say, the children of God; the word of God is the word of the Father to His children; the word of God calls all, whom it addresses, children, because He is the Father of all. Young men and fathers cannot go beyond this child-ship [I retain this Germanism in this place in order to render the thought more perspicuous; neither the word sonship nor adoption conveys the precise shade of thought.—M.]. No age of life can or may desire to surpass the stage of childhood before God. The life-truth of the Gospel is only one, emanating from one Spirit, resting on one foundation, consisting in one Spirit, but like the sun, shedding its illuminating and vitalizing beams in all directions: away with all false individualizing and all dry moralizing! He that loves not the world in God as the object of redemption to its salvation, loves it only without God to his own perdition. The world, which thou lovest, reacts more on thee than thou art able to influence it; thou wilt sooner become worldly through it, than it will become Christian through thee. Shun not the world, but love it not; be not afraid of it, but be afraid of thy love of it. Bodmer:—John the Apostle survived twelve Roman emperors: Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero, Galba, Otho, Vitellius, Vespasianus, Titus, Domitianus and Nerva; great expectations and hopes were entertained of each one of these lords of the world, but all failed in the case of the best of them: instead of healing, they inflicted wounds, and many came to a miserable end. Gerson:—Amor habet vim uniendi, si terram amas, terrenus es; si deum, divinus. Spener:—Every age should diligently cultivate the virtue becoming it before others, which is especially done by each particular age applying its natural gifts to the growth of life (understanding in the case of the old, strength in the case of young men, simplicity in the case of children).—Those who have overcome Satan as young men, may afterwards truly and fully know Christ as fathers, while those who have served him do not easily attain such knowledge, which is a kind of reward of grace.—The word of God does not only come to us, but abides also in us, and consequently is not a dead or passing sound—That which does not abide forever is not worthy of our love; for God has created, appointed and called us unto eternal things. Starke:—Preachers should particularly urge obedience to the commandments of God, and renunciation of the love of the world on the plea of the grace of God in the forgiveness of sins, as a more powerful incentive than considerations founded on the Law.—Although you have conquered the devil once, he will return and assault you with sevenfold strength to rob you of your crown. Therefore, ye warriors of Jesus, grow not secure, but think that your task is not done with one well-fought battle.—O the deluded souls that fancy that it is the privilege of their rank to use the world at their pleasure, to lead a worldly and carnal life, and to be good Christians for all! They will terribly deceive themselves, for the mere name is not sufficient.—Christians, would you love the Father, you must content yourselves with the necessaries of the body, bridle your eyes, and lead a life of simplicity.—The world and its lusts pass swiftly away, like an arrow cuts through the air, like smoke blows away, like a river flows along, like a bird flies past, like a sound dies away. What folly to set one’s hope and pleasure on such changeable and transitory things!—It is well, but not enough to know the will of God, we must do it in the strength of God, with all diligence, at all times, in all things, if we would abide forever.—It is a great mercy of God that He accepts our poor, imperfect doing, provided it be done with a childlike heart, as the doing of His will—None can do the will of God without denying his own will, for the will of God and corruptible self-will are utterly opposed to each other. Heubner:—Fathers are spiritual adults, matured Christians; they have known Christ, the Son of God, from personal experience, made proof of His power, or He has been fully formed in them (Ephesians 4:13; 1 Thessalonians 2:7; 1 Thessalonians 2:11; Hebrews 5:14). The image of Christ has a feeble and tender beginning in childhood; it continues growing in youth, but does not attain perfect clearness with open face until manhood. No warrior can go beyond this: Christ and His knowledge excel all perfection. We have here the case of souls that long since have acquired forgiveness and cleansing from their sins, overcome the wicked one, stood severe trials and hard conflicts, in victory have been planted in the likeness of Christ’s death, and made experience of the power of His resurrection. As fathers they possess spiritual generative powers. They are the mellow old wine. They are called τέλειοι, they are the nearest friends of the Lord, His intimates, that have a better understanding of His counsel: but, although thus highly raised by God, they never divest themselves of their childlike disposition. The sense of redemption in Christ, true poverty of spirit, voluntary and constant self-denial and strong love are their characteristics. But they still stand in need of instruction and caution (an old Christian had been victorious in the fight for thirty-nine years, but was overcome in the fortieth year.) They must fight senectute contra senectutem. They have more works than words. They are engaged in ceaseless intercessions for all the people of God, and gather riches for the children (2 Corinthians 12:14). But they must he very careful not to usurp an authority and power, in virtue of which they require others blindly and unconditionally to follow and agree with them; the moment they fall into this snare they cease to be fathers, and become the destroyers of the Christlike spirit in the children.—Young men are those who are still engaged in active warfare, and have to fear most the assaults of the flesh, the world and the devil; they ought to have begun to taste the better delights [of religion] and should overcome Satan. Hence they are always prepared for the battle. He that has become a true child of God must not care for the age of youth. Can any one, by anxious care, add one cubit unto his stature [age]? He that preserves that which he has, to him shall be given more; the process of growth is imperceptible (Mark 4:28). They ought to have the spirit of power and vigilance; as valiant soldiers they must always be at their post, warring against the enemy. Their dangers are rashness, undue ardor, temerity and negligence. They must have work to do, they must destroy Babylon, but abstain from all things, and fight faithfully unto death. They must not be discouraged in the first ardor of their zeal, for that first ardor may lose its intensity. Their strength will be in proportion to their allowing their strength quietly to strike root; even Christ walked in silence and retirement during His youth, and John was in the wilderness. They must learn to enter into the mystery of godliness, abstain from their doing in order that God may work in them, that thus they may resist the πονηρός, the spoiler, who comes from without and forces his way into them, and would fain seize the youthful warriors. Hence they need circumspection and weapons (Ephesians 6).—Children are beginners in Christianity who have already tasted the paternal love of God, who receive from the Father more tokens of love, as it were, more caressing. But they must be truly born of God, have a new mind, the Spirit of adoption whereby they cry Abba, Father. Their general characteristics are these: a childlike disposition, lowliness, obedience, sincerity, joyfulness. Their childlike failings are: credulity, carelessness, rashness, inconstancy, or even wandering from the simplicity in Christ. They are strongly attached to the sweet taste of grace. They require oversight, guidance, nursing, care, keeping; they require milk until they are able to take stronger food and grow. (Here we may refer to the choral divisions among the unitas fratrum: children, older boys, single brethren, single sisters, the chorus of married people, widowers and widows, to the incipientes, proficientes and profecti of the Moravians, and to the analogies of paganism, Plato de legg. II., where the chorus of boys, of young men to the age of thirty, of men to the age of sixty, used fascinatingly to implant the true and the good into the minds of the people in songs, and Plutarch lacon. instit. according to which, among the Spartans, old men used to sing: “Once we were vigorous youths;” men, “We are so; if thou desirest it, try;” and the boys, “Some day we shall even be better”).—Love is the noblest power in man, which he ought not to waste on unworthy objects, but he ought to love God only.—The world is set before men to try them, whether they will lay hold of it or of heavenly things.—The objects of our desires, as far as they are creatures, are not evil in themselves (1 Timothy 4:4; 1 Corinthians 10:26), but the passionate desire of them is evil, and of the evil spirit. The excusatio of worldlings is: “it is natural, it is innocent.” That is to lay the responsibility of sin on God.—Worldly-mindedness and religion are incompatible. There are, indeed, many degrees of this worldly-mindedness and fondness of worldly pleasures, but this much is certain: 1. Those in whom this fondness is strong and supreme, to whom non-gratification causes anger and a blank, are without the divine life. 2. Every worldly pleasure, though indifferent of itself, becomes sin if it leads astray from God, and has to be enjoyed without God. 3. In proportion to the growth of religion is the decrease of a mind and taste for worldly lusts, and vice versa.—It is disgraceful in clergymen [Germ. Geistliche, a technical term for clergymen, of which the English divines is the nearest approximation, or we may also say “spiritual and secular,” but, of course, without any reference to the Roman Catholic use of these terms—M.], who ought to be the opposite of the worldly, to exhibit worldliness in the bias of their mind and conversation.—What comes of the transitoriness of the world and of the things which lust desires? What harm does it do to the worldly? 1. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ 7. Warning and consolation against Anti-ChristD OF HIS , WHOSE POINTS TO THE LAST TIME (1 John 2:18-23). OF THE TO IN THEIR OF THE TRUTH AND ETERNAL LIFE (1 John 2:24-28). 1 John 2:18-2818 Little children, it is the last time, and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. 19They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be 20made manifest that they were not all of us. But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things. 21I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth. 22Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that 23denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: [but] he that acknowledged the Son hath the Father also. 24Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father. 25And this is the promise that he hath promised us, even eternal life. 26These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you 27But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. 28And now, little children, abide in him; that when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming. AND The connection. The groundwork on which this portion of the Epistle rests is contained in the individualized addresses (1 John 2:12-14), introducing both warning and consolation against the love of the world (1 John 2:15-17), as well as in the subsequent warning and consolation against antichrist (1 John 2:18-28). As the former particularly connected with the final clause νενικήκατετὸνπονηρόν whose kingdom is ὁκόσμος, so this connects with ἐγνώκατετὸνἀπ̓ἀρχῆς, τὸνπατέρα, ὁλόγοντοῦθεοῦἐνὑμῖνμένει. The opening words ἐσχάτηὥραἐστίν in the sequel (1 John 2:18) connect also with ὁκόσμοςπαράγεται (1 John 2:17). This portion which began (1 John 1:5 sq.) with the Light-Being of God and the Light-walk of believers, concludes with a warning against the lie which is directed against the fundamental pillar of eternal truth, the glory of Christ. and an exposure of its attempt to annihilate the promise of eternal life. The address παιδία, 1 John 2:18, applies to all the readers of the Epistle, and requires us to consider the sequel addressed to the whole Church (contrary to Bengel). It is incomprehensible that Ebrard on account of the peculiarly childlike character of this section should hold the opinion that the reference is only to the little ones, to children. The last hour, 1 John 2:18. This important and difficult idea, which is liable to many interpretations and has been variously understood, can only be understood and explained with reference to the whole usus loquendi current and the sum-total of clear views on the subject contained in the New Testament. It is not sufficient to refer the reader to Lange on Matthew 24., Moll on Hebrews 1:1, and Fronmόller on 1 Peter 1:5; 1 Peter 1:20. Compare particularly Riehm, Lehrbegriff des Hebrδerbriefs, pp. 72 sqq.; 204 sqq., and Dόsterdieck ad loc.—The representation of two ages of the world is rooted in the Old Testament idea αְּ ?ΰַ ?ηֲ ?ψִ ?ιϊηַ ?ιָּ ?ξִ ?ιν which constantly recurs in prophetical passages, beginning with the blessing of Jacob (Genesis 49:1), especially in Jeremiah, denotes “the most distant future, beyond which the eye cannot penetrate” (Hitzig on Micah 4:1), and is therefore well rendered by “in the end of the days.” The prophets use it almost exclusively to denote the Messianic times. The LXX. translate it ἐνἐσχάταιςἡμέραις (Isaiah 2:2), ἐπ̓ἐσχάτωντῶνἡμερῶν (Genesis 49:1), ἐπ̓ἐσχάτουτῶνἡμερῶν (Numbers 24:14), ἐπ̓ἐσχάτῳτῶνἡμερῶν (Deuteronomy 4:30), ἔσχατοντῶνἡμερῶν (Deuteronomy 31:29). Hence comes primarily the talmudical and rabbinical idea of the ςε̇μָ ?νδַ ?ζֶ ?δ and the ςεֹ ?μָ ?νδַ ?αּ ?ΰ; inside these two ages of the world are the ιְ ?ξεֹ ?ϊδַ ?ξָּ ?ωִׁ ?ιηַ, the days of the Messiah, the Messianic age proper, which is alternately counted with either age of the world, and consequently may be either after or before the end of the days, or the end of the days itself. The Lord Himself distinguishes ἐντούτῳτῷαἰῶνι from ἐντῷμέλλοντι (Matthew 12:30), ἐντῷκαιρῷτούτῳ from ἐντῷαἰῶνιτῷἐρχομένῳ (Mark 10:30; Luke 18:30); and this distinction, as well as Luke 20:34, sq. (οἱυἱοὶτοῦαἰῶνοςτούτουγαμοῦσιν—οἱδὲκαταξιωθέντεςτοῦαἰῶνοςἐκείνουτυχεῖνκαὶτῆςἀναστάσεωςτῆςἐκνεκρῶν) show most plainly that the earthly development-period of the kingdom of God preceding the second coming of Christ in glory, and beginning with the first coming of Christ in the flesh, belongs to the first age of the world, and that the future time is the time of the completed kingdom of God. According to this ἡἐσχάτηἡμέρα (John 6:39-40; John 6:44; John 6:54; John 11:24; John 12:48) is the day of the resurrection of the dead and the judgment, the last day of the first age of the world and the transition to the second. The turning-point between both ages of the world is the time of Christ’s return to judgment (Matthew 13:39 sq.; Matthew 13:49; Matthew 24:3; Matthew 28:20). Thus Paul also contrasts ἐντῷαἰῶνιτούτῳ with ἐντῷμέλλοντι, and the sufferings τοῦνῦνκαιροῦ with the μέλλουσαδόξα (Romans 8:18), and describes Christians as living ἐντῷνῦναἰῶνι looking for the blessed hope and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ (Titus 2:12-13). The ἔσχαταιἡμέραι in which there shall come καιροὶχαλεποὶ (2 Timothy 3:1), and the ὕστεροικαιροί (1 Timothy 4:1), like the αἰῶνεςοἱἐπερχόμενοι (Ephesians 2:7), denote the period immediately preceding the second coming of Christ. While, according to Paul, Christians still live outwardly in the first age of the world, yet are they ethically beyond it and the character of this present age of the world is described by him as tainted with immorality and alienation from God, Romans 12:2; 1 Corinthians 2:6; 1 Corinthians 2:8; 1 Corinthians 3:18; 2 Corinthians 4:4; Galatians 1:4; Ephesians 2:2; 2 Timothy 4:10. He regarded also the present age of the world as running on towards its end since the first coming of Christ; hence he speaks of τὰτέλητῶναἰώνων (1 Corinthians 10:11) having set in. We have not to inquire here whether he regarded the second coming of Christ to be near at hand.—Peter considers his time as the ἔσχαταιἡμέραι (Acts 2:17) and laid the first coming of Christ ἐπἐσχάτουτῶνχρώνων (1 Peter 1:20 cf. 1 John 2:5 : ἐνκαιρφ͂ἐσχάτῳ or τῶνἡμερῶν, 2 Peter 3:3 cf. Judges 18).—So also James: (James 5:13 : ἐνἐσχάταιςἡμέραις).—In the Epistle to the Hebrews also the close of the first age of the world is described as beginning with the first coming of Christ (Hebrews 1:1), but the συντέλειατῶναἰώνων denotes the turning-point of the two ages of the world, Hebrews 9:26, and this turning-point is more particularly described as found in the sacrificial death of Christ on account of its important consequences (Hebrews 10:14; Hebrews 11:39-40), since that which is eternal, is now extant (Χριστὸς–ἀρχιερεὺςτῶνμελλόντωνἀγαθῶν Hebrews 9:11; cf. Hebrews 5:14; Hebrews 10:1; Hebrews 10:18; Hebrews 6:5; Hebrews 12:22). The beginning of the new time has set in, but only the ideal and objective beginning; since the αἰὼνμέλλων as to the δύναμις is already extant in the redeemed, but will not enter into ἐνέργεια until the second coming of Christ (Hebrews 13:14), so that the first age of the world still continues outwardly and that consequently our time is only a transition-period; with respect to the ethical sense of these ideas we have here the point of contact between the Epistle to the Hebrews and the views of Paul.—John’s ἐσχάτηὥραἐστίν must be understood as lying within the limits of these views. The use of ὥρα instead of ἡμέρα, the day which with God is equal to a thousand years (Psalms 90:4; 2 Peter 3:8), indicates a peculiar feature, and the absence of the Article leaves it undefined. We have to think of a period of time belonging to the last days or last times which exhibits their character in a concentrated form, and since the ἐσχάτηἡμέρα in the Gospel adverts particularly to the κρίσις, the reference seems to be to peculiarly critical manifestations. If now we have to translate: “it is the last hour,” the reference to the antichrist and the antichrists is in admirable keeping with the announcements of the coming of false prophets and teachers for the purpose of temptation and trial, so that in them there already takes place a separation of true believers from false believers. Cf. Matthew 24:24 sqq.; 1 Timothy 4:1 sqq.; 2 Timothy 3:1 sqq.—Hence ὥρα is neither=the season of the year, the wintry season of the world (Scholiast II), nor ἐσχάτη=χειρίστη (Oecumen., Schφttgen: tempora periculosa, pessima et abjectissima, Carpzov and others), which is also forbidden by 2 Timothy 3:1. Bengel’s explanation that it denotes the last hour of John’s old age (ultima, non respectu omnium mundi temporum, sed in antitheto puerulorum, ad patres et juvenes), is a singular make-shift in order to guard John from the error that his prediction of the last hour had not been fulfilled. Nor can ἐσχάτηὥρα designate the time immediately preceding the destruction of Jerusalem (Socinus, Grotius), for the last time is not to be taken with such chronological precision. Nor is there any warrant for the assertion of Huther, that John wrote with presentiment of the second coming of Christ (an assertion based on what is said 1 John 2:8 of the σκοτία and 1 John 2:17 of the κόσμος, that they παράγεται which simply marks the transitory character inhering in the σκοτία and the κόσμος), since he writes only under the impression and with a sense of the transitoriness of the powers of this first age of the world, and that he indicates thereby the nearness of Christ’s second coming (Lόcke, Neander, Baumgarten-Crusius, Gerlach, Ebrard, Huther). Hence we may say with Dόsterdieck that “John did not wish to supply a chronological but only a real definition” [that is, one relating simply to the object—M.], which is clearly indicated by ἐὰνφανερώθῃ (1 John 2:28), since ὅταν is hardly the true reading there. “The prophetical substance of the Apostolical declaration is true,” “the extension of the time from the real beginning (the destruction of Jerusalem, which does not disconcert John, and of the import of which, with reference to the history and the judgment of the world, his mind is fully made up), to the actual end of beings” denotes rather no measure at all than one that is too short. The first Messianic transition-period inaugurated by the Saviour in the form of a servant, governed by Him and terminating the first age of the world is the ἐσχάτη, during which men pass through peculiar troubles, perils and conflicts on to the promised advent of the second world-age of glory. In this transition-period there are however peculiar hours of development, one of which had come when John wrote his Epistle. The term ἐσχάτηὥρα has therefore to be taken in a prophetical and eschatological sense; it has moreover an important bearing on the history of Christ’s kingdom and constitutes a historical reference to the second coming of Christ as the commencement of the second world-age, but not a chronological reference to the time when the second coming is to take place.—Noteworthy is Calvin’s explanation: ultimum tempus, in quo sic complentur omnia, ut nihil supersit prζter ultimam Christi revelationem, and with reference to the absence of the Article also that of Besser: the time before a special revelation of the judicatory glory of Christ prefiguring the last hour before the universal final judgment.— The Antichrist and the Antichrists, 1 John 2:18. 1. The word ἀντίχριστος occurs only here, 1 John 2:22; 1 John 4:3 and 2 John 1:7. and its meaning has to be ascertained first philologically and then exegetically. 2. ἀντὶ may mean both hostility and substitution. In the former case it denotes the antagonist of Christ, the antichrist, in the latter the pretender-Christ or pseudo-Christ. Thus ἀντίτυπος is a τύπος set in opposition to another τύπος, and ἀντίλυτρον a λύτρον, paid or given for something; so ἀντίθεος in Homer, denotes godlike, but other authors use it in the sense of adverse to the gods; one and the same word may then be used in both senses; but no word can have both meanings in one and the same place; hence we must not endeavour to combine the ideas of anti-Christ and pretender-Christ as Huther maintains (“the enemy of Christ, who, under the lying appearance of being the true Christ, endeavours to destroy the work of Christ”), although it must be conceded that the enemy of Christ appears at the same time with the pretension of being able to supply His place, of becoming His substitute, and that the pretender-Christ does occupy His place in hostility to Him. But the ἀντίχριστοι manifestly cannot be taken in this double sense. And still less allowable is it with Sander first to attach to the word in the Singular the sense of pseudo-Christ and mimic of Christ, and then immediately afterwards to make the Plural designate the enemies of Christ. We cannot get on purely philological considerations beyond the possibility of taking the word in one or the other of said senses. 3. We have to hold fast the fact that the word denotes persons. This is required of the Plural ἀντίχριστοι in 1 John 2:19 : ἐξἡμῶνἐξῆλθαν, οὐκἦσανἐξἡμῶν, μεμενήκεισανμεθ̓ἡμῶν. But if the ἀντίχριστοι are persons, then ἀντίχριστος must also be a person, for this is required by ἔρχεται. Hence Bengel’s exposition is incorrect: “Sive id vocabulum phrasis apostolica, sive sermo fidelium introduxit, Johannes errores, qui oriri possent, prζvisurus, non modo antichristum, sed etiam antichristos vult dici; et ubi antichristum vel spiritual antichristi vel deceptorem et antichristum dicit, sub singulari numero omnes mendaces et veritatis inimicos innuit. Quemadmodumque Christus interdum pro christianismo (where?), sic antichristus pro antichristianismo sive doctrina et multitudine hominum Christo contraria dicitur. Antichristum jam tum venire, ita assentitur Johannes, ut non unum, sed multos, id quod amplius quiddam et tristius esse censet, antichristos factos esse doceat. Sζpe totum genus eorum, qui bonam aliquam aut malem indolem habent, singulari numero cum articulo exprimitur (Matthew 12:35; Matthew 18:17; Matthew 18:29.). Igitur antichristus sive anti-christianismus ab extrema Johannis �tate(see above: the last hour=old age!) per omnem sζculorum tractum se propagavit et permanet, donec magnus ille adversarius exoritur. This view is adopted by Lange, Baumgarten-Crusius, Besser and others. 4. We have here before us a law of historical development, a fixed ordinance of the history of the kingdom. The point in question is the ἐσχάτηὥρα and the marks by which it may be known; the reference is to ἀντίχριστοςἐρχεται and to ἀντίχριστοιγεγόνασιν, to that which has happened νῦν, to that which is still to be looked for and has been announced (ἠκούσατε): And as ye have heard (through the announcement of the Apostles) that an antichrist cometh, even now have there come into existence many antichrists (καὶνῦν–γεγόνασι).—It is by no means allowable to insert ita est before καθὼςἠκούσατε (Bengel): nor must the Present ἔρχεται be put on a line with γεγόνασι, so that the antichrist now cometh and is present even as the others also have appeared; nor must ἔρχεται and γεγόνασι, made equal in point of time, be only so distinguished from each other that the former comes aliunde, while these have come ex nobis. Γεγόνασι, they are become, they have come into existence, denotes the antichrists as a historical product, on whom the surrounding powers operating in time have operated. Hence it is not equal to coeperunt esse (Erasmus) but to “they are become, they are existing.”—Ebrard incorrectly renders ἔρχεται=is future, although he correctly explains it by=will some day appear. The Future is implied in the idea of coming and the Present indicates the certainty of the event. [Huther: The Present ἔρχεται instead of the Future; it denotes the future as an event which is sure to occur.—M.]. Accordingly the ἀντίχριστοι exist before the ἀντίχριστος, who however is sure to follow them, and that which appears in the former, the προδρόμοις, only in an isolated, undeveloped and feeble form, is gathered together by the latter in his individual person, and developed in a powerful form. In the course of time malice will so surely become intensified and opposition to God and Christ will reach such a degree of development that the existence of many antichrists warrants the certain result of a future concentration and formation of this spirit in one person. 5. The ἀντίχριστοι come out of the Christian Church, they have themselves been Christians before (ἐξἡμῶνἐξῆλθαν 1 John 2:19); the antichrist, in like manner, will of course come forth from the ranks of the Christians, he will also be a man. Hence ἀντίχριστος is not Satan himself (Pseudohippolytos, Theodoret); the idea of Satan becoming man is inexecutable, since the Eternal Word only, the Image of the Father, in which man has been created, can become man. 6. The antichrists deny that Jesus is the Christ (1 John 2:22; 1 John 4:3; 2 John 1:7);) that He did not come in the flesh, that He is not the Son of God, that He is not of God (1 John 4:14 sqq.; 1 John 5:5 sqq.; 1 John 5:20 sq.). The doctrine is the denial of the truth, the lie, they themselves are liars, and according to John 8:44, the children of the devil, of the father of the lie (1 John 3:3-10). The Greeks strikingly observe: ὁψεύστης, ἐναντίοςὥντῇἀληθείᾳ, ἥτοιτῷΧριστῷ, ἀντίχριστόςἐστιν (Theophylact) and ὁψεύστηςτὸτοῦδιαβόλουὄνομα (Scholiast II.). The antichrist and the antichrists are to be taken “as expressly connected with Satan” (Dόsterdieck), and the two words here denote not substitution, but hostility to Christ exhibited in the form of eminent strength; the antichrist is pre-eminently the instrument and tool of Satan. Hence we have to exclude the exposition of Irenζus, Hippolytus, Cyrillus and others, that the antichrist was tentans semet ipsum Christum ostendere, and mimicking Christ. 7. The comparison of this passage with 2 Thessalonians 2:1 sq. (Hofmann, Heilige Schrift I., p. 307 sqq.) requires this explanation. The name ἀντίχριστος used by John corresponds with the description given by Paul, ἀντικείμενοςκαὶὑπεραιρόμενοςἐπὶπάνταλεγόμενονθεὸνἥσέβασμα, to denote his hostility with reference to his pretended ability to supply the place of God (ὥστεαὐτὸνεἰςτὸνναὸντοῦθεοῦκαθίσαι, ἀποδεικνύνταἑαυτὸνὅτιἐστὶνθεός). John contrasts the πνεῦματοῦἀντιχρίστου with the πνεῦματοῦθεοῦ, while Paul calls him ὁἅνθρωποςτῆςἀμαρτίας, ὁἅνομος, ὁυἱὸςτῆςἀπͅωλείας. His appearing also is preceded by an ἀποστασία, and he himself is the precursor of the παρουσίατοῦκυρίουἡμῶν, just as in John. But we must not overlook a difference belonging to this agreement. John speaks in a more general way, and uses less definite terms than Paul, who gives more distinct prominence to the person and approach of the dreaded and dreadful one; but he also refers to τὸκατέχον and ὁκατέχων as a power wielded by a living person, and specifies that for the benefit of the Church his progress will be arrested and his appearing delayed, thus pointing, like John, to a historical development.—Remembering all these particulars, we have, first of all, to reject those expositions which limit the application of the subject to a solitary historical fact or a single personage, and regard this statement of the Apostle in the light of a prophecy of a church-historical fact. Thus the Greek expositors, and many others (Augustine, Luther, Calvin, al.) after them apply it to heretics or heresiarchs, e.g., to Simon Magus, Cerinthus, Ebion, the Gnostics, to Basilides, Valentinus, and others, the Nicolaitanes (Revelation 2:6), to Diotrephes (3 John 1:9.), Hymeneus and Philetus (2 Timothy 2:17), and Grotius actually applies it to Barcochba, Calov to Mohammed, Luther (Art. Schm. tract. de pot. et prim. papζ, § 39; cf. Melanchthon, Apol. Art VII. VIII., § 23; XV. § 18) to the pope, and Roman Catholics to Luther. All this is purely arbitrary and unwarranted, and not only depreciates the word of prophecy, but actually deprives it of the prophetical element, as if it had ceased to be valid. Secondly, we have also to reject the modern exposition (both that of rationalistic commentators and that of Lόcke, de Wette and Neander) which insists upon separating the idea, “that simultaneously with the development of Christianity, evil also would gradually increase in intensity, until having reached its culmination, it would be completely conquered by the power of Christ,” from the form as here indicated, and that the form, as the mere shell, might be dropped. On the contrary, both the idea and the form have to be held fast, for we have here the expression of a law ever recurring in historical manifestations which belongs to the development of the history of the Kingdom [of God] up to and until the end of the time of Messiah and the Church, and this expression is so clearly and distinctly asserted that John feels warranted to draw the emphatic conclusion: “whence we know that there is a last hour.” By the appearing of many antichrists we may know and infer thence (ὅθεν) as from a distinct premise, that there is an onward progress in the direction of Christ’s coming, which is preceded by the concentration of the antichristian element, thriving and luxuriating of course in different persons according to its different forms of manifestation. [On the different views of the antichrist see Lόnemann on 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12; p. 204 sqq., and Dόsterdieck ad locum; also Trench, Synonyms of the N. T., p. 145 sqq.—M.]. Relation of the Antichrists to the Church. First there is noted the fact that, 1 John 2:19. From us they went out.—The most natural and primary meaning of ἡμῶν is that it designates the Apostle and his readers, consequently the Church, which is addressed by παιδία, and to be understood in ἡκούσατε. The reference is neither to the Jews (Grotius, Rickli), nor to the Apostles only (Spener, Besser), nor only to the Church with exclusion of the children (Ebrard). Apart from the form ἐξῆλθαν, which in this very verb is by no means uncommon in the New Testament (Winer, pp. 86, 87), the sense is various: prodire, exire, egredi, secedere. Two ideas play into each other: origin and separation, coming out and going away. The nature of the ἀντίχριστοι who are engaged in the ἀποστασία, not μεμενήκεισανμεθ’ ἡμῶν, requires us to translate secesserunt, evaserunt (Augustine, Bede, Erasmus, Lόcke, Dόsterdieck, Ebrard, Huther). Prodierunt (Vulgate, al.) misapprehends the origin of the antichrists, and denotes origin only. ἐξῆλθαν does not point to their development and origin, but only to their separation, their apostasy, which ἐξἡμῶν requires us to regard as their apostasy from the Church; γεγόνασιν, to be sure, shows that they are within that Church from which they have now separated. This is brought out “by the emphatic position of ἐξἡμῶν before the verb” (Huther), for ἐξἡμῶν in connection with the verb ἐξέρχεσθαι merely denotes the circle, the fellowship from which they have separated. “John does not indicate the extent to which that formal separation has been carried; still ἐξῆλθαν implies that they had not only opposed the Apostolical doctrine (Beza: “ad mutationem non loci, sed doctrinζ pertinet”), but also those who, by the faithful preservation of the unadulterated Gospel, had proved themselves to be children of God”(Huther). But they were not of us.—Εἶναιἐξἡμῶν indicates the internal relation. Here the idea of origin combines with that of appertaining and affinity. ’Αλλὰ (Winer, pp. 462, 472, ἄλλα) denotes the strong opposition of ἐξἡμῶνἐξῆλθαν and ἐξἡμῶνἦσαν. While the former simply betokens external origin and coming out from, the latter indicates internal relationship; they were the former, not the latter; the aforesaid fact expressly denies this internal relation. Both origin (coming from) and relationship (affinity, appertaining to) are contained in εἶναιἐκτοῦπατρὸς, ἐκτοῦκόσμου (1 John 2:16) and in ἐξελθεῖνἐκτοῦθεοῦ (John 8:42; John 16:28; while ἀπὸθεοῦ, John 13:3, and παρ̇ὰτοῦθεοῦ, John 16:27, denote only the former.) [Augustine: Quandoquidem adhuc curatur corpus Domini nostri Jesu Christi, et sanitas perfecta non erit nisi in resurrectione mortuorum; sic sunt in corpore Christi, quomodo humores mali. Quando evomuntur, tunc revelatur corpus: sic et mali quando exeunt, tunc revelatur ecclesia. Et dicit quando eos evomit atque projicit corpus, ex me exierunt humores isti, sed non erant ex me. Quid est, non erant ex me ? Non de carne mea prζcisi sunt, sed pectus mihi premebant dum inessent.”—M.]. But John here sharply contrasts the two and excludes the one by the other, adding moreover, For if they had been of us, they would have abode with us.—Consequently, they had been μεθ̓ἡμῶν, they had belonged to the Christians, they had lived among and with the Christians, they were Christians outwardly and to be considered, as such. Although they had been μεθ̓ἡμῶνͅ ?, they were not ἐξἡμῶν, for in that case they would have abode μεθ̓ἡμῶν. On the very frequent omission of the augment in the Pluperfect see Winer, p. 85. On the dogmatical and ethical import of this passage, see below in Doctrinal and Ethical, especially sub. Nos. 4. 5. But—that they might be made manifest, that not all are of us.—Here is an imperfect and involved construction. After ἀλλὰ we have of course to supply the thought suggested by the previous words: but they did not abide with us, that—(Huther, Winer, Grammar p. 333. where may be found the corresponding illustrations John 13:18 : ἐξελεξάμην, ἀλλ̓ ? (ἐξελεξάμην)ἵνα;—John 15:25 : μεμισήκασιν—,ἀλλ̓ ? (μεμισήκασιν)ἵνα—). In general γέγονετοῦτο would have to be supplied, which would however depend on the context for its meaning, as in John 1:8 : ἀλλ̓ ?(ἦλθεν) ἵνα—; John 9:3 : ἁλλ̓ ? (but he was born blind) ἵνα—. But de Wette has very correctly pointed out that two sentences are here interlaced, and Huther has rightly arranged them thus: 1, ἵναφανερωθῶσινὅτιοὐκεἰσὶνἐξἡμῶν, 2, ἵναφανερωθῇὅτιοὐκεἰσίπάντεςἐξἡμῶν. The secession of the antichrists has, taken place and constitutes an event that does not take place without some providential design, an event in which God the Lord takes an active part both as Ruler and Judge, hence ἵνα, to the end that, in order that. The Apostle’s design is to mark a purpose and not a consequence, as Lange and Paulus maintain without any reason for their view. The purpose is first, that they shall manifest themselves as those who do not sustain to us an inward and ethical relation of kinship and appertainment, and secondly, that it shall become manifest in general that not all those who are in the Church and outwardly belong to it (μεθ̓ἡμῶν, in ecclesia) do also belong to it inwardly (ἐξἡμῶν, de ecclesia). We have to connect οὐπάντες in the sense of nonnulli; for if we were to connect οὐκεἰσὶν so that the negation would belong to the predicate, John would have written οὐκεἰσὶνἐξἡμῶνπάντες, and we should be obliged to explain. “All are not of us,” or “none is of us.” In this case there would be something predicated of the antichrists, they would be the subject in πάντες. But this is not allowable on account of the position of the words. The meaning is rather: “Not all are of us, only some, although the majority are of us.” But this cannot be predicated of the antichrists; for they are not all true, living church members, none of them belongs truly to the Church. But their seceding furnishes actual proof that not all Christians (baptizati, vocati) are and remain real Christians (electi, fideles). “While in φανερωθῶσιν the seceders only are considered as the subject, the conception is enlarged in the clause ὄτι—ἡμῶν, and the Apostle declares in respect of the former, that in general not all who belong outwardly to the Christian Church, are really members of the same (Dόsterdieck). It is not allowable to understand ούπάντες with Socinus in the sense of nulli: the connection is right, the explanation is wrong. [Wordsworth: “They all pretend to be of us, and the heathen confound them with us. But their secession from us, and opposition to us, clearly prove that they are not all of us. Some false teachers [or false brethren M.] there are still who propagate heresies in the Church. They are tares in the field, but as long as they are in the field, it is not easy to distinguish them from the wheat. They are not of us, but they are not manifested as such by going put from us. But the going out of those who have left us, and who resist us, is a manifest token to all men, that they and their associates are not all of us, as they profess to be, and as the heathen suppose them to be; and as even some of the brethren in the Church imagine that they are, and are therefore deceived by them. By their going out they are manifested in their true light; and by their opposition to us Truth is distinguished from Error and Error from Truth.”—M.]. Testimony of the gifts of believers. 1 John 2:20-21. 1 John 2:20. And you have ointment from the Holy One and know all things.—The address ὑμεῖς has regard to the readers, to the Church, from which the antichrists have seceded. They are referred to a gift: ἔχετε. This gift is χρῖσμα, unguentum, not unctio as explained by Vulgate, Augustine, Luther, de Wette, Sander, al. It is chrism. “Alludit appellatio chrismatis ad antichristi nomen” (Bengel). [They hare the chrism from Christ.—M.]. Thus John came to use this word which besides this place occurs only in 1 John 2:27. In obedience to the command of God kings (1 Samuel 10:10; 1 Samuel 16:13-14; Psalms 45:8), priests (Exodus 29:7; Exodus 30:31) and. prophets (Isaiah 61:1) were anointed, and ointment is both figuratively, and in the ordered act itself, a symbol of the Holy Spirit. Thus Christ is anointed (Acts 4:27) and that with the Holy Spirit (Acts 10:38), and thus Christians also are anointed. The chrism or ointment will have to be understood as the Holy Spirit and ὑμειςἔχετεχρῖσμα reminds the readers of the great gift which makes them priests, kings and prophets, the γένοςἐκλεκτόν, βασίλειονἱεράτευμα, ἕθνοςἄγιον, 1 Peter 2:9; cf. Exodus 19:6; Isaiah 43:20-21. This gift of the Holy Spirit must not be made the “divinum beneficium cognoscendi ipsas res divinas, quatenus homini est opus” (Socinus), or the “auditio evangelii, institutio christiana” (Episcopius, Rosenmόller), or the “docendi auctoritas” (Sauler), or “the true tradition concerning Christ distinguished by its being primitive, originating with the Apostles and vitally propagated” (Kφstlin, Lehrbegriff, p. 243), or the “caritas quζ diffunditur in cordibus nostris per spiritum sanctum” (Didymus). And this having is a gift ἀπὸτοῦἀγίου, they have received what they have; hence 1 John 2:27 : τὸχρῖσμα—ἐλάβετε. Christ is called ἀγνός 1 John 3:3 and δίκαιος 1 John 2:2; in John 6:69 He is called: ὁἅγιοςτοῦθεοῦ, Acts 3:14 : ὁἅγιοςκαὶσίκαιος, Revelation 3:7 : ὁἅγιοςὁἀληθινός. The primary reference therefore seems to be to Christ who received the Spirit without measure (John 3:34), and baptized with the Holy Ghost (John 1:33) and sends Him from the Father (John 15:26; Acts 2:33) and hence the idea is that the Χριστός makes the χριστούς.—̔Απὸτοῦἁγίουconsequently denotes neither God the Father (Socinus, Episcopius, Rickli, Neander, Besser, al.) nor the Holy Ghost (Didymus, Grotius).—It must be remembered that nothing is said here of the time when they received this gift nor of the means by which it was conveyed to them, but we read simply: ἔχετε. Hence there is no warrant for finding here an allusion to baptism (Augustine, Bede, Oecumenius), and the inference of the ungenuineness of the Epistle from the supposition of an allusion to a usage connected with baptism introduced at a later period, is wholly unjustifiable (Baur). [The argument for an allusion to baptism, rests on the hypothesis that this whole section is addressed to παίδια, pueruli, children, who received the gifts of the Holy Spirit in their baptism; it is then by implication extended to adults, and the use of chrism in baptism, a practice which does not belong to the Apostolical Age, seems to have been occasioned by this passage. Bengel: “Eam unctionem spiritualem habent τὰπαιδία, pueruli: namque cum baptismo, quem susceperunt, conjunctum erat donum Spiritus Sancti, cujus significandi causa ex hoc loco deinceps usu receptum esse videtur, ut oleo corpora baptizatorum ungerentur.”—M.]. It is more allowable to connect with 1 John 2:24 cf. 1 John 2:18, and to refer to the preaching of the word of God (Dόsterdieck). We read simply “ye have—! Thus John reminds his readers of an important and responsible gift from which they might derive comfort and enjoyment in opposition to the antichrists, but which they ought also to keep, use and show against these adversaries. Hence the thought is introduced by καἰ, as John is wont to do, without indicating an antithesis which is contained in the matter itself; his object being to develop his argument by way of comfort and exhortation. [It is doubtful whether there is even an adversative implication in the thought, for John surely did not want to inform his readers that because they had the χρῖσμα they were the opposite of the antichrists. I do not mean that ὑμεῖς is not antithetical, but doubt whether καὶ is intended to mark an emphatic antithesis; in which case the Apostle would most probably have used σὲ or dispensed with the particle altogether. So Huther.—M.]. There is no reason at all to discover here with Semler a “captatio benevolentiζ,” or with a Lapide an apology for the shortness of the Epistle; and still more objectionable is the view of Lange that “a certain anxious care is unmistakable which puts forth even rhetorical efforts;” nor is Calvin right in saying: “modeste excusat apostolus, quod eos tam sollicite admonet, ne putent oblique se perstringi, quasi rudes ignarosque eorum, quζ probe tenere debuerant.” The further particular And know all things denotes the immediate gain they derive from this gift. Bengel rightly explains “et inde.” Πάντα is evidently neuter. The Syriac translates therefore falsely “omnes.” Although Calvin rightly says of πάντα: “omnia non universaliter capi, sed ad prζsentis loci circumstantiam restringi debet,” we must not restrict it with Bengel to “ea, quζ vos scire opus est: hoc responso repellendi erant seductores.” Still less must it be applied with Estius to the Church, as knowing all things, whereas individual Christians know only implicite if they hold to the Church [He says: “Habetis episcopos et presbyteros, quorum cura ac studio vestrζ ecclesiζ satis instructζ sunt in iis quζ pertinent ad doctrinζ christianζ veritatem.”—M.]. The reference, according to 1 John 2:21 and agreeably to John 16:13 : to τὸπνεῦματῆςὰληθείαςὁσηγήσειὑμᾶςἐντῇἀληθείᾳπάσῃ cf. John 14:26) is rather to πᾶσαντὴνἀλήθειαν (so Huther and most expositors). The sentence οἵδατετὴνἀλήθειαν, 1 John 2:21 is wholly=οἴδατετὰπάντα. 1 John 2:21. I have not written unto you, because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it.—̔ ?̓Εγραψα refers to the words immediately preceding 1 John 2:19 [that is to what the Apostle had just said concerning the antichrists—M.], and not to the Gospel, as Ebrard arbitrarily asserts. Not ignorance or want of knowledge on the part of the Church induced the Apostle to write this Epistle, on the contrary it was their knowledge and ability to form a right judgment of what was transpiring among them which prompted him to indite this Epistle, anxious as he was to foster and stimulate the truth possessed by his Church. Lorinus: “non ut vos hζc doceam, sed ut doctos confirmem.”—̓Αλήθεια is “the truth as announced by the Apostles, determining the whole walk in the light of believers (1 John 1:8; 1 John 2:4), begetting all love, giving life and founded on Christ (1 John 2:23 sqq.). Whatsoever falls within the compass of this truth is the object of Christian knowledge, all this is known by believers” (Dόsterdieck). And that every thing which is lie is not of the truth.—Καὶὄτι is not connected with ἔγραψα: and because—as if indicating the motive which prompted the Apostle to write this Epistle, but the sentence depended on the second οἵδατε and is an object-sentence coφrdinated with αὐτήν: ye know it (the truth)—and that—.Thus render almost all commentators. Hence springs the question (1 John 2:22) τίςἐστινὁψεύστης; John assumes that they know who is the liar, as well as what and whence the lie is. Here εἶναιἐκτῆςἀληθείας denotes not only origin but also appurtenance conditioned and defined by the origin. Of course πᾶν—οὐκ must not be explained here as a Hebraism (Grotius and al.)= οὐδέν, since οὐκ evidently belongs to the predicate, but—every lie is not out of the truth, which, however, amounts to=no lie is out of the truth. The reference to the antichrists is plain and the sense manifest: every thing which is lie neither originates from the truth, nor can it remain with the truth; it is not matter of complaint or of surprise that the antichrists with their lies and denials are seceding. ψεύδος consequently is not only error, but the distinct opposite of the truth, nor is it the abstract put for the concrete, viz.: the false teachers (Lange). Our Lord Himself tells us whence the lie originates, it is from the devil (John 8:44). The truth is from God and full of God, and therefore incompatible with any and every lie. [Diversity of origin renders the truth and the lie incompatibles. Christ is the truth (John 14:6). Lorinus: “Lex vero non nisi verum sequitur et verum vero consonat.”—M.]. All knowledge and ability to form a right judgment of moral phenomena are founded on the χρῖσμα, the Holy Spirit, consequently on a gift, even the gift which begins with sanctifying the will and renewing the heart. Sanctification leads to illumination. This points to the powerful exhortation which accompanies the consolation. The substance of the antichristian lie. 1 John 2:22-23. Ver 22. Who is the liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ?—The interrogative form marks the vivacity with which John passes from the general abstract (πᾶνψεῦδος) to the definite concrete (ὁψεύστης) as in 1 John 5:4-5. [Huther.] There is here surely no reference to children (Ebrard). Hence Bengel rightly explains: ὁ vim habet ad abstractum 1 John 2:21=quis est plains: ὁ vim habet ad abstractum 21=quis est illius mendacii reus?” The Article is by all means to be retained (Luther translates wrongly: who is a liar? [also E. V.—M.]) and to be explained as bringing out with emphatic distinctness the idea “the liar κατ̓ἐξοχήν i.e. he in whom the lie appears in concrete form= ὁἀντίχριστος” (Huther). It must not, however, be restricted to one individual besides whom there is none like him, but rather be taken generically or collectively with reference to the genus of antichristians, like ὁνικῶν in 1 John 5:5 (Dόsterdieck); πᾶνψεῦδος of course concentrates in him, if we exclude lies in other spheres, e.g. those of the natural sciences, history or jurisprudence; here we have to do with the sphere of religion, with church-life. All comparative explanations dilute the conception of the Apostle; under this head we may enumerate those of Calvin (“nisi hoc censeatur mendacium, aliud nullum haberi posse), Socinus (“mendacium quo nihil possit esse majus”), Grotius (“Quis potest esse major impostor?”), Episcopius (“enormitas mendacii”), J. Lange (“mendax prζcipuus et periculosior?”), de Wette (“who deserves more the name of liar?”).—Huther very justly says that Baumgarten-Crusius has altogether missed the Apostle’s meaning in his explanation: “What is an erroneous doctrine, if not etc.”—In the sentence εἰμὴὁἀρνούμενος, the term εἰμὴ is=nisi, except; εἰοὐ, si non would be inapplicable (Winer, p. 499) cf. 1 John 5:5; Luke 17:18; Romans 11:15, etc. The negative οὐκ in the sentence: ὅτἱΙησοῦςοὐκἔστινὁΧριστὸς might have been omitted, since it is preceded by ἀρνούμενος; but the affirmation of the liar is fully indicated, although it is couched in the form of a negation; this is in perfect agreement with the genius of the Greek language. Similar terms are found Luke 20:27; Galatians 5:17; Hebrews 12:19; cf. Kόhner, II. p. 410; Winer, p. 532 β. The essential feature and the height of the lie of the antichrist is this: Jesus is not the Christ, the Saviour promised by and come from the Father, the λόγοςσὰρξγενόμενος; this is the gnostic error which does not distinguish Jesus from Christ, but tears them asunder and thus constitutes the strongest antithesis to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The reference therefore is neither to the form of Jewish unbelief that Jesus is not omnium hominum patronus (Semler) nor to the two forms of heresy one of which denies that Jesus was the Eternal Word, and the other that the Eternal Word became flesh (Besser following Tertullian), [who says: de Prζscript, c. 1John 33: Joh. in ep. eos maxime antichristos vocat, qui Christum negarent in carne venisse et qui non putarent Jesum esse Filium Dei; illud Marcion, hoc Ebion vindicavit.”—Wordsworth, following Irenζus and Waterland, refers also to Cerinthus and his followers, who denied that Jesus was the Christ, dividing Jesus from Christ; and they denied the Son, because they did not acknowledge that Jesus was personally united with the Word, the Eternal Son of God; nor that the Word was the only begotten of the Father; and so they disowned the divine Sonship of Jesus and Christ; and thus they denied the Father and the Son.”—M.]. The reference is only to one lie. This is the antichrist who denieth the Father and the Son.—̔Οἀντίχριστος here and ὁψεύστης in the preceding clause, are evidently identical, and for the very reason that the liar denies Christ [or as Huther puts it: the liar, who denies the identity of Jesus and Christ, is the antichrist.—M.]. John adds “a new particular, exhibiting the wholly fatal consequence of that antichristian lie,” (Dόsterdieck) to this name in the following clause: ὁἀρνούμενοςτὸνπατέρακαὶτὸνυἱόν; here, to use the terse language of Luther, John knocks the bottom out of the barrel.—The antichrist denies also the Father. First he denies Christ and then proceeds to deny that He is the Son of and with the Father until he reaches the extreme position of denying the Father Himself. The Χρίστος belongs to history, to the economy of salvation. The idea υἱός reaches further, even down to the innermost Being of God; the denial of the Son violates the very Being of God, consequently the Father and thus far must it come with one who denies Christ. In Jesus appeared as Christ, as the Saviour of the world, the Son of the Father full of grace and truth, the Eternal Word which is from the beginning, and in the Son is manifested the Being of the Father, His Spirit and His Love, so that the knowledge of the Father is impossible without the knowledge of the Son. Hence he who denies Christ is led to the point that he has an ideal conception of God of his own making, an εἵδωλον, as Huther puts it, but not the true God, [Huther, to whom Braune is indebted for the thought, puts the logical sequence more lucidly than the latter; he says: He who denies the identity of Jesus and Christ, denies first the Son, for the Son is none other than ̔ΙησοῦςόΧριστός (neither an Aeon called Christ who did not become man, nor Jesus who is not Christ, or according to John 1:14, who is not the Logos); but whoso denies the Son, denies also the Father not only in as far as Father and Son are logically convertible terms, but because the Being of the Father manifests Itself only in the Son and because all true knowledge of the Father is conditioned by the knowledge of the Son, so that the God of those who deny the Son is not the true God, but a false creation of their own thoughts—an εἵδωλον.—M.]. 1 John 2:23. Every one that denieth the Son, hath also not the Father [neither hath he the Father].—Here is the progression from denying (ἀρνεῖσθαι) to having (ἔχειν), and from the particular (ὁψεύστης) to the general (πᾶς).—’Αρνούμενος evidently cannot be without an object, so that we have to connect πᾶςὁἀρνού,ενοςτὸνυἱὸν, but not: every one that denieth hath not the Son also (hath not) the Father; neither ὁἀρνούμενος nor the immediately succeeding ὁὁμολογῶν can be independent subjects, and πατέρα joined to υἱὸν cannot be governed by ἔχειν as in 2 John 1:9.—Ἁρνεῖσθαιτὸνυἱὸν signifies to disown the Eternal Word of the Father, the Logos (not only in Jesus who without the Logos is not and cannot be the Christ, but absolutely), and as such disowning implies not only mere ignorance or a limited understanding, but also infirmity and impurity of the heart and the will, it points to a separation of man from the Son of God, so that it becomes an οὺκἔχειν, and contains and operates an οὐκἔχειν 2 John 1:9. It is therefore “habere in agnitione et communione (Bengel), a possession in vital fellowship (Dόsterdieck); “habere in mente et fide, in ore et confessione” (a Lapide), “in faith and in love” (de Wette), “in knowledge, faith and confession” (Lόcke). False are the expositions of Socinus (“non habere opinionem, quod Deus sit”), Grotius (“non cognoscere Deum seu quζ sit ejus voluntas erga humanum genus”), Episcopius and others.—Οὐδὲ emphatically denotes the further loss that one cannot separate oneself from the Son without giving up the Father. The Apostle now concludes affirmatively: He that confesseth the Son hath the Father also.—On ὁμολογεῖν see above on 1 John 2:9. It is an act of the inner life and of a more intimate fellowship. Cf. Matthew 10:32; Romans 10:10. [Dόsterdieck: “In the denial of the Son is involved necessarily the denial of the Father, since the Father cannot be known without the Son, and the Father cannot be received, believed on, loved, by any man, without the Son, or otherwise than through the Son, i.e. the Son manifested in the flesh, the Christ, which is Jesus. So that in John’s development of the argument there are three essentially connected points: denial of the Christ, of the Son, of the Father. The middle link of the chain, the denial of the Son of God, shows how the denial of the Father is of necessity involved in the denial of Christ. And the cogency of this proof is made yet more stringent by another equally unavoidable process of argument. The antichristian false doctrine consists mainly in a negation, in the denial of the fundamental truth, that Jesus is the Christ. But in this is involved the denial of the Essence of the Son as well as of the Father, and again in this denial is involved the losing, the virtual not having of the Son and of the Father. In the sense of John, we may say, taking the first and last steps of his argument and leaving out the intervening ones: He who denieth that Jesus is the Christ, hath not the Father. And this necessary connection between denying and not having is perfectly clear, the moment we understand the ethical character, the living realism of John’s way of regarding the subject. As (1 John 2:23) we cannot separate the knowledge and confession of the Christ, the Son, the Father, from the having, the real possession of, the practical fellowship with, the actual remaining in the Son and the Father, so conversely, together with the denial is necessarily given the not having: together with the loss of the truth of the knowledge, the loss of the life which consists in that knowledge (John 17:3). In such a connection, the confession of the truth is as essential on the one side, as the denial on the other. Each is the necessary manifestation of the belief or unbelief hidden in the heart. And this ὁμολογεῖν is not to be understood of the “confessio cordis, vocis et operis,” (Bede), but only as 1 John 1:9, of the confession of the mouth (στόματιὁμολογεῖται, Romans 10:9, see John 12:42). It is parallel with φέρεινδιδαχήν 2 John 1:7; 2 John 1:10; and indicates the definite utterance of the doctrine which was made known by the Apostolic preaching, 1 John 2:24.”—M.]. Paternal exhortation founded on promises, 1 John 2:24-25. 1 John 2:24. Ye, let that which ye have heard from the beginning, abide in you.—The sentence is anacoluthic. It is well explained by Theophylact: ἐκεῖνοιμὲνοὖνοὕτωςὑμεῖςδὲἃπερἠκούσατεἀπ̓ἁρχῆς—φυλάττετεπαρἑαυτοῖς.—ὑμεῖς therefore must not be connected with ἠκούσατε, as if it were a mere transposition; there would be no reason whatsoever for such a connection and no reason or necessity for such an emphasis. So in 1 John 2:27, and frequently. See Winer §. §. 28, 3; 64, 2. d. Kόhner II, 156. Hence the explanations of Bengel (“antitheton, est in pronomine; ideo adhibetur trajectio”), de Wette (“ὑμεῖς is really the subject of the relative sentence, placed before”), and others are erroneous. Neither can ὑμεῖς be the pure Vocative (Ebrard, Paulus), nor be taken as an absolute Nominative (Myrberg).—The spurious οὐν after ὑμεῖς is not improper per se (Dόsterdieck in opposition to de Wette with whom Huther agrees), for it is not an antithesis of what goes before, which is also assumed by Theophylact, because the preceding sentence closes affirmatively thus: ὁὁμολογῶντὸνυἱὸν, καὶτὸνπατέραἕχει; and this is the ground of the present exhortation.—On ὅἡκούσατε cf. 1 John 2:7. John points to the apostolical announcement. ’Απ’ ἀρχῆς is more clearly defined by it (ex quo institui c�pistis in primis christianζ religionis rudimentis, Beza, so also Lόcke and others). There is no necessity to think of the prima ecclesiζ nascentis tempora (Bede). The substance of ὅ, not ἅ, seems to be simple. But it is not enough to understand in general evangelium, Christi (Calvin), or the truth that Jesus is the Christ (Huther, Lόcke), or θεολογούμενοντὸνχριστὸν (Theophylact), but we had better understand with Bengel (de patre et filio) the theologoumenon of the Father and the Son besides that fundamental truth (Dόsterdieck), as indicated in the preceding verses.—̓Ενὑμῖνμενέτω describes ἕχειν as a possession that has to be kept., The preposition must preserve its proper meaning; that which has been heard must “be in dwelling within as something that determines the life” (Neander). This meaning is also urged by the parallel passage John 15:1-10, where μένειν appears as a favourite expression of our Lord. In the sentence immediately following it is indeed impossible to render ἐν, with. The same holds good here. Hence Theophylact’s παρὰ, and Luther’s with are false. The truth and doctrine as announced by the Apostles “is really to dwell in them, as a living power in their hearts” (Dόsterdieck), and if that takes place, ἐὰνἐνὑμῖνμείνῃὅἀπ̓ἀρχῆςἡκούσατε, If in you—emphatically placed first—abides that which ye have heard from the beginning, ye also shall abide in the Son and in the Father.—Bengel well observes: καὶ: vicissim. Dόsterdieck hits the mark: “John denotes by the position of καὶ before ὑμεῖς the promised consequence which will correspond with the indicated destination while at the same time he makes prominent the fine turn contained in the thoughtful change of ἐνὑμῖνμείνῃ and ὑμεῖςἐντῷυὶῷμενεῖτε.” The reciprocal effect of the Word abiding in you and of the Church abiding in Christ does not refer to the origin of the relation of the Church and of her conduct, but only to the further development of the same. But the expression and its order intimate that the word must first be brought, preached and explained, and then be heard, received and kept, and that it must have found in individual Christians an element in which it is vitally efficient, even as it is full of life, in order to enable them to have (ἔχειν) and to live in Christ as their element. ἐντῷυίῷ stands naturally before καὶτῷπατρὶ because the Son is the Mediator of this life-fellowship. Hence Theophylact’s exposition, based on John 17:2; John 17:21 : κοινωνοὶαὐτοῦἔσεσθε, goes hardly far enough. The life of believers must really and essentially be rooted in God, derive nourishment, grow and mature to completeness from Him. Faith has not only brought news and intelligence and become acquainted with God, but has entered into personal intercourse with Him and carries away from Him the separate gifts, benefits and powers. The possession of this life is not left to the distant future, although the life is an eternal life, but the object of Christian hope in respect of its perfection and at the same time something present and the object of present experience; to speak with Calvin: deum se totum nobis in Christo fruendum dedit, not dabit (Dόsterdieck). Besides the principal passage John 15:1 sqq. the following places are very similar John 6:56; John 17:23; Galatians 2:20; 1 Corinthians 3:16; Ephesians 3:17. Hence the evaporating and diluting views of Grotius (“conjunctissimi Patri et filio eritis, summo eorum favore et amicitia fruemini”) Semler (“sitis certi, nobis patere omnem hanc felicitatem unice veram”) and others, as well as the scholastic, orthodox views of Schmid (“gratiosa filii et Patris inhabitatio”) and J. Lange (“unio cum deo mystica, communio cum eo jam inchoata, communicatio, per quam omnes regni divini dotes homini in usum sanctum et beatum contingunt”), are insignificant to bring out the mind and the thoughts of John in their living fulness. 1 John 2:25. And this is the promise which He hath promised us, the life eternal.—Αὕτηἐστίν should be explained here as in 1 John 2:23; 1 John 5:11; 1 John 5:14 where the same words occur in the same position or as in 1 John 1:5 : καὶἔστιναὕτη; the reference is to the words which follow—τὴνζωὴντὴναἰώνιον. The substance or object of ἐπαγγελία is qualified here by a Substantive, while the substance or object of ἀγγελία or ἐντολή or μαρτυρία or παῥῥησία in the other passages is indicated by a clause connected with ὅτι or ἵνα according to the context. Instead of the Accusative (ζωὴν), the Nominative (ζωὴ) ought to have been in apposition with ἐπαγγελία, but it was both attracted as apposition to the relative clause ἥναὐτὸςἐπηγγείλατοἡμῖν annexed in the same case as ἥν. See Winer, p. 552 sq. Therefore manere in filio et patre is not the ἐπαγγελία and ἡζωὴἡαἰώνιος not a pure apposition, so that the abiding itself is described as eternal life (Sander, Besser), but “the life eternal is the promise” (so Huther and most commentators). The ἐπαγγελία is promissio, consequently not res promissa (J. Lange, Estius), as if it were true contrary to the genius and usage of Greek to add ἥν—ἐπηγγείλατο. Αὐτὸς designates Him “who is the centre of this whole section” [Huther), that is Christ, and neither the Father (Hunnius), nor the Father through the Son (Socinus). But ἡζωὴἡαἰώνιος, as the substance and object of the ἐπαγγελία of the Son, is not viewed as a gift remote from and subsequent to this promise, but as present and experienced, acquired and enjoyed wherever the pre-requisite of the promise is complied with, namely the abiding of the word in you. Where the promise applies, it is forthwith fulfilling itself. Therefore it is not said that we should acquire the life eternal, but that at which this promise is aimed is simply mentioned and connected by attraction with ἐπηγγείλατο.—Καὶ accordingly has here its ordinary force as copula, connecting this sentence with the one preceding, adding and explaining something implied, but not yet particularly mentioned in the preceding sentence; the reference is to something directly connected with abiding in God; καὶ therefore must not be taken αὶτιολογικῶς (Oecumenius) or as designating the further consequence of holding fast the Gospel (Lόcke). Dόsterdieck strikingly observes: “The present reality of eternal life in believers is no more annulled by the fact that it is not yet perfected in them than that inversely continued growth, a holy and fruitful development, and the final glorious perfection are excluded by its real possession.” Conclusion, with repeated warnings and exhortations 1 John 2:26-28. 1 John 2:26. These things I have written unto you concerning those who deceive you.—Here ταῦτα connected with ἔγραψα refers back to the preceding verses, and the object περὶτῶνπλανώντωνὑμᾶς points back as far as 1 John 2:18. The πλανῶντεςὑμᾶς are the antichrists, and denotes that they are dangerous per se, really and not only unsuccessfully dangerous, as is evident from 1 John 2:19. [It is doubtful whether the reference to 1 John 2:19 warrants the inference of their actual success in the case of those whom the Apostle is addressing. The deceivers themselves had seceded; that is all we can gather from 1 John 2:19, and that they were anxious to deceive others we learn from this verse, but nothing is said of their having been successful in their endeavour—M.]. This is also intimated by the Accusative ὑμᾶς and 2 John 1:8; Matthew 24:5; Matthew 24:11; Matthew 24:24. [This is certainly a singular conclusion, for ὑμᾶς indicates that they, the readers of the Epistle, the Church, are the object of the deceiver’s endeavours.—M.]. The word itself denotes an act, a continuing activity, and therefore more than a “studium, conatus,” “seducere conantibus” (Bengel, Huther). [See Apparat. Critic. 1 John 2:26, note 27.—M.]. Hence the reiterated exhortation to fidelity. 1 John 2:27. And you—the ointment which ye received from Him, abideth in you, and ye have no need that any one teach you.—Thought, expression and construction, as in 1 John 2:20-21 : καὶὑμεῖςτὸχρῖσμα—φυλάττετε=μένειἐνὑμῖν. From ὑμᾶς, 1 John 2:26, the Apostle takes καὶὑμεῖς, and contrasting them with οἱπλανῶντες, places said words emphatically in anteposition, for they would be too strongly emphasized if we were to connect them with the relative clause. cf. 1 John 2:24. Tςχρῖσμα here, as χρῖσμα, 1 John 2:20, is in the Accusative, but must not be connected with the relative clause, per trajectionem. The Article denotes what is known and what has already been mentioned. Ἐλάβετε distinctly marks their reception and points to a greater obligation than the previous reference to possession (ἔχετε, 1 John 2:20). The gift is not without its task and work, here, under the impulse of gratitude. Ἀπ̓αὐτοῦ of course designates Him round whom the Apostle’s thoughts revolve as round their centre, the same who is deseribed in ἀπὸτοῦἁγίου, Christ, 1 John 2:25. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ III. PART THE SECIND 1 John 2:29 to 1 John 5:12HE THAT IS BORN AGAIN (OUT) OF (THE BEING OF) GOD THE (1 John 2:29) IS A MIRACLE OF HIS LOVE NOW AND (1 John 2:1-3), IS BOUND BY HIS WILL (1 John 2:4-10 A), TO LOVE (1 John 2:10-18), IS BLESSED BEFORE HIM AND IN HIM (1 John 2:19-24), TRYING LIKE GOD THE FALSE SPIRITS (I1Joh 2:1-6), HE ENJOYS THE LOVE OF GOD AND LOVE (1 John 2:7-21), HE OVER THE WORLD AND IS SURE OF ETERNAL LIFE (1 John 2:1-12). 1. The leading thought: He that is born again of God the Righteous doeth righteousness. 1 John 2:2929 If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is born of him. AND The subject of δίκαιος is not specified. It has to be ascertained either from the connection with the preceding verses, or from the verse itself. On this point Sander very justly lays down the Canon: “If δίκαιος designates Christ, ἐξαὐτοῦ refers to Him. But if the latter is impossible, that is, if ἐξαὐτοῦ must be referred to God, δίκαιος also must designate God.” There is no formal connection of this verse with the preceding verses containing reference to Christ; it is the beginning of a new section. Hence this verse, standing alone, must be explained by itself, and the question of the subject has to be determined from an examination of the verse itself. Hence there is no warrant for an outward occasion of a reference to Christ, especially since the oneness of the Father and the Son, of God and Christ, is everpresent to the mind of John, so that he frequently and easily passes from the one to the other without a special indication of such transition. Nor can we gather from the word δίκαιος whether the reference is to Christ or to God, for it is applied to God in 1 John 1:9 and to Christ in 1 John 2:1. But ἐξαὐτοῦγεγέννηται decides the point. The idea of γεννᾶσθαιἐκΧριστοῦ or τέκναΧριστοῦ notwithstanding Spener’s reference to Isaiah 9:6; Isaiah 53:10; Psalms 22:31; Psalms 110:3; Matthew 9:2; John 13:33; Hebrews 2:17 occurs nowhere. But γεγεννημένοςἐκτοῦθεοῦ occurs 1 John 3:9; 1 John 5:18 cf. 1 John 2:1; 1 John 2:4; 1 John 4:7; and τέκναθεοῦ in the very next verse 1 John 3:1 consequently: he is born of (out of) God. “Justus justum gignit” (Bengel). We have therefore the valid conclusion: God is righteous, he that is born of (out of) God doeth righteousness. [Like begets like.—M.]. Hence Christ is neither the subject of δίκαιος and ἐξαὐτοῦ (a Lapide, Bengel, Rickli, Frommann, al.), nor Christ the subject of δίκαιος and God the subject of ἐξαὐτοῦ (Storr, Lόcke, Heubner al.); but God is the subject of δίκαιος and ἐξαὐτοῦ (Neander, Kφstlin, Dόsterdieck, Ebrard, Huther, al.). 1 John 2:29. If ye know that He is righteous.—Besides what has been said on δίκαιος at 1 John 1:9; 1 John 2:1, we have further to add that if God is ἅγιος as to His Essence, He is δίκαιος as to His doing, and just because He is ἀγάπη (1 John 4:16), His energizing Will aims at the revelation of His holiness in laws at once agreeable to the holiness of His Being and adjusted to the nature and destination of His creatures, for whose benefit they are enacted, showing how His words are to be kept and His promises to be fulfilled, and how those who obey Him are to be rewarded and those who disobey him are to be punished. Legislation, denunciation and promise, punishment and reward, redemption and the forgiveness of sins are the acts and exhibitions of His δικαιοσύνη, which is the energy of His holy love directed outwardly, or the energy of His love conjoined with His holiness. Accordingly there is no righteousness whatever outside of God, or separate from God and His energizing, so that He is not only the prototype and original, but also the primordial source of all human righteousness. This is an important object of Christian knowledge, which, whilst it may indubitably be presupposed in the case of all Christians, is not always and readily found in the desired strength and purity in individual Christians. Hence ἐὰνεἰδῆτε. The Apostle appeals to the consciousness of the Church, desiring not to teach anything new but to render their knowledge vital and fruitful. [Hollaz: “Justitia Dei est attributum divinum ἐνεργητικόν, vi cujus Deus omnia quζζternζ suζ legi sunt conformia, vult et agit; creaturis convenientes leges prζscribit, promissa facta hominibus implet, bonos remuneratur et impios punit.” M.]. Know ye.—Since it is grammatically correct (Kόhner II., p. 550) that such a supposition may be followed either by the Imperative or the Indicative of a chief tense, especially of the Future, the prominent use of the Indicative Future, which is very nearly related to the Imperative, renders it highly probable that our γινώσκετε is the Imperative. Now since we read at 1 John 5:15 (referred to by de Wette and Dόsterdieck) ἐὰνοἴδαμεν—οἴδαμεν, but in the verse immediately succeeding 1 John 3:1, ἴδετε (to which Huther calls attention), the latter consideration decidedly out-weighs the former and constrains us to take γινώσκετε in the Imperative. To this must still be added the sense of the verb and the verse. The verb γινώσκειν denotes an activity ever deepening, quickening and enlarging, the knowing (εἰδέναι) grows thus into experimental knowing (γινώσκειν). The truth is the object of all knowing, and the Christian shall be led into all truth, that is, he is to know thoroughly, to pass on from one point which he knows and whereof he has cognition, to another [and a deeper knowing and insight—M.], even by the aid of the Holy Spirit. If ye know that He is righteous, ye know not yet, but are to know that—. Hence we must not construe here in the Indicative (Beza, Bengel, Dόsterdieck, Ewald, Neander and al.) but in the Imperative (Vulgate, Grotius, de Wette, Lόcke, Ebrard, Huther and al.). That also every one who doeth righteousness has been born (out) of Him.—Καὶ indicates the relation of appurtenance and congruity of the second to the first thought. It does not belong, however, to γινώσκετε, as if only expressing a logical relation (Dόsterdieck): if ye know—then ye know also (Neander); but it belongs to the subject, πᾶςὁποιῶν, and sets forth the relation of the two truths: God is righteous, and every one who doeth righteousness, is born of God. We have here to do with a real relation.—Ὁποιῶντὴνδικαιοσύνην is he that has the δικαιοσύνη within himself and causes it to be operative in his walk, his works, his words, his conduct and thinking, in his judgment, attitude, bearing and appearance, to come forth and become perceptible in himself. Doing is here not a merely outward and isolated act but an activity continuous and connected, having as much respect to the inward as to the outward, the energy of something possessed inwardly, of a gift received, of a communicated nature and life. Ποιῶν is emphatic; righteousness must be done, and not only lauded, confessed, preached, known, felt and believed. It may be done as yet imperfectly, in weakness, under repeated interruptions, but every Christian must and does do righteousness, πᾶς “omnis et solus” (Bengel). Nor is it enough to do only some parts of this righteousness, respect must be had to the whole τὴνδικαιοσύνην. As to the nature of this δικαιοσύνη we have to think of the righteousness which comes from God, passes before Him, is His and His work. It is, therefore, a righteousness, Divine as to its kind, an effluence of God’s primordial righteousness, from God Himself. It manifests itself in obedience to the Divine commandments, in shunning sin, in striving after holiness, in love of the brethren, in the life and growth of faith; and although much be wanting in its full exhibition and its perfection lie far remote, still this is the righteousness here referred to. Compare ποιεῖντὴνἀλήθειαν 1 John 1:6 and ςָ ?ωָׂ ?δφְ ?γָ ?χָ ?δ Genesis 18:19; Isaiah 56:1; Ps. 14:15.—This points to a powerful and specific cause and condition, without which ποιεῖντὴνδικαιοσύνην is impossible and inconceivable: ἐξαὐτοῦγεγέννηται The Present ποιῶν, and the Perfect γεγέννηται denote the sequence; the first in order of existence is: to be born of (out of) God, the second, which is the effect and result of the former, is: to do the righteousness. Precisely this order was necessarily implied in the exposition of the substance of ποιεῖντὴνδικαιοσύνην.—As with regard to δίκαιος the turns δικαιοσύνη and ποιεῖντὴνδικαιοσύνην have to be taken in a full and living sense, so likewise the phrase ἐξαὐτοῦγεννᾶσθαι. The reference is consequently to a beginning life, a birth, a coming into existence (becoming) of something which did not or does not yet exist; not only a change or an improvement, but something altogether new—and that out of God. The sense of the preposition ἐξ also, has doubtless to be held fast; out of Him, that is out of God’s Self-own Holy Essence. “Nasci ex Deo est naturam Dei acquirere” (Luther) or “constituitur in quadam participatione supernaturali esse divini” (de Lyra), having received a new being or nature out of God (Spener), perfectly analogous to γένησθεθείαςκοινωνοὶφύσεως, 2 Peter 1:4.—Cf. John 3:3; John 3:5-6; John 1:12-13; Titus 3:6; Ephesians 4:23-24; Romans 12:2; 1 Peter 1:3; 1 Peter 1:23. There is a Divine seed (1 John 3:9) in those who are born out of God; they have not become God, deified or absorbed in God or God absorbed in them, but only partakers of the Divine nature, germ-like, like new-born babes, so that a beginning has been made, but only a beginning, although the beginning of a life, Divine, coming from and leading to God, whose perfection is not wrought magically or by enchantment at one stroke, but is subject to the law of Divinely appointed growth. This birth out of God is a translation of man from death to life (1 John 3:14), brings him to the Light of the world and gives him eternal life (1 John 5:11; 1 John 5:20), and effects the blessed result that God is in us and we in Him (1 John 4:15), as the children of God (1 John 3:1-2; 1 John 3:9-10), out of God (1 John 3:10). But this is brought about by means of an ethical life-process (1 John 3:9; 1 John 5:1). We become the children of God. But nothing is said here on this point, or on the mediation of Christ and faith in Him. We have therefore to set aside all expositions, which weaken the thought, like those of Socinus (“Dei similem esse”) and Rosenmόller (“Amari a Deo” and “beneficiis ab eo ornari,” or introduce a foreign element, like that of Hilgenfeld (a destiny and necessity of nature represented in gnostico-dualistic manner), and those which misapprehend or reverse the right order in making the doing of righteousness the condition of our adoption (Socinus, Episcopius, Semler, al.); the false relation also of doing righteousness to standing in the judgment (a Lapide, Emser, Estius) has to be excluded as irrelevant.—Lόcke (2d ed.) says “properly one ought to have expected οτιπᾶςὁγεγεννημένοςἐξαὐτοῦποιεῖτὴνδικαιοσύνην;” this is not correct although the thought is correct per se. John makes the perceptible and cognizable ποιεῖντὴνδικαιοσύνην a sure token of the hidden life of the inner man, which began with the birth out of God, of the adoption, of the life out of which death cannot destroy and which can glory against the judgment. The relation between γεγεννῆσθαιἐκθεοῦ and ποιεῖντὴνδικαιοσύνην is exactly like that between κοινωνίανἔχεινμετὰθεοῦ and περιπατεῖνἐντῷφωτί in 1 John 1:6. Connection with the preceding, and development in the sequel.—The rich and independent thought is the introduction to or the text of the next part. Its fundamental tone is δίκαιόςἐστι, parallel to φῶςἐστι, which is a further confirmation of the presumption that God is the subject. It is impossible to restrict the notion δίκαιος by the side of the inference which is here drawn from it, to justitia judicialis. Hence we must not seek or find an internal reciprocal relationship between the judgment, (to which 1 John 2:28 is supposed to refer, but of which nothing is said, the reference being simply to Christ’s Advent), and righteousness; we need not think of the judicial function of the Divine righteousness nor of our being able to stand before the righteous Judge only through doing righteousness. But John in concluding the first part with the strong consolation which on the ground of the walk in light, adverts with hopeful promise to the blessed destination of Christians, passes from the παῤῥησία in the Advent to the thought of the Sonship, of the hope, the glory and heritage of the children of God. This is the connection with what goes before. The next main part of the Epistle is analytically divided by the development of this idea of a glorious birth out of God. AND ETHICAL1. God’s attribute of righteousness is not only energetically active, but also communicative. 2. The import of regeneration should be laid hold of by its indispensable consequence; viz.: ποιεῖντὴνδικαιοσύνην, and even its nature defined as a beginning of a new, Divine life. 3. The vital power and root of a truly valid righteousness in our being and walking, lie not in man as he is, but only in God, and out of God only in man as he has become a Christian. AND Determine [find out experimentally,—M.] what thou knowest.—Not only every gift of God is good and perfect, but both all the good, and all perfection are the gifts of Him, the Righteous one.—God gives and man—not only has but becomes [comes into existence.—M.].—God rules over thee and has His work in thee, that thou mayest become and remain His child.—Whatever is Divine prompts and impels the ethical, by which the Divine may be identified.—The cause of regeneration is the righteous God, and an ethical status is its mark and sign. Spener:—No man has by nature the power to do right or to work righteousness, but it comes only from his regeneration, from Christ, who makes us strong by regeneration and His dwelling in us. Lange:—The Gospel is careful with the law to connect the righteousness of faith with the righteousness of life and therein lies a true mark of a sincere evangelical preacher and a sincere evangelical hearer. Starke:—Believers are assured by their doing right, that, they have become the children of God by grace, that consequently they may joyfully appear before the judgment seat of God knowing that no Father will suffer his children to be put to confusion of face, and in this faith and undoubting hope they may joyfully take leave of this world. Besser:—The Apostle’s rejoicing over the present power of the children of God over sin is, as it were, a ladder on which he ascends to the glory that is still reserved for them; and the hope of this future glory impels him once more to charge his little children to use with all diligence the Christian virtue already accorded to them, uninfluenced by the seducers who pretended to be able to see the Lord without holiness. [Ezek. Hopkins:—Those who do God’s commandments, have a right of heirship and inheritance unto eternal life. For they are born of God and therefore heaven is their patrimony, their paternal estate: for the Apostle saith “Every one that doeth righteousness is born of God,” and if they are born of God then according to St. Paul’s argument Romans 8:17 : “If children, then heirs; heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ,” who is the “heir of all things.” The trial of thy legitimacy, whether thou art a true and genuine son of God will lie upon thy obedience to His commands, for “in this the children of God are manifest and the children of the devil; whosoever is born of God does not commit sin … and whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God.” 1 John 3:9-10. Now if by our obedience and dutifulness, it appears, that we are indeed the children of God, our Father will certainly give us a child’s portion; and that is no less than a kingdom. So saith our Saviour Luke 12:32; “Fear not, little flock: for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom.”—M.]. Footnotes: [1 John 2:29. German: “If ye know that He is righteous, know ye.” The Imperative is found in the margin of E. V., Wicl. Tynd. Cranm. Rhemish, Syriac, Latin (except Pagn. Beza), German, Dutch, Italian and French versions, and adopted by the authorities cited below in Exeget. and Crit.—M.] καὶ after ὅτι and before πᾶς is the reading of A. C. Sin., many cursives and versions. “Cujus addendi nulla causa erat; ex Johannis vero usu est.” (Tischendorf, who omits it in his 7th edition). [If καὶ is genuine it serves “to mark the congruity of the inference and the premise,” as Ebrard observes.—M.] German: retaining καὶ: “that also every one that doeth the righteousness hath been born of Him.”—M.] 2. The glory of the Sonship 1 John 3:1-31 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God; therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not. 2Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he Isaiah 3 And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure. AND Origin of the adoption. v. la.1 John 3:1 a. Behold!—John desires to call the attention of his readers to their filial state, (Mark 13:1; John 1:29), not without his own amazement at its glory, whereof, he himself, as a child of God, had made experience and therefore he uses in the sequel ἡμῖν not ὑμῖν. The former (noted only by Augustine, Sander and Huther) should be combined with the latter (to which Lyra and Grotius call attention), so that the right view lies not midway between these two. thoughts (Dόsterdieck), but in their combination. What manner of love the Father hath given to us.—Ποτατός, of frequent occurrence in the New Testament, and (according to Buttmann, Lexicog. 125, 302) probably derived from ποῦ, πόθεν, and ἀπὸ ?(πο-απός) with an inserted ὁ (pro-d-ire, pro-d-esse), and properly ought to be written ποδαπός, as it used to be written formerly, denotes literally wherefrom? whence? cujas? The question relates to extraction and race. Descent and quality are inquired after. So Luke 1:29 : ποταπὸςεἴηὁἀσπασμός; Matthew 8:27 : ποταπόςἐστινοὖτος. Descent and extraction are wholly lost sight of and there remains nothing but kind and quality. Luke 7:39; 2 Peter 3:11; Mark 13:1. In the last passage the word slightly touches the sense of quantus. Hence it is wrong to translate “qualem et quantum amorem” (Socinus, Episcopius, Estius), what or “how great love” (Lόcke, de Wette, Sander, Ewald) although we may admit that the signification of “qualis” plays into that of “quantus” (S. Schmidt, Dόsterdieck, Huther).—Luther renders very well: “what glorious, sublime love!” The quality has, at any rate, to be retained. The fact, however, of its being undeserved is not implied in ποταπήν (Calvin), but rather in ἡμῖν, indignis, inimicis, peccatoribus (a Lapide), just as the ἀγάπη and its nature involves the idea of its greatness, even as the strength and greatness, the intensiveness and extensiveness of love are concentrated in John 3:16 : οὕτωςἠγάπησενὁθεός. Luther pertinently observes in his Scholia: “Usus est Johannes singulari verborum pondere: non dicit, dedisse nobis deum donum aliquod, sed ipsam caritatem et fontem omnium bonorum, cor ipsum, idque non pro operibus aut studiis nostris, sed gratuito.” Ἀγάπη does not mean caritatis munus (Beza), effectus, documentum, beneficium, token or proof of love (Socinus, Episcopius, Grotius, Spener, Neander, al.); this is occasioned by δέδωκεν. Bengel: “non modo destinavit et contulit, sed etiam exhibuit” God has not only given in love, but He has given love itself, made it our own, absolutely given it to us so that His love is now ours. [a Lapide explains ἀγάπην in the R. C. interest, thus: “i.e. charitatem tum activam (actum amoris Dei quo nos mire amat), tum passivam no bisque a Deo communicatam et infusam. Videte quantam charitatem—nobis—prζstitit et exhibuit Deus, cum—charitatem creatam nobis dedit et infudit, quia filii Dei nominamur et sumus.” Calvin’s turn lies hardly in the Apostle’s expression: “Quod dicit datam esse caritatem, significat: hoc merζ esse liberalitatis, quod nos Deus pro fitiis habet.”—M.]. The Apostle, writing from a sense and consciousness of the adoption, says ὁπατὴρ and thus points to the sequel. That we should be called children of God.—As we have not ὄτι as in Matthew 8:27, the reference is not merely to the substance, the standing fact that we are called God’s children (in opposition to S. Schmidt, Episcopius, al.); as we have not ὅπως, as in John 11:57, the reference is not purely telic, as maintained by Lange, Lόcke, de Wette, Brόckner, Neander, al., who are compelled to specify as the gift of love something which is not contained in the text, e.g. that of God sending the Son in order to indicate the purpose of our sonship. But being God’s children is not a gift shortly to be communicated, not simply a present fact, but a task and problem, a fact only in process of becoming, only gradually accomplishing, not a creation of instantaneous occurrence or an immediately finished act of creation, but a work of God passing through different stages of development, and a history of man, a life wrought by God in man from a beginning to a high end, like the forgiveness of sins. Hence here, as in 1 John 1:9, ἵνα signifies=that we should be called. Our adoption by the Father is the substance and aim of His love.—Καλεῖσθαι (John 2:23 : φίλοςθεοῦἐκλήθη does not denote a predicate without substance, a name without a meaning or an empty title, for He that calls us children is God, and the blessed and glorious spirits in heaven. Then we are called so by men, by the brethren in earnest, by the world in mockery. “Where God gives names, He always gives also the being [the thing signified by the name M.].” Besser.—We have not the name of children without the sonship, even as we do not only call God Father; He is also our Father. But the acknowledgment of this sonship given by God and exhibited in the life, is here brought out. Although Augustine is wrong (“hic non est discrimen inter dici et esse”), yet is Calvin right (“inanis titulus esse non potest”). Hence the Greek commentators explain: εἴδετεγὰρὄτιἔδωκενἡμῖντέκνααὐτοῦγενέσθαιτεκαὶκληθῆναι (Oecumenius), or καὶλογισθῆναι (Theophyl.).—Baumgarten-Crusius and Neander after him, explains καλεῖσθαι with reference to John 1:12, by ἐξουσίανἔχεινγενέσθαι, but this is only the presupposition of καλεῖσθαι and it is not said that we should have the right to call ourselves children.—The position τέκναθεοῦ indicates the notion of the sonship, the choice of the word τέκνα instead of υἱοί the beginning, the birth, the dependence, and the Genitive θεοῦ instead of αὐτοῦ the glory and highness of this sonship. Bengel: “Quid majus, quam Deus? quζ proprior necessitudo, quam filius?And we are!—This adjunction, externally testified and internally required, is neither a gloss nor governed by ἵνα (Vulgate “et simus”) but an independent sentence designed to give special prominence and testimony to the reality of the sonship and the essence of the name; it is the gladsome expression of the certainty and of the consciousness founded on experience respecting this gift, although not exactly a triumphant exclamation over a hostile world. The assumption of Ebrard that κληθῶμεν indicates the relation of God to us and ἐσμὲν our relation to God, the former the fact of His being reconciled, the latter that of our changed nature and renovation, is unfounded. Both, indeed, are implied but not thus separated and distributed. Antithesis of the Sonship 1 John 3:1 b. Therefore the world knoweth us not.—Διὰτοῦτο refers back to what goes before: Because we are the children of God, the world knoweth us not. The Apostle mentions a necessary consequence of our being children of God, viz.: the world knoweth us not. He desires neither to meet an objection of believers (S. Schmidt), nor to express a ground of consolation [with respect to the persecutions to which they are exposed on the part of the world M.] (Luther, Grotius, de Wette, Lόcke al.), but to adjoin an ever-recurring truth of our experience [I should prefer to say with Huther that the Apostle here describes the contrast between believers, τέκναθεοῦ, and the world and the greatness of the love of the Father who gave them that endearing name. M.]. Ἡμᾶς denotes the relation and attitude, the nature and walk of the children of God, not external personality or. relation.—On ὁκόσμος compare notes on 1 John 3:15, and on γινώσκειν notes on 1 John 3:3.—“The essence of the notion ὁκόσμος according to John’s manner of thinking is antagonism to God; this,—and not the consideration of the numerical strength and influence of those who were opposed to the few and obscure Christians, and without being properly godless were wont to judge every thing by the standard of worldly wisdom (Episcopius),—is the basis of the Apostle’s argument.” (Dόsterdieck). γινώσκειν signifies a knowing which moves the whole man, rests on personal experience, voluntary agreement and lively interest, and agrees with the frame of mind, and the bias of life. The world does not understand Christians, seeks no intercourse with them, takes no part with them, or stands by them, and has no liking for them: all this is involved in οὐγινώσκειν and signifies: does not know them [thoroughly or experimentally; the world has no conception of the spiritual nature of Christians.—M.]. Cf. 1 John 5:13; John 16:33; John 15:20-21. Hence the explanations of Grotius “non agnoscit pro suis,” Semler “rejicit, reprobat,” Baumgarten-Crusius and others=μισεῖ are wrong. This relation subsisting between an ungodly world and the children of God the Apostle further explains in the following proposition: Because it knew Him not.—Ὅτι does not depend on διὰτοῦτο; John’s purpose is to explain how it happens that the world does not understand the Christians, because they are children of God, and he observes accordingly that the fault lies not with the children of God, but it is the fault of the world itself, because it has not known God. Γινώσκειν of course must be taken here in the same sense as in the former clause and, neither=credere in Deum (S. Schmidt), nor=nτsse doctrinam, curare divinam legem, jussa Dei observare (Episcopius), but “the whole contrast in mind and bias, also hatred and persecution” (de Wette) are embraced in the world’s not knowing God, both with reference to the children of God and to God Himself. The conclusion is valid: οὐκἔγνωτὸνυἱοθετήσαντα (Oecumenius), therefore οὐγινώσκειτὰτέκνααὐτοῦ. Hence αὐτόν must designate God and not Christ. Because we are born of God, and have been made partakers of the Divine nature, the world knoweth not us, which did not know God.—The change of tense in γινώσκει and ἔγνω must not be overlooked. The fact of the world not knowing the children of God is conditioned by the fact of its not knowing God. This is the first, on which depends the second. The knowledge of God is the ground of the knowledge of man and the knowledge of the world, which are not wanting in the children of God; self-knowledge also depends on it. All these are wanting where the knowledge of God is wanting; there is wanting the knowledge and understanding of believers and personal knowledge with respect to the whole and he general to which people belong, and with respect to the particular, even down to their own heart and nature. They know nothing, not even, what they do (Luke 23:34). The hope of the Sonship. 1 John 3:2. 1 John 3:2. Beloved.—This address, ἀγαπητοί, denotes a relation in which love is experienced, and in the present case experience of the love of God, whose children they are, and of the love of those with whom they are connected, and accordingly constitutes an antithesis to the preceding clause: We are children of God and therefore the world knoweth us not. Now are we children of God.—The former ἐσμέν culminates in τέκναθεοῦ and the preceding particle νῦν and is repeated after the parenthetical antithesis pointing first to the fact that the world does not know the children of God now, and secondly to the future. The context and position of νῦν require it to be taken as a particle of time (in opposition to de Wette: now, pursuant to that purpose of love). Thus it is emphatically asserted, that, notwithstanding the opposition of the world, we are already the children of God, although the glory of our sonship is still concealed and imperfect. So Lόcke and Dόsterdieck against Huther [who denies a reference to the preceding verse and considers νῦν used with respect to the future (οὔπω) to indicate the present glory of the children of God; adding that the Apostle before mentioning the future glory, notices the fact that it is as yet concealed.—M.]. And it hath not yet been manifested what we shall be.—Antitheses to the preceding are νῦν and οὔπω, ἐσμέν, and ἐσόμεθα, τέκναθεοῦ, and τί, which is further answered by ὅμοιοιαὐτῷ, just as οὔπωἐφανερώθη is carried further in ἐὰνφανερωθῇ and οἴδαμεν continued in ὀψόμεθα. These antitheses, however, are not contraria, but developments of the present τέκναθεοῦἐσμέν, the development of the adoption into the inheritance. The argument therefore is properly carried on by καὶ (in opposition to Beza, Grotius, Spener and others, who construe καὶ as a Hebraism in the sense of ἀλλά), and δὲ after οἴδαμεν is rightly wanting (contrary to S. Schmidt, Lόcke, Sander and others).—Οὔπωἐφανερώθη points to something actually existing but as yet concealed. For φανεροῦν means to make manifest, to bring to light, so as to be open to sight and to be known; not from the word itself, but from the context it has to be determined whether this manifestation is to take place factually, by means of historical development and events, or logically by means of instruction and teaching; here the former course is very distinctly marked (so Huther in opposition to Ebrard) so also 1 John 2:19; John 2:11; John 7:4; John 17:6; John 21:1. The context in like manner implies to whom this manifestation is to be made, if it is not explicitly stated. The primary reference is here probably to the world, the secondary to believers (Dόsterdieck). The interrogative (τίἐσόμεθα) presents no difficulty, and contains nothing to favour Ebrard’s opinion, since not only after verbs of knowing, inquiring etc., and in direct questions, but also in cases where classical writers would certainly have used ὅ, τι the N. T. writers use the interrogative pronoun; cf. Winer p. 181; Buttmann p. 216. On the thought itself compare Colossians 3:3 (ἡζωὴὑμῶνκέκρυπταισὺντῷΧριστῷἐντῷθεῷ) Romans 8:17 (εἰδὲτέκνα, καὶκληρονόμοι—θεοῦ, συγκληρονόμοιδὲΧριστοῦ), and 1 John 2:18 (οὐκἄξιατὰπαθήματατοῦνῦνκαιροῦπρὸςτὴνμέλλουσανδόξανἀποκαλυφῆναιεἰςἡμᾶς), also Galatians 4:1 (ἐφ’ ὅσονχρόνονὁκληρονόμοςνήπιόςἐστι, οὐδὲνδιαφέρειδούλουκύριοςπάντωνὤν.) It is important to remember that what is said is: “it has not yet appeared what we shall be” and not, that “we shall be something which as yet we are not”: οὔπω negatives not the being, but the having appeared, the being manifested. There is only one Divine sonship (child-ship); non dantur gradus υἱότητος(Calov). But it has its status or stages, its unfolding and development, the development of the inner being of a child of God and the unfolding of their manifold privileges and possessions. “The future already exists in the germ and is latent in the present” (Dόsterdieck). Augustine: “Quid est ergo, quod jam expectamus, si jam filii Dei sumus? quid autem erimus aliud, quam filii Dei?” However different the future state may be from the present and although we must distinguish the one from the other, the former is not absolutely new [Huther—M.]. This is the force of οὔπωἐφανερώθη, which only brings out and opens to sight that which is concealed, and this is the ἐσμέν become ἐσόμεθα. [Oecumenius: τὸγὰρνῦνἄδηλονφανερὸνγενήσεται, ἐκείνουἀποκαλυπτομένου. ὅμοιοιγὰραὐτῷἀναφανέντεςτὸτῆςυἱοθεσίαςλαμπρὸνπαραστήσομεν. οἰγὰρυἱοὶπάντεςὅμοιοιτῷπατρί.—M.]. But what does that consist in? We know that when it shall be manifested, we shall be like (similar to)Him.—Οἵδαμεν signifies certainty of knowing, not only guess-knowledge (Jachmann), and knowing participated in not only by the Apostles (Episcopius), but by all Christians (Calvin), by all of whom it is said: τέκναθεοῦἐσμέν. The object of that knowing is: ὅτιὅμοιοιαὐτῷἐσόμεθα. The occurrence of this future condition is indicated by ἐὰνφανερωθῇ. As we have ἐὰν and not ὅταν the reference is not only to the time when (Socinus and al.), but to the reality of the matter, cf. notes on 1 John 2:28. Also John 12:32; John 14:3; John 16:7. The Vulgate gives the precise shade of thought: cum apparuerit, bringing out the force of the Fut. exact. applied in the Subj. Aorist. The subject of φανερωθῇ is τίἐσόμεθα, which is clear from the unmistakable reference to ἐφανερώθητίἐσόμεθα. No expositor has seriously thought of God, but several supply Christ (Augustine, Bede, Calvin, Calov and others.).—Φανεροῦσθαιτίἐσόμεθα coincides with the coming of Christ and quoad rem, it is very possible to think here of Christ. But φανεροῦν would then have to be explained here of His appearing in glory, whereas it is used in 1 John 2:5 of His appearing in the flesh and expressly referred to Him by the demonstrative pronoun ἐκεῖνος, and the same verb had different subjects in the two sentences immediately succeeding each other. We may admit here “the possibility of that reference, the reality of which” is stated in 1 John 2:5, but have to maintain with the greater number of expositors that the concinnity of the diction requires us to supply to φανερωθῇ the same subject which belongs to ἐφανερώθη, namely τίἐσόμεθα, especially since the latter is explained by ὅμοιοιαὐτῷἐσόμεθα; the latter two as well as the two forms of φανεροῦσθαι are correlatives. Oecumenius excellently remarks: τὸγὰρνῦνἄδηλονφανερὸνγενήσεται, ἐκεῖνουἀποκαλυπτομένου: ὅμοιοιγὰραὐτῷἀναφανέντεςτὸτῆςυἱοθεσίαςλαμπρὸνπαραστήσομεν. οἱγὰρυἱοὶπάντωςὅμοιοιτῷπάτρι.—Ὅμοιος is resembling, similar to and not=equal to (Sander); it is not=ἴσος [the English “like” is ambiguous signifying both “similar” and “equal.” I have retained “like” in the text, but given “similar” in brackets.—M.]. Of Christ Paul says: τὸεἶναιἴσαθεῷ Philippians 2:6; and His enemies: ἴσοντῷθεῷ, John 5:18. Luke calls υἱοὶτοῦθεοῦ ?—ἰσάγγελοι but not ἴσοιθεῷ ?—Recollect the controversy of ὁμοούσιον and ὁμοιούσιον.—Ὅμοιος signifies similarity in external form and appearance (ὁράσει, Revelation 4:3; cf. Revelation 1:13; cf. Revelation 1:15; Revelation 9:7; Revelation 9:10; Revelation 9:19), and then in kind and authority (John 8:55; Revelation 13:4; Revelation 18:18). It is certain that “the creature will never become Creator” (Luther I), and “Non erimus idem, quod Deus, sed similes erimus Dei” (Luther, Schol.). That the connection requires us to to apply αὐτῷ to God and not to Christ, is clear and almost universally acknowledged; hence Bengel says very pointedly: “Deo, cujus sumus filii.” Now although the notion of resemblance to God is somewhat vague, the question arises whether the context does not shed light on the subject. Huther indeed rightly observes that commentators are not warranted in arbitrarily restricting it, but the attempt of deriving more light from the context must not be absolutely repudiated. Much will depend on the right understanding of the adjoined sentence. Because we shall see Him as He is.—The annexation by ὅτι points to a casual relation of resemblance to God and seeing God. This is almost universally acknowledged. Hence it is wrong to take ὅτι=ἀλλὰκαὶ (Oecumenius), or=ὅτεκαὶ (Scholiast. II.), or=et (Luther, Schol.), for this disturbs and negatives the internal relation of the two. Nor does ὅτι describe the “Modus hujus transformations” (Lyra). It is most natural to take the internal relation of resemblance to God and seeing God, so that the cause of resemblance to God lies in seeing God: we shall be similar to God, because we shall see Him face to face. For grammatically and dialectically this course is pointed out to us. We shall be similar to Him, because we shall see Him, says the Apostle, and not: ὀψόμεθααὐτὸν, ὅτιὅμοιοιαὐτῷἐσόμεθα (Dόsterdieck). The resemblance to God is the end of the love of God, and not the seeing God which is simply the instrument of the former. Cf. John 17:24. As γινώσκειν conduces to having (ἔχειν), so seeing God effects the being, and more particularly the being similar to Him. Hence the internal relation of the two is reversed if ὅτι is supposed to add only a “testimonium aut signum similitudinis” (Carpzov), not the cause of it, or if the seeing God is taken as the effect, from which is inferred the cause, resemblance of God (Calvin, Socinus, Episcopius, Rickli). Nor may we infer with Huther that because we shall see Him, therefore we know now (οἴδαμεν) that we shall be similar to Him; particularly as that knowledge rests on the sonship, which is a fact, and the word of promise given to the children of God. But this seeing must be taken in the full acceptation of the word, a real perfect seeing in the resurrection-body, and not only a real knowing The believer is in the σῶμαπνευματικόν (1 Corinthians 15:44) and sees face to face (1 Corinthians 13:12); it is “maxime practica visio, summi boni αἴσθησις plenissima” (J. Lange).—The object of this seeing is God, καθώςἐστι: “As He is not only in His Image etc., but in Himself and in His Being, His perfect majesty and glory (Spener). Such a seeing of God is a real ground of resembling God according to Revelation 22:4 : καὶὄψονταιτὸπρόσωποναὐτο͂υκαὶτὸὄνομααύτοῦἐπὶτῶνμετώπωναὐτῶν. 2 Corinthians 3:18 : ἡμεῖς—ἀνακεκαλυμμένῳπροσώπῳτὴνδόξανκυρίουκατοπτριζόμενοιτὴναὐτὴνεἰκόναμεταορφούμεθαἀπὸδόξηςεἰςδόξαν, καθάπερἀπὸκυρίπυπνεύματος. Hence Bengel: “ex aspectu similitudo.” Spener: “The seeing is the cause of the likeness.” So likewise de Wette, Neander, Dόsterdieck, Ebrard. The seeing God must react on him who sees by glorifying him into that which is the object of his seeing, making him similar to Him whom he sees. Thus is fulfilled the promise that we shall be θείαςκοινωνοὶφύσεως (2 Peter 1:4). Hence we must not think with Ebrard of “the light-nature of God,” or with de Wette of “the δόξα of God,” and still less with S. Schmidt and Dόsterdieck only of 1 John 2:29 : δικαιόςἐστιν, but rather with the Greek expositors (συμβασιλεύσομενκαὶσυνδοξασθήσομεναὐτῷ) also of our joint inheritance with Christ, since 1 John 2:28 (cf. Romans 8:17; 2 Timothy 2:12) suggests as much, and we may say with Luther that we have become lords of sin, of death and the devil. But although Calov clearly passes the bounds of exegesis in his dogmatical thought (“ratione mentis sapientia, ratione voluntatis sanctitate et justitia, ratione corporis immortalitate, ratione utriusque gloria et felicitate ζterna deo similes erimus”), those who are held fast in the enlightenment of the understanding by no means do justice to the text; and of these men Oertel caps the climax in his philosophical exposition: “I believe that the reference here is simply to the higher perfection of the knowledge of the Christian religion and the sense to be as follows: Some day, after several generations and centuries, mankind, which as yet clings overmuch to the spirit of coarseness, will be more enlightened, ennobled and happy and thus by means of the more perfect light that is to rise, attain to a perfect knowledge of the plan of God and the purpose of Jesus.—Ah, John, if thou hadst had a presentiment of the bloody Nicζades, Costnitziades, Dragoonades, edicts, etc. and the times when thousands were slaughtered in honour of religion!—But—thy presentiment of the education of mankind in religion, virtue and philanthropy will yet be perfected by the Providence of the Almighty Father.” [Augustine (Tract. in Ep. John 4:5) who however understands αὐτῷ and αὐτόν of Christ, exclaims: “Ergo visuri sumus quandam visionem, fratres, quam nec oculus vidit, nec auris audivit, nec in cor hominis ascendit: visionem quandam, visionem prζcellentem omnes pulchritudines terrenas, auri, argenti, nemorum atque camporum, pulchritudinem maris et aλris, pulchritudinem solis et lunζ, pulchritudinem angelorum, omnia superantem, quia ex ipsa pulchra sunt omnia.”—M.]. The power of this hope. 1 John 2:3. 1 John 3:3. And every one that hath this hope on Him, halloweth himself.—With καὶ which is not=οὖν, John annexes the sentence expressing “the moral effect of Christian hope” (Huther), which although it contains an exhortation in point of sense, yet formally expresses it as a fact and that more emphatically, since it intimates in decided terms that he who does not hallow himself, surrenders that hope in ingratitude. For πᾶςὁἔχων is omnis et solus; “Every one—and only such an one; for as this hope (1 John 2:2) peculiarly and exclusively belongs to the children of God, they and they only enjoy the power of such a hope whether it is to exhibit itself in sanctification, as here, or to afford patienee and joyfulness (Romans 8:14 sqq.; Romans 8:23 sqq.)” (Dόsterdieck), and ἐπ̓αὐτῷ i.e. θεῷ denotes “the fulcrum” (Huther), or still better “the real foundation of this hope” (J. Lange), the ground and soil out of which it grows up, so that S. Schmidt rightly observes: “Deus gignit spem.” Grotius weakens the thought: “Sicut Deus eam spem vult concipi.” Besides ἐλείζεινἐπ̓αὐτῷ (God) occurs Romans 15:12 and ἐπὶπλούτουἀδηλότητι, ἀλλ̓ἐντῷθεῷ 2 Tim. 6:17, although ἔχεινἐλπίδαἐπὶ cum dat., occurs only here and with εἰςθεὸν Acts 24:15.—̔Οἔχωντὴνἐλπίδα is not the same as ὁἐλπίζων, the latter denoting only the act of hope, but the former describing hope as a permanent property, as a fixed possession, so that the act of hoping is uninterrupted and lasting. Hence it is neither necessary nor correct to explain ἔχειν, as holding fast or preserving (Benson, Spener), or to take here ἐλπίδα as the object of hope, that which one is objectively entitled to hope (Ebrard). Τὴνἐλπίδαταύτην naturally leads us to think of ὅμοιοιαὐτῷἐσόμεθα. This was 1 John 2:2 the object and substance of οἴδαμεν. Now it is designated by ἔχειντὴνἐλπίδαταύτηνἐπ̓αὐτῷ as the object of a yearning desire in the power of God, in order to bring out the purifying reaction in our earthly life. The mere ἐλπίζειν would be incongruous with the ἁγνίζεινἑαυτὸν, which is affected and to be effected. Primarily, however, this hope and self-sanctification only are here connected (Hofmann), but the state of having hope and participation in this hope are presupposed in the case of the acts of such sanctifying of oneself. “Qui habet hanc spem et credit, se esse filium Dei, et expectat donec fides sua reveletur, is sine dubio ita accendetur spe illa, ut se purificet, nec involvat se sordibus carnis, sed carnem mortificabit” (Luther). Self-sanctification necessarily combined with Christian hope (de Wette) is its effectus (Hunnius). Hope is the mother of sanctification, not the reverse, as Grotius maintains. Nor is sanctification the condition of the fulfilment of this hope (Lόcke and several Roman Catholic commentators), nor must we find here the combination of both views (Schlichting, Episcopius). ̔Αγνίζειν from ἁγνός=καθαρός (Suidas), θָ ?δεֹ ?ψ (Numbers 8:21; Numbers 6:2-3; Psalms 11:7) clean, pure; applied; in the New Testament to wisdom (Jas. 3:47), to one fulfilling a vow (Acts 21:24; Acts 21:26; Acts 24:18), to the Christian walk (1 Peter 1:22; James 4:8; 2 Corinthians 6:6; 1 Timothy 5:22), and to the chaste (Titus 2:5; 2 Tim. 4:12; 5:2; 2 Corinthians 11:2). It signifies accordingly ἐλευθερίαπαντὸςμολυσμοῦσαρκὸςκαὶπνεύματος (Phavorinus), ἡτῶνἁμαοτημάτωνἀποχή (Clement. Alex.). Hence it is the opposite of impure, and ἅγιος the opposite of profane, although the latter denotes inward impurity and the former outward profanity [pollution] as a consequence and in a secondary sense. The reference to God, who is δίκαιος and whom we are to resemble, necessitates us not to restrict the meaning of ἁγνίζειν to castificare (Augustine), but to take it in a wider sense like καθαρίζειν (1 John 1:7; 1 John 1:9.). “Hoc non tantum de illa turpitudine carnis intelligendum est, sed de omnibus passionibus animi vitiosis, ira, avaritia, invidia, odio, superbia, gloriζ cupididate etc.” (Luther). The object of this hallowing is ἑαυτὸν, that is to say our own self, and not only particular details of our life or our outward life. The exhortations of Peter (2 Peter 3:13-14) and Paul (2 Corinthians 7:1) are analogous in point of matter. The Present denotes uninterrupted self-purification (Beza, Spener, Grotius, al.), because the Divine life in us constantly encounters impurity and unrighteousness and because these must be done away (Dόsterdieck). But this self-purification does not proceed from our own self in the same manner as it bears upon it; hence there is no αὐτὸς by the side of ἑαυτόν. Augustine pointedly says in this respect: “Quis non castificat nisi Deus? Sed Deus te nolentem non castificat. Ergo quod adjungis voluntatem tuam Deo, castificas te ipsum. Castificas te, non de te, sed de illo, qui venit, ut habitet in te. Tamen quia agis ibi aliquid voluntate, ideo et tibi aliquid tributum est.” The power, the impulse and initiative of self-purification do not reside in the liberum arbitrium of man, but in that on which rests the hope which impels self-purification. [See Huther.—M.]. Even as He is holy.—̓Εκεῖνος is Christ, according to the constant use of that word in juxtaposition with αὐτὸς, in the writings of John. Cf. 1 John 2:6. While the context required us to apply αὐτὸς to God, ἐκεῖνος may and must be applied to Christ, as the more remote subject. We cannot refer both to Christ (Aretius, Estius, Calvin), or both to God (Lyra, Socinus, al.). Christ is the pattern, and expressly shows us how we may become similar to God. If the Apostle had said only: καθὼςἐκεῖνος, we should then have been obliged to supply ἁγνίζειν. This is impossible, and the Apostle therefore adjoins ἁγνόςἐστι; purity belongs to Him essentially, He is absolutely and originally holy and righteous, “in most perfect harmony with the original righteousness as well as the original purity of the Father” (Dόsterdieck) see 1 John 2:5; 1 John 2:7, 1 John 2:1. “The ἁγνότης is an attribute inhering in Christ” (Lόcke), and ἐστι, not: ἦν, indicates an uninterrupted and permanent condition (John 1:18). There is no reason why καθὼς should be explained by quando-quidem and the purity of Christ should be construed into a second motive of self-purification (as Ebrard does). Even the externally direct relation to Christ is sufficiently manifest to the specifically Christian way of thinking, in virtue of the position of Christ as our only and eternal Mediator, and indispensable to John’s manner of contemplation; the immutable state of Christ is the perfect standard of Christians, and not only an outward example set before us, but a vital power. Cf. 1 John 1:1; 1 John 2:1; 1 John 2:6; 1 John 3:5; 1 John 3:7; 1 John 3:16; 1 John 4:17; [that is: the purity of Christ is the immutable and perfect standard and pattern according to which Christians should shape and mould their whole life, not only outwardly in acts, but inwardly in the disposition of the heart and the determination of the will.—M.]. AND ETHICAL1. The state of our being the children of God is a gift of the preλminent love of God; this is a point to be insisted upon in opposition to Pelagius and all Pelagian errors. A chaste exegesis requires us not to go beyond this general character of this passage and neither to beat (with Calvin) with it “the sophists” who postulate the foreseen future dignity of those whom God adopts, nor to find here the Lutheran principle “regeneratio prζcedit fidemsanctificatio,” while the (German) Reformed hold: “fides prζcedit regenerationem.” Here is simply the assertion of the prevenient love of the Father as the cause of our adoption, as in 1 John 4:10. 2. But not only from God, but from God only, from God exclusively proceedeth all the divine life, which passes before him. Our life of faith takes us back to Him, the Father, whose Nature is love. 3. Christianity brings not new information but a new life, not a new doctrine but a new nature, which like the natural, bodily birth has however its growth and development from the hidden, germ-like beginning to the most glorious perfection. 4. The world with all its glory does neither understand the kingdom of God nor the people and history of this kingdom; here is the ground and beginning of all enmity against the Church of Jesus and Christian Church-ordinances (Luke 23:34). Our Lord’s prayer: ἵναὁκόσμοςπιστεύσῃ ?—John 17:21, does not contradict the language of John. Christ adverts to the means designed to break through the mind and hardness of the world, while John here bears testimony to the mind and hardness of the world without intending to exclude that they may and should be counter acted and that not in vain. 5. But the first thing the world ought to be helped to get is that it may know God and the Divine. The knowledge of God, which however is only excited under the influence and manifestations of His love, conditions the knowledge of His people and kingdom. 6. The adoption of God has a history from its first beginning to its perfected glorification in the likeness of God, which takes place in consequence of the perfect vision of God, the seeing God effecting the transformation into the Image of God. 7. That which one day will become perfect in seeing God must begin here on earth in faith, and the glorification into the Image of God has its beginning in the sanctification wrought on earth. But this does by no means put the sanctificatiojustificatio in the power of man. For first it does not go before the justificatio (as is assumed by Roman Catholics) and secondly it has respect only to those who are born of God and takes place only by means of the power conveyed and appropriated in regeneration; consequently although it takes place with our own power, yet is this power not originally our own but only bestowed by the grace of God and made our own in faith, so that Wolf is perfectly right in saying: “aliud est δικαιοῦν, aliud ἁγνίζειν, prius illud in hominem non cadit,—ut vero posterius.” Compare the quotation from Augustine in Exegetical and Critical on 1 John 2:3. AND Two wonderful things: 1. The love of God which desires to adopt us as children; 2. The perverseness of the world which does not know such a Lord.—Art thou more astonished at God’s loving attitude to the world, or at the world’s hateful attitude to God and His children? Dost thou think it more strange that God treats thee as a child than that the world does not and will not understand thee? Dost thou not see that it is more natural and reasonable that the world is against thee than that God is for thee?—See that thou find thy way through all the proofs of the love of God even to that of His adoption of thee and through all the enmity of the world even to the knowledge of its ignorance and want of understanding! He only that does the former is able to do the latter.—Think of thy own and thy children’s adoption by God and inquire even in the case of one who is distasteful to thee, whether he is not as well as thou a child of God, and perhaps better entitled to be one than thou art thyself. This is very important and profitable for one’s own discipline, the education of one’s children and one’s intercourse with and among men.—Hope for the future, but do not expect to reap hereafter without sowing now; wouldst thou hereafter see God and become like Him it is necessary for thee to begin here to purify thyself by strenuous application.—Thy adoption rests on the foundation of God’s eternal love, reaches even into God’s eternal felicity, but in this temporal present and the present transitoriness it may be lost and therefore must be preserved all the infirmity of thy own flesh and all the enmity of the world notwithstanding.—Happy is the man whose joy flows from the grateful love of God and whose troubles proceed from a hostile world, but woe to him, whose joy is from beneath and whose troubles come from above, who is the friend of the world and the enemy of God, because he will not be His child.—At peace with God and at war with the world is a wholesome foundation for the alternatives of joy and trouble in thy life.—The import of our adoption by God: 1. Its Origin—the love of God. 2. Its Opposite—an ignorant world without understanding. 3. Its hope—blessed likeness to God. 4. Its power—the zeal of self-purification.—Vital questions and answers for the guidance of life. 1. Who is for thee? God in His eternal love. 2. Who is against thee? The world in its short-sightedness. 3. Whence? From God. 4. Whither? To God’s glory. 5. How? In the work of sanctification. Clemens Romanus:—How blessed and how wonderful are the gifts of God! Life in immortality, splendour in righteousness, truth in joy, faith in confidence, chastity in holiness—all these are goods present to our mind. Chrysostom:—Those who depise and deride us, know not who we are, citizens of heaven, belonging to an eternal fatherland, associates of the Cherubim; but they will know it in the day of judgment when they will exclaim with sighs and amazement, these are they whom we used to despise and deride. [Cassiodorus:—Let us therefore so live, that when He shall come again, we may be able to behold Him, as He is, in all the fulness of His grace and glory.—M.] Augustine:—The whole life of a Christian is a holy longing. What we long for, we do not yet see; but by longing thou art enlarging thyself so that when it is visible, thou mayest be filled therewith.—It is God alone who purifies us; but He does not purify thee, thyself unwilling; thou purifiest thyself, but not of thyself, but of Him [de Illo] who comes to dwell in thee. Luther:—If God were strictly to reckon with us, He would owe us nothing but hell; but if He gives us heaven, it is of grace. Starke:—Dost thou bear here the image of the devil and thinkest to become like Christ there? O, folly! O, deceit! Without the renovation of the divine Image none can attain to the glory of God.—Without purification hope of the future glory is impossible. The hope of the impure is daring, impudence and insolence.—Our Christianity is not so much a being pure as a continuous purifying oneself.—Believers purify not only one thing or another, but themselves, wholly, body and soul. The main work lies within and in the soul.—O, the shameful abuse of the Gospel! to be ever appealing to Christ and His merits, and yet never to follow His example! Daniel:—Christian, whose is the best nobility? His, who is born of God. Who is the most honoured man? He whom God regards in grace.—A missionary in India (Ziegenbalg) is translating the New Testament with the assistance of a native. Coming to this verse the Hindoo youth translates: that we may be allowed to kiss his feet. The missionary asks: Why do you render thus? The Indian replies: A child! that is too much! too high!—That had never entered into a heathen’s heart. Steinhofer:—A child of God is always an enigma to the world. Heubner:—The children of God bear the image, the glory of the Father, enjoy his whole fatherly love and are destined to own what He owns. All this God bestows upon us, apostates and former enemies. Every one is asked to become such a child.—The Christians should have called themselves the children of God? ’Twere pitiable indeed, if they did assume this title and as it were raise themselves to the divine nobility, and worse than if a fool would presume to call himself baron or count. We should be called thus by God and the heavenly children of God; in the Bible the name and the thing are one; the Bible does not know empty trifles.—The sonship is nothing that dazzles the eye, fascinates and attracts in a worldly point of view; it is rather something that is hidden. The world has no eye for it; why? because it knows not God, whereas we see in God the highest and most glorious good, and deem that only glorious which comes from God.—The Christian is quiet, calm, courageous under all the want of appreciation he experiences at the hands of the world; it neither surprises nor disturbs him; being misunderstood by the world cannot injure him.—Christians are the children of a prince, who are obliged to travel in lowly garb, incognito, and as it were in order to be tried, through a foreign country before they take possession of their kingdom. A secret, inward sense of his sonship accompanies the Christian on his journey through the world, through its busy noise; in his heart he walks with God—virtue is not to become a display and an ostentation, therefore the children of God have neither coat of arms nor the badge of an order. The future dignity of Christians cannot be guessed from his appearance any more than it could be determined from the appearance of Christ in His manger-cradle.—They are not condemned to eternal obscurity.—O day beyond compare when God will call His children, saying; Come forth from your obscurity, rise from your lowliness!—The promises of Christianity are transcendently glorious; Christians are not to be like the blessed, the perfected saints or the angels, but like God; what man could have laid hold of this daring hope without revelation?—The Christian should, as it were, keep himself up in a state of excitement. He is terrified at the thought: What? Shouldst thou exchange thy heavenly birthright for the world’s mess of pottage? denounce thy faith and lose thy Christian rank for the lust of the flesh, mammon or worldly honour?—Sanctification, though it does not acquire salvation (for it is the gift of grace), yet preserves it. Purification continues day by day; we are often polluted. Ebrard:—Our future glory is not an object of curiosity, not an object for inquisitiveness to be exercised about.—Not to purify oneself is tantamount to saying to God: “I do not want the jewel which thou holdest up before my eyes as the most precious jewel and promisest one day to give me: to be freed from sin I do not esteem a jewel.” Besser:—Says David as a Christian before Christ: “I am as a wonder unto many,” Psalms 71:7; much more are Christians after Christ the real children of wonder. The world, indeed, which will remain in the Wicked One, sees in the name of our sonship nothing but an empty, imaginary title.—Even though rejuvenated to the state of apostolical power and consecration the Church would yet have the world—although against her, yet not only outside of her (for bad fish also are found in the net), and woe to her, if she were ever to forget in the time of her militant state that her holiness is not perfected in those who are sanctified but only in Him who sanctifies them, and that in the administration of discipline over her members with which she is solemnly charged, she must use the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God for the condemnation of sin and the salvation of sinners, and not the winnowing shovel for cleaning the threshing-floor.—John, in particular, cherishes the most profound conviction that there is only one life for the children of God in time and in eternity, and he knows of no future happiness but that which, like the rose in the bud, is already contained germ-like in faith.—As the eye cannot endure the presence of the smallest particle of dust but sheds tears until it is clear again, so also the Christian’s eye of hope eagerly looking forward to the coming glory will not tolerate the presence of a particle of the world’s dust, and if any fly into it, it contracts with the keenest sensibility and the Lord gives tears of penitence which wash away the dust.— Tholuck:—How blessed is the lot of a believing disciple of the Saviour. 1. How blessed such a disciple is even now. Who recognizes in mankind, as we see it, who recognizes in it a family of God? The heathen, when they saw how Christians were so intimately united in the bonds of so novel a life, exclaimed; “See, how they love one another!—Blissful joy and astonishment at one and the same time. A child like mind cannot understand how and why it was thought worthy of so much grace and favour. 2. How blessed he will be hereafter. If you like, you may call it a defiance, but it is a divine defiance, as Luther says: “That faith gives man a defiant heart toward God and toward all creatures.” But what is the centre of all the hope of these poor and miserable people? is it honour, glory, enjoyment? Certainly. Romans 2:7-10. 3. Whereto that faith and this hope impel him. It cannot be the centre of Christian longing and hope in the hour of death that we shall see again our loved ones, but its centre is rather that we shall see Him again. Does it well forth from a weakly sense, or from that manly-strong sense, that seeing Him and to be like Him, freedom from sin and error, are one and the same thing? Purify your faith, steel your hope in the faith and hope of the disciple whom you regard only too often as the preacher of a weakly, morbid love.—That resemblance will not fall to thy share without thy own will. Thou must feel within thee the thirst for it and ask and examine thyself with holy love, what is still unclean in me?—Compare the notes on 1 John 2:4-10. Biarowsky:—The Holy Communion a glorification of the Triune God: 1. in that the Triune God glorifies Himself in it; 2. in that we glorify thereby the Triune God. Genzken (Baptismal address):—What a gift! what a task! what a blessed end even for this child. [Burkitt:—We shall be like him: in holiness as well as in happiness; as well in purity as immortality.—M.] [Secker:—To be “like God” implies in few words everything desirable, that ever so many words can express.—M.] [Bp. Conybeare:—The state of good men in the other world will carry with it a resemblance not in degree, but in kind, to the absolutely perfect Being, in those perfections of which man is capable: and that these will be produced in us by “seeing God as He is;” that is, by a vastly more distinct and more full sight of Him, than the present condition of human nature will admit of.—M.] [Macknight:—And every man that hath this hope of seeing Christ, and of being like Him “purifieth himself.” The felicity, which the Gospel teacheth us to expect in the world to come, is not that of a Mohammedan paradise, in which animal pleasures are the chief enjoyments. The happiness of the children of God in the kingdom of their Father will consist in being like Christ, not only in respect of His immortality, but in respect of his transcendent virtues, especially His boundless benevolence. And the joy, which will flow from the possession and exercise of virtues similar to Christ’s is so great, that no one, who hopes to become like Christ in virtue and happiness, will indulge himself in the unrestrained enjoyment of sensual pleasures; but will purify himself from the immoderate desire of those pleasures, in imitation of the purity of Christ.—Purifieth himself, namely, from the lusts of the flesh and from every sin. The Apostle, as Beza has observed, does not say, “hath purified himself,” but “purifieth himself,” to show that it is a good man’s constant study to purify himself, because in this life no one can attain unto perfect purity. By this text therefore, as well as by 1 John 1:8, those fanatics are condemned, who imagine they are able to live without sin.—M.] [Horsley:—Would God a better conformity to the example of his purity, than actually obtains, were to be found in the lives of nominal Christians! the numbers would be greater, which might entertain a reasonable hope that they shall be made like to Him when He appeareth. But thanks be to God, repentance, in this as in other cases, genuine, sincere repentance, shall stand the sinner in the stead of innocence: the sinner is allowed to wash the stains, even of these pollutions, in the Redeemer’s blood.—M.] [Compare also the thoughtful lecture of John Foster on 1 John 3:2 : “Our Ignorance of our Future Mode of Existence.”—M.] [Ez. Hopkins:—We shall see Him as He is: we must not understand it as if we could ever arrive to such a capacity as to see and know God as He is in His Infinite Essence: for God’s Essence being altogether indivisible, to know God essentially, were to know Him comprehensively; to know Him, as much as He is to be known in Himself; that is, to know Him as much as He knows Himself; which is impossible, for no finite understanding can comprehend an infinite object. And, yet, our sight and knowledge of God shall so far surmount those dim and glimmering discoveries which here He makes of Himself to us, that, comparatively, the Apostle might well call it, a seeing Him as He is, and a knowing Him as we are known by Him.—M.] [On Chapter III. Manton, T., Thirty-two Sermons. Works, 5, 577. 1 John 3:1. Hieronymus, S., The spiritual sonship. 2 Serm. Works, 349. 1 John 3:1-3. Stoughton, John. The dignitie of God’s children: or an exposition of 1 John 3, 1-3, plentifully shewing the comfortable, happie and most blessed state of all God’s children, and also, on the contrarie, the base, fearfull, and most woful condition of all other that are not the children of God. 4to. London. 1610. 1 John 3:2. Tillotson, Abp. Of the happiness of good men in a future state. 2 Sermons. Serm. 10, 56. Saurin, J. Heaven. Sermons 3, 321. Venn, John. The effect of seeing God as He is. Serm. 1, 210. Dwight, T. Adoption. Theol. 3, 167 Hamilton, R. W. The heavenly state. Congregat. Lecture, 235. 1 John 3:3. South, R. The hope of future glory, an excitement to purity of life. Sermons 6, 441 (Epiph. 6). Hope of resembling Christ. Pitman, 2d course, L. 206. Alford, H. The pure in heart. Hulsean Lecture, 1842. 41. M.] Footnotes: 1 John 3:1 δέδωκεν B. C. Sin; others, A. G. ἔδωκεν. [German: “hath given.”—M.] ἡμῖν A. C. Sin; others read ὑμῖν; so B. K. [The latter reading probably originated in the reference to the 2 pers. Plural; ἴδετε.—M.] [Greek: τέκναθεοῦ; German: “children of God;” the Article is superfluous and unauthorized and “children” is decidedly preferable to “sons”—M.] καὶἐσμέν after κληθῶμεν is inserted by A. B. C. Sin; many cursives and versions. Vulg.: et simus; others: et simus. Erasmus took it to be an addition; the Recept. omitted it. The false translation of the Vulgate was a stumbling-block to many, also Luther, and they omitted the words accordingly [The German retains καὶἐσμέν and renders in an independent clause: “and we are (it i.e. God’s children).” Oecumenius explains: ἔδωκενἡμῖντέκνααὐτοῦγενέσθαιτεκαὶκληθῆναι and Theophylact: γενέσθαιτεκαὶλογισθῆναι. The authorities are decidedly in favour o the genuineness of the addition.—M.] [1 John 3:2 τέκναθεοῦ; German; “children of God.”—M.] [German “and it hath not yet become manifest.” Lillie: “A Passive verb with or without an adjective is employed by Syr.; Dutch, Italian verss.; Aug. Beza, Hammond, Pearson, Berleb. Bible, Bengel,” and many others. He himself renders: “and it hath not yet been manifested;” the German seeks to retain the Aorist in preference to the Perfect, but it is difficult to do so in idiomatic English.—M.] G. K. insert δὲ after οἴδαμεν. [A. B. C. Sin. al. omit it; the insertion may be readily accounted for by the apparent contrast with the preceding. The German omits δὲ and begins a new sentence thus: “We know etc.”—M.] [φανερωθῇ, German: “when it shall be manifest;” Lillie: “when it shall be manifested” and in paraphrase: “when the mystery of our future being is unveiled, this is what shall be disclosed: ‘we shall be like Him,’ whatever of glory and blessedness that involves.—M.] [1 John 3:3 German “because.”—M.] [German “on Him” in lieu of the ambiguous and deceptive “in him” of E. V.—M.] [German: “halloweth himself even as He is holy.”—M.] Would it not be well to coin the word child-ship after the analogy of son-ship, fellow-ship, friend-ship, etc.? The word rendered “adoption” denotes “childship,” and for the want of such a word in English the terms “sonship”—“adoption” have been used for the German “Kindschaft.” M.] 3. The Way of God’s Children Passes Through God’s Law1 John 3:4-10 a4Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law 5And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no6sin. Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, 7neither known him. Little children let no man deceive you:he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. 8He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested,9that he might destroy the works of the devil. Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. 10In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil. AND Connection. The Apostle having traced the glory of the sonship up to the power (which it derives from hope in God) of working out self-purification, annexes 1 John 3:4 with a more general antithesis which, as usual, contains a progression of the argument. The positive: “Every one that hath this hope purifieth himself;” is contrasted with the negative: “Every one that doeth sin, doeth lawlessness.” He does not negatively resume the notion of the subject (“every one that hath this hope”), but that of the predicate (“purifieth himself”). However, by this annexation of the notion of the predicate he denies also, by implication, that such an one is the child and heir of God, and adds a new point, viz. such an one not only injures himself and his portion but he violates also the law and ordinance of God, at the same time, referring back to the leading thought in 1 John 2:29, since all doing of sin is repugnant to the righteousness of God revealed in the law (1 John 3:4) and in Christ (1 John 3:5-7), and delineates rather the children of the devil (1 John 3:8-10), than the children of God, who, abiding in Christ, do righteousness and not sin (1 John 3:6; 1 John 3:9-10). The nature of sin. 1 John 3:4. 1 John 3:4. Every one that committeth sin, committeth also lawlessness.—“The Apostle is anxious to show that the truth of the thought is unexceptionable.” (Huther.)—The first point to be determined here is the notion ἁμαρτία. Suidas derives ἁμαρτία from μάρπτω to grasp, to seize, consequently=missing the mark (Rom. 21:8, 302, 311, 23, 62); then moral omission. Oecumenius: ἀποτυχεῖνσκοποῦ, ἡτοῦἀγαθοῦἀπόπτωσις, on the other hand ἀνομία=ἡπερὶτὸνθετὸννόμονπλημμέλειαπλὴν–μέλος contrary to the melody, a false note, an error). ̔Αμαρτία, of course, is as much an opposition to the Divine righteousness (ἀδικία), as a departure from the Divine law, a violation of the same (ἀνομία), and this ἡἀνομία is here not only a not having the law (as ἄνομος 1 Corinthians 9:21 denotes one who has not law), but signifies the refractoriness opposed to the law. Neither ἁμαρτία nor ἀνομία are qualified by anything which would narrow this their meaning, nor may such a qualification be added from the context. Although the Article distinctly takes sin in the sense of an offence [old English: missing. M.] towards God, and ἀνομία as an opposition to the law of God, and removes all indefinite generality, yet no qualification within this ethico-religious sphere is admissible. But we must not attach too much importance to this, since the Article is wanting in 1 John 3:9 : ἁμαρτίανοὐποιεῖν and ποιεῖντὴνἁμαρτίαν and ἁμαρτάνειν (1 John 3:4; 1 John 3:6; 1 John 3:8-9) are used promiscue, so that we must not attach too much importance to ποιεῖν. To this must be added that καὶ before τὴνανομίαν conveys the idea that the doing of the ἁμαρτία is as such also as the doing of the ἀνομία.” (Dόsterdieck.) “Quishquis committit peccatum, idem committit iniquitatem.” (Erasmus.) Καὶ must neither be taken in a causal sense, nor changed into “yea” (Brόckner); but we have to hold with Ebrard that the fuller idea, ποιεῖντὴνἁμαρτίαν, in the beginning helps to qualify the other terms, ποιεῖνἁμαρτίαν, and ἁμαρτάνειν, and that the antithesis ἁγνίζεινἑαυτὸν is also coλfficient, and that the reference, so far from being to sins of haste or infirmity, is rather to sin, though only a single act, yet a voluntary act. Hence the following explanations cannot be received: that ἁμαρτία denotes peccatum mortale (Estius and the Roman Catholics), or “grave, unrepented sins” (Luther, al.), or that ποιεῖντὴνἁμαρτίαν is=peccare contumaciter (Aretius), contra conscientiam el imp�nitenter (Rosenmόller), or peccato operam dare (Beza), peccare scientem et volentem (Spener), or the actual moral bias of life (Brόckner). It is equally inadmissible to assume an intensification of the notion ἁμαρτία into ἀνομία (Baumgarten-Crusius, Bengel), or that ἀνομία includes crimes and vices proper, as if ἁμαρτία were the principle and source of the ἀνομία (de Wette). Paraphrases of ποιεῖνἀνομιαν, such as Deum offendere (Grotius) and religioni adversari (Carpzov), do incorrectly weaken the idea. The two ideas, although distinguished from each other, are not convertible. We have here the general proposition: “whoever doeth sin, of whatever kind it be, doeth also lawlessness, violates the Divine rule and order,” which is not directed against Antinomians, but against all those who are loose on the subject of sin; the idea of ἀνομία imparts a peculiar severity to that of sin. And sin is lawlessness.—We must of course take ἁμαρτία here in the same sense, as in the clause immediately preceding, and in the same generality. Hence the first ἁμαρτία is not sinful doings, and the second an offence against God (Kφstlin). The Article also forbids our taking ἁμαρτία as the predicate of the subject ἀνομία, as in John 1:1. ̔Οθεὸςἦνὁλόγος (Kφstlin). Ἁνομία also is as general here as in the preceding clause. Νόμος denotes not only the Mosaic law of the O. T. but also the law of the N. T. in Christ, and by Him explained in the word and exhibited in the life (1 John 2:16; 1 John 2:7; 1 John 4:21; 1 John 5:3. cf Matthew 5:17-19), as the law written in man’s heart for his special direction; it embraces the whole complex of the divine ἐντολαί. Hence this proposition contains not so much a definition (Sander), as the nature of sin viewed from that side on which its absolute opposition to every Divine fellowship shows itself in the most decided form (Brόckner); “the Apostle could not have more sharply drawn the contrast of the nature of a believer who is a τέκνονθεοῦ and will be ὅμοιοςθεῷ than by declaring ἁμαρτία to be ἀνομία.” (Huther); or he that leads an ungodly life, abrogates the Divine rule of life to which he is subject as a Christian (Hofmann). Hence Hilgenfeld’s exposition disfigures the thought: “not every one who deviates from the ceremonial laws, but the sinner only falls under the category of ἀνομία.” Calvin also goes far beyond the contents of the verse in affirming the sum and substance of the thought to be that the life of those who yield themselves to sin is hateful and unendurable to God.—The Apostle annexes the sentence with καὶ and not with ὅτι, because he thereby gives the thought a more independent form. We cannot agree with Bengel in explaining καὶ by imo, as if before there had been only conjuncta notio peccati et iniquitatis, but now eadem; the identity is already expressed in the first sentence.—[The following definitions will shed additional light on this passage. Ambrose: “Quid est peccatum nisi prζvaricatio legis divinζ, et c�lestium inobedientia prζceptorum.”—Augustine: “Peccatum est factum vel dictum vel concupiltum aliquid contra ζternem legem.”—“Quid verum est, nisi et Dominum dare prζcepta, et animas liberiζ esse voluntatis, et malum naturam non esse, sed esse aversionem a Dei prζceptis?”—“Neque negandum est hoc Deum jubere, ita nos in facienda justitia esse debere perfectos, ut nullum habeamus omnino peccatum; nam neque peccatum erit, si quid erit, si non divinitus jubeatur, ut non sit.”—M.] Aid against sin. 1 John 3:5-6. 1 John 3:5. And ye know that He was manifested in order that He might take away our sin.—Appealing to their own consciousness, as at 1 John 2:12-14; 1 John 2:20; 1 John 2:27, the Apostle now refers to the Lord and affirms of Him two things: First: the purpose of His manifestation is the redemption from sin. Ἐκεῖνος denotes Christ, as in 1 John 3:3. It is wholly untenable to understand here the Gospel (Socinus, Episcopius, Grotius), concerning which it surely cannot be said that it τὰςἁμαρτίαςαἴρει, or that this is its end and aim.—̓Εφανερώθη the context requires us to apply to Christ’s manifestation in the flesh. Cf. 1, 2. It points to Christ’s previously hidden existence in heaven (Huther). The purpose of this manifestation is, ἵνατὰςἁμαρτίαςἡμῶνἄρῃ. The reading ἡμῶν is well authenticated and intensifies the appeal to personal experience, without restricting the forgiveness of sins to those only who “suffer the beneficial purpose of the incarnation of the Son of God to be carried out on them in faith” (Dόsterdieck), and to set back the universality of the Divine purpose of salvation (1 John 2:2.); we would rather say that paracletic element, which after all is the main point here (1 John 3:3), comes out more strongly; the οἴδατε, at least, does not contain sufficient ground for finding here a specific indication of the doctrinal. Nor is there any necessity for extending ἡμῶν to all men (Spener). “The Plural, τὰςἁμαρτίας, affords a far more lucid and forcible view than if we had here, as in 1 John 3:4, τὴνἁμαρτίαν; John does not take sin in its general character, but he adverts to all the forms of it.” (Dόsterdieck). It is wrong to explain it by peccati reatum, dominium, p�nam (J. Lange and others); but it signifies: the sins themselves. The αἴρειν connected here as at John 1:29, with ἁμαρτία signifies in John’s writings (John 11:48; John 15:2; John 17:15; John 19:31; John 19:38) auferre, to carry away, to take away. The ἀμνός, John 1:29, the idea of the sacrificial lamb, implies what is expressed at 1 Peter 2:24, with reference to Isaiah 53:4 sqq., by the verb ἀνάφερειν: to take upon oneself by way of atonement, substitution, death and reconciliation, while αἴρειν indicated a taking away by sanctification; John 1:29 we have a blending of both meanings, while Peter adverts to one, the first, and John to the other, the second work of Christ, the former to His atonement, the latter to His work of redemption. John, who discusses the former at 1 John 2:2, dwells here upon the latter, and hence denies neither; nor does he separate the one from the other, as if the first were without this consequence, and the latter without that cause (1 John 1:7; 1 John 4:9; 1 John 4:11; 1 John 5:6). But the context with its ethical import, that sin must be avoided and shunned, suggests the reference to the fact that Christ came for the purpose of removing sin, of taking it away from us; what Christian would then oppose or frustrate the design of Christ! Hence Oecumenius correctly observes that Christ came ἐπ̓ἀναιρέσειτῆςἁμαρτίας (so also Luther, Calvin, Neander, Ebrard, Dόsterdieck, Huther, and al.)—Bede’s remark, “Tollit peccata et dimittendo, quζ facta sunt, et adjuvando, ne fiant, et perducendo ad vitam, ubi fieri omnino non possunt,” is perfectly true, but considerably transcends the measure of what is contained in this passage. The same applies to those who combine here said two references, e.g. Spener, Bengel (explains indeed “tolleret,” but refers to his exposition of Joh 1:29 : “primum a mundo in se recepit, deinde a se ipso devolvit peccati sarcinam”), Lόcke (in his 1st ed.), Sander, Besser.—Lόcke (in the later edition), de Wette and others take αἴρειν=carry; false! Secondly: He is sinless. And sin is not in Him.—Καὶ coφrdinates this clause with the former. Oecumenius errs in his καὶἀντὶτοῦδιότι as well as in the paraphrase: καθ̓ὅτιἀμέτοχοςἦνἁμαρτίας. So also Augustine: “In quo non est peccatum, ipse venit auferre peccatum; nam si esset et in illo peccatum, auferendum esset illi, non ipse auferret,” and a Lapide: “Ideο Christus potens fuit tollere peccatum, quia carebat omni peccato, imo potestate peccandi.” So also Sander, Neander and al. Ἐστι also must be retained and is not to be taken in the sense of ἦν Oecumenius, Grotius: “peccatum in eo non erat, nempe, cum vitam mortalem ageret,” and al.); the reference here, as in 1 John 3:3, is “to the nature of Christ in its eternal consistence” [Huther]. Hence we may not say with Winer (p. 283) that “the sinlessness of Christ is considered as still present in faith.” Ἐναὐτῷ, the reference of which has always to be determined by the context, denotes Christ understood in ἐκεῖνος, it denotes Christ Himself as to His Person and not (as Calov supposes) totum corpus, the Church, or as if we ought to explain ἐναὐτῷ by ἐνκοινωνίᾳμετ̓αὐτοῦ. Thus the clause “and sin is not in Him” coφrdinated with that preceding it, is the foundation of the sequel, since the Sinless, Pure and Righteous One is held up not as an example or pattern, but as the vital power and element of life in which the Christian must be and abide. The immediate consequence. 1 John 3:6. Every one that abideth in Him sinneth not.—By all means retain the full force of μένεινἐναὐτῷ to be and abide in Him, to derive nourishment from Him and His life (1 John 1:3; 1 John 1:6; 1 John 2:5-6; (1 John 2:23 sq.; 1 John 2:27 sq.), and do not exchange it for credere in Christum, of weaken it into Christi discipulum esse (Semler and al.); nor is ἁμαρτάνειν to be taken as = persistere in peccato (Luther), sinere regnare peccatum (Hunnius), sceleratum esse (Capellus), peccata mortalia committere (Roman Catholics), and to be thus enforced. The Apostle sets forth “abiding in Christ and sinning as irreconcilable opposites; but he does not mean to say that believing Christians entirely cease to sin or that those, who are yet sinning, are not yet in Christ (1 John 1:8-10; 1 John 2:1-2; 1 John 3:3)” (Huther). “John is here dealing with realities and about to give us the signs whereby we may know whether we love the Lord or not, whether we are the children of God or of the wicked one” (Sander). Hence it is rather hazardous to refer here with de Wette and Dόsterdieck to the Apostle’s ideal mode of representation, and a misapprehension of the fact that the Christian, though he sins, is yet free from sin, has actually-parted company with it, and it is his properly Christian and inmost being in decided opposition to it, so that not sin, but his opposition to it (as something alien to his being), determines the conduct of his life, exactly as St. Paul puts it (Romans 7:17): “νυνὶδὲοὐκέτιἐγὼκατεργάζομαιαὐτὸ, ἀλλ̓ἡοἰκοῦσαἐνἐμοὶἁμαρτία.” Augustine: “Etsi infirmitate labitur, peccato tamen non consentit, quia potius gemendo luctatur.”—“In quantum in ipso manet, in tantum non peccat.” Besser excellently says: “A Christian does not sin, but suffers it.” Every one that sinneth hath not seen Him, neither known Him.—As usual John turns the thought and develops it by an antithesis. The verb ἁμαρτάνειν has the same sense as in the preceding clause; actual sinning in word, or work or in the thought of the heart. Of such an one he says quite generally οὐχἑώρακεναὐτὸνοὐδὲἔγνωκεναὐτὸν. First of all we have to take οὐδὲ disjunctively (Winer, p. 509 sqq.); and although this does not decide the question which of the two verbs ὁρᾷν and γινώσκειν is the stronger and more important, yet it does indicate that they are different from each other. The pronoun αὐτὸν requires us to think in both verbs of the Person of Christ. Hence the sentence: ἁμαρτίαἐναὐτῷοὐκἔστιν is not the object of ὁρᾷν, nor is the sentence: ἐφανερώθηἵνατὰςἁμαρτίαςἅρῃ the object of γινώσκειν, in order to indicate the purpose of the whole redemptive work of Christ (Rickli, Neander).̔Ορᾷν, to see, physically (1 John 1:1; 1 John 1:3; 1 John 4:20; John 1:18; John 6:36; John 6:46; John 8:57; John 9:37; John 15:24), spiritually (3 John 1:11; John 3:11; John 3:32; John 6:46; John 8:38; John 14:7; John 14:9), and that directly and immediately if used of Christ in heaven, or indirectly and mediately if applied to believers in consequence of their illumination,—denotes consequently in this passage “seeing Christ,” “when we become absolutely conscious of the glory of Christ so that our spiritual eye beholds Him as He is in the totality of His Essence” (Huther); γινώσκειν means to know as the result of searching contemplation of His word, His life, the history of His kingdom, or of one’s own experience in the life around us, or within ourselves, and indicates here “the right understanding of Him,” brought about by said instrumentality, “so that we have become fully conscious both of His Nature and of His relation to us” (Huther). This intimates already that in the case of the former, viz. spiritual intuition and contemplation, the efficient agency belongs more to the object which represents itself before the eye of the spirit, and that in the case of the latter, viz. knowledge acquired by reflection in the way of reasoning and inquiry, the efficient agency belongs more to the subject, which makes it the object of contemplation (Sander, Huther). Hence it follows that ἑώρακεν is not something less, and οὐδὲ ?=“much less” (Sander, Lόcke 1st ed. al.), nor something more than ἔγνωκεν and οὐδὲ ?=“and not even” (Socinus, Neander and al.); there is no reference whatever to a difference in degree. Although despite all their difference the two have something in common, we cannot, because of this latter circumstance, overlook or underrate the former [the difference] and say with Dόsterdieck that the two notions are essentially equal and that ἔγνωκεν is simply added in order to indicate the spiritual import of ἑώρακεν. Of course it is impossible to interpret (with Lόcke) ὁρᾷν of outward knowledge in spite of which one may sin, and γινώσκειν of real, spiritual knowledge. This connection is analogous to that of πιστεύειν and γινώσκειν (1 John 4:16; John 6:69), so that ὁρᾷν and πιστεύειν might be combined yet so as to keep up the difference of πιστεύειν=ὁρᾷν from γινώσκειν. The force of these notions is very shallow in the explanation of Grotius: “Neque de Christo sic cogitat, ut oportet, neque facto ostendit, se scire, quanti sit habenda Christi voluntas.”—The Perfects, ἑώρακεν, ἔγυωκεν are to be preserved; they point to the past when the beginning of seeing and knowing took place, yet so that that which had its beginning in the past still acts and continues in the present, which is especially noticed by Erasmus (cognitum habet), Lόcke, Brόckner, Dόsterdieck and Huther. It is wholly unwarranted to take the Perfect in the sense of the Present (Didymus: “non videt eum;” Augustine: “non credit;” Bede, Grotius, Estius, who construes the Perfect as a Hebraism for the Present). John’s idea therefore is this: Every one that sinneth, and that while he is sinning, is one in whom seeing and knowing Christ is a fact of the past, but without continuing to act and to last to the present. Hence Bengel says not amiss: “In ipso peccati momento talis fit, ac si eum nullo viderit modo.”—Instructive is the reference to 1 John 2:19 (J. Lange, Sander) and the comparison with Matthew 7:23 : οὐδέποτεἔγυωνὑμᾶς (i.e. as mine). The reference is, as the ancients rightly observe, to an efficax scientia (Dydimus), an affectiva et dilectiva (Estius), although Lyra goes as much beyond the mark with his fides formata caritate, as Ebrard with his loving knowledge, or S. G. Lange with his γινώσκειν=amare. [Ignatius, the disciple of John, says: “No one who professeth faith, sinneth; and no one who hath love, hateth. They, who profess themselves Christians, will be manifested by what they do.” (Ignatius, ad Eph.; also Jerome in Jovin. 1 John 2:1, and contra Pelagianos I. 3).—M.] The issue 1 John 3:7-9. 1 John 3:7. Little children, let no one seduce you.—This impressive address, (unchanged whether we read παιδία or τεκνία) introduces an admonition in respect of the clearly-perceived and ruin-fraught danger, unless they avail themselves of the aid provided in their glorious Lord and Saviour. The Apostle speaks of ἑαυτοὺςπλανῶμεν, 1 John 1:8. Here, however, he adverts not to self-deception, but refers “in matters affecting the energizing and outwardly operative exhibition of the Divine life” (Dόsterdieck), to deception and seductions coming from without, not springing from relations and events, but from men (μηδεὶς), who are more dangerous by far than relations or events. But there is no reason why we should think here of distinct forms of error, say e.g. those of the antinomian Gnostics (Dόsterdieck, Huther). [On the other hand Ebrard and Wordsworth see here an unmistakable reference to the Gnostics. The latter observes: “that these verses cannot he understood without reference to their tenets and practices,” and then mentions the followers of Simon Magus, who said that they could please God without righteousness, and that whatever might be the case with others, who had not their spiritual gnosis, they themselves had no need to work righteousness, but that they would be saved by grace, whatever their works might be. “Liberos agere quζ velint; secundum enim ipsius (Simonis) gratiam salvari homines, sed non secundum operas jusias.” Irenζus I. 20 ed. Grabe. Hippolytus, Philosoph. p. 175; Theodoret, Haer fab. i. 1, who testifies that on the presumption of the indefectibility of special grace within themselves, they fell into all kinds of lasciviousness.”—M.].—This admonition is in point of form like 1 Timothy 4:12; Titus 2:15, in point of sense like μὴπλανᾶσθε, 1 Corinthians 6:9; 1 Corinthians 6:15-20; Luke 21:8. But that form at the same time exhibits a more lively sense of danger. He that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as He is righteous.—On δικαιοσύνηνποιεῖν and δίκαιος, see notes on 1 John 2:29. The Apostle does not say here πᾶςὁποιῶν, but only ὁποιῶν; the idea of unexceptional universality makes room for the importance of the fact. Instead of the predicate ἑώρακεαὐτὸνκαὶἔγνωκεναὐτὸν (1 John 3:6), or μένειἐναὐτῷ (1 John 3:5), or ἐξαὐτοῦγεγέννηται (1 John 2:29), there follows, as usual with the addition of a new particular, the consequence thereof, viz.: δίκαιόςἐστιν, either with reference to ὅμοιοιαὐτῷἐσόμεθα (1 John 3:2) or in order to denote the corresponding attitude towards the law. It is evident that the predicate is not acquired after that which is affirmed in the subject-sentence has taken place; the predicate is immanent in the subject, the nature of the righteous appears from his doing righteousness, it is already in its existence and does not only become so, as held by the Roman Catholics (Lyra, Emser, Estius, al.), and the Socinians, Arminians and Rationalists (Socinus, Grotius, al.) against the Protestants (Luther, Calvin). “He that doeth not righteousness, proves thereby that he is not righteous” (Huther). [Compare the words of Ignatius in the last note on 1 John 3:6. M.] The additional clause refers to the righteousness of Christ, as manifesting the righteousness of God and standing out as a bright pattern. The Apostle once more uses ἐκεῖνος, although the previous αὐτὸς designated Christ, so that he might have put αὐτὸς without giving rise to misunderstanding, and thus have absolutely removed any and every want of clearness, that αὐτὸς in 1 John 2:29 had reference to Christ. By Him the Christian should ever measure and adjust himself. Baumgarten-Crusius’s explanation is altogether irrelevant; viz.: “he that is good, follows the example of Christ,” or “he only that hath been righteous through Christ, doeth righteousness.” [Huther justly observes, that as there is no reference whatever to justification in this passage, a Lapide’s assertion, that the thought of this verse contradicts the Protestant Dogma of justification by faith, is altogether futile. The explanation of Lorinus also, that “ὁποιῶντὴνδικαιοσύνην is =qui habet in se justitiam, i.e. opus gratiζ, videlicet virtutem infusam,” is manifestly false.—M.]. 1 John 3:8. He that committeth sin, is of the devil.—This is the progressive antithesis. On ὁποιῶντὴνἁμαρτίαν compare note on 1 John 3:4. It is “the more significant and precise” expression for ἁμαρτάνειν 1 John 3:6 (Dόsterdieck). Of such an one John does not say: ἄδικόςἐστι but ἐκτοῦδιαβόλουἐστίν and thus states the final cause of the thought. The phrase ἐκτοῦδιαβόλουεἶναι must be interpreted after the analogy of ἐκτοῦθεοῦεἶναι (cf. on 1 John 2:16), and this is the more incumbent upon us because 1 John 3:10 specifies τὰτέκνατοῦθεοῦ and τάτέκνατοῦδιαβόλου, and the paternal name is actually given to Satan at John 8:44. Still there is wanting an analogy to γεγεννῆσθαιἐκτοῦθεοῦ (cf. on 1 John 2:29) both for the adherents of the devil and the κόσμος, although we have ἐκτοῦκόσμουεἶναι at 1 John 2:16 and οἱυἱοὶτοῦαἰῶνοςτούτου at Luke 16:8. Hence, although ἐκτοῦδιαβόλουεἶναι contains no reference to a regeneration from beneath,—as if the devil had created the sinner, into whom he has only infused evil (Russmeyer), so that the Apostle adverts simply to corruptio and not to generatio (Bengel), and that consequently the phrase must be construed ethically and not physically (so that we cannot say τέκνοντοῦδιαβόλου in the same sense and with the same right as we say τέκνονθέου, see note on 1 John 3:10 a),—yet are we obliged to think of an origin from the devil and of a sameness in kind and an intimate union with the devil as well as of an inheritance of woe in hell to be meted out to the devil and his adherents, and to reject the volatilization of the idea by perversion into a mere belonging to (de Wette), following (Semler), resembling and spiritual affinity with the devil (Grotius, Socinus, al.). Nor does the analogy warrant the assertion that it is not at all necessary to assume John to believe the existence of the devil, that this is only a mode of representation current among heretical Jewish Christians (Semler), or a Jewish formula of teaching without all dogmatical importance, or used only for the purpose of intensifying the idea of sin as hostility to God (Baumgarten-Crusius). See no. 4 below in “Doctrinal and Ethical.” Because the devil sinneth from the beginning.—The connection by ὅτι specifies the reason of the sentence, “He that doeth sin is of the devil;” hence the reference is to man’s sinning and his relation to the devil. For this reason ἀπ̓ἀρχῆς emphatically put first, is to be interpreted of the beginning of man’s sinning, like John 8:44, and the Apostle declares that from that beginning the devil has been showing himself as the sinner [the sinning one], he is not only a sinner in himself, but he did also bring about the first sin of man as a seducer, and not the first sin only, but he does bring about every sin even until now (the Present ἁμαρτάνει); sinning is his work from the beginning. Bengel: “Omnium peccatorum causa est; nunquam satiatur.” Hence there is no reference here to the beginning of the devil’s existence from the creation of the world (Bede; for that would contradict John 8:44, οὐκἔστηκεν), or to the beginning of the creation of the earth and the solar system (Estius), or to the beginning of the res humanζ (Semler), or to the beginning of the devil’s fall (Calvin, Calov, Bengel: “Ex quo diabolus est diabolus; minime diu tenuisse videtur tatum primitivum,” Neander, Sander and others.). Nor may we interpret ἁμαρτάνει like Bengel: “Peccat et ad peccandum inducit,” but rather compare Romans 7:17. The influxus, suggestio, inspiratio, directio, coφperatio of the devil (Calov) lie not in the verb ἁμαρτάνει, but in the whole context: because the devil has sinned from the beginning and goes on sinning, every one that is sinning is of the devil; for the real connection of the person sinning with the devil or of the devil with the person sinning, is here evidently presumed, yet so that the first proposition describes the state of the sinner as essentially belonging to the sphere of the devil’s life and kingdom, while the second proposition, connected with the former by ὅτι, marks the continuing activity of the devil, so that the latter is the cause of the former. For this was the Son of God manifested that He might destroy the works of the devil.—Bengel: “Diabolus peccandi finem non facit; peccatum solvere filii dei opus est.” Without using a conjunction the Apostle rapidly and in terse language specifies with sharpness and distinctness of outline the antithesis: διάβολος—υἱὸςτοῦθεοῦ; ἐκεῖνος would have been too weak and inadequate here, and contrasts the hidden seduction of Satan with the manifestation (ἐφανερώθη) of the Son of God for the destruction of the works of the devil (John 12:31; John 16:11; Matthew 12:29; Luke 10:18). He is not only δίκαιος (1 John 3:7) but He also destroys sins (λύσῃ). This is the end of His coming, as in 1 John 3:5 : αἵρειντὰςἁμαρτίας is parallel to λυειντὰἔργατοῦδιαβόλου. The last expression consequently denotes sins and, with reference to διάβολοςἁμαρτάνει, as the works of the devil who committeth them. Hence the reference is here to the ἔργατοῦδιαβόλου, sins, not to the wages of sin—affliction, death, condemnation (Calov, Spener). For these are rather the works of God who is righteous and decrees the penalty, and only by way of consequence the object of the redemptive work of Christ, but not the object of λύειν. This verb signifies the destruction of a building (John 2:19; 2 Peter 3:10-12), or of a ship (Acts 27:41) and also the loosing of chains (Acts 22:30). Bengel: (“Opera confortissima quζ solvere res digna erat filio Dei”), Spener, Besser and others retain the sense of “loosening, untying’ as if sins were the cords or bands of Satan; but this is manifestly a departure from the plain sense of the words and although useful for practical purposes, a rather artificial interpretation. Since nothing is said here of the three offices of Christ concurring in this work, or how that concurrence is to take place, the text neither authorizes us to assume that the officium sacerdotale and the officium regium without the officium propheticum will be engaged in the destruction of the works of the devil and to think only of the passion of our Lord, nor to infer anything for or against that sentence from “Etiamsi Adam non peccasset, Christus incarnatus esset.” Besides, John adverts only, as he had written (ἐφανερώθη—λύσῃ.) “to what Christ did purpose and achieve by His manifestation in the flesh” (Dόsterdieck), without intending to describe or even to deny the continuous victory of Christ; he refers to that 1 John 1:7; 1 John 2:1-2; 1 John 2:13-14; 1 John 4:4; 1 John 4:14; 1 John 5:5, but not primarily here. [Ignatius, the disciple of John, uses λύειν in the sense of the text, viz., the destruction of evil, ad Ephesians 1:3; Ephesians 1:19, λύεταιὄλεθρος, ἐλύετοπᾶσαμάγεια.—M.]. 1 John 3:9. Every one that is born of God, doth not commit sin, because his seed abideth in him.—This is the antithesis of 1 John 3:8 a, and ὅτι here like there denotes the reason why; the structure of the sentences too is alike, with the sole difference that by the usual inversion the subjects and predicates have changed places. Ὀγεγεννημένοςἐκτοῦθεοῦ opp.: ἐκδιαβόλουἐστιν,—ἁμαρτίανοὐποιεῖ opp.: ὁποιῶντὴνἁμαρτίαν,—ὅτιἀπ̓ἀρχῆςὁδιάβολοςἁμαρτάνει opp.: ὅτισπέρμααὐτοῦἐναὐτῷμένει. Thus John contrasts sinning in its extreme and inmost nature with the children of God in the possession of their highest and most glorious gift and an attitude conformable thereto. Πᾶς denotes the general character of the sense. We know from 1 John 2:29; 1 John 3:6, that being born of God, doing righteousness or not sinning belong together and that the former is incompatible with the commission of sin. Cf. 1 John 1:5. Hence ἁμαρτίαν stands emphatically in ante position; the Apostle regards sin as devilish, and righteousness as divine; and hence righteousness and sin are as absolutely and diametrically opposed to each other as are God and the devil. The clause annexed by ὅτι specifies the reason why one born of God does not commit sin, and being parallel to the similar clause in 1 John 3:8, sheds a light on the latter in confirmation of the interpretation given here. The reference of σπέρμααὐτον͂ ? to θεοῦ is obvious. The seed of God necessarily denotes something that proceeds from God, is instinct with vital power and full of life, develops itself, blossoms and bears fruit, and begets the Divine. We cannot see here a reference to the word of God (with Clement of Alex., Augustine, Bede, Luther, Calov, Spener, Bengel, Besser, Socinus, Grotius and others), notwithstanding Matthew 13:3 sqq.; James 1:18; 1 Peter 1:23; cf. 1 Corinthians 4:15; Galatians 4:19, because that simile from the vegetable kingdom does not answer to the reference to begetting and birth, and because the Word of God or the Gospel in other passages is mentioned only as the instrument of begetting, as a carrier and conductor of the Divine σπέρμα, but not the σπέρμα itself. [Alford, who takes the view impugned here, says: “But whether we regard the generation of plants, or animal procreation, which latter is more in question here, what words can more accurately describe the office of the seed, than these? And what is the word of God but the continually abiding and working seed of the new life in the child of God? Nay, it seems to be that exactly of which we are in search: not the Holy Spirit, the personal agent; not the power of the new life, the thing begotten; but just that which intervenes between the two, the word, the utterance of God,—dropt into the soul of man, taking it up by Divine power into itself, and developing the new life continually. This is in the most precise and satisfactory sense the σπέρματοῦθεοῦ; and in this all Scripture symbolism is agreed: cf. 1 Peter 1:23; James 1:18. In fact, the very passage which is the key to this, is John 5:38, τὸνλόγοναὐτοῦοὐκἔχετεμένονταἐνὑμῖν. Nor should any exception have been taken by Huther and Dόsterdieck to the comparison with the parable of the sower (“wie viele δltere Ausleger mit ungeschickter Vergleichung von Matthew 13:3 sqq.” Dόsterdieck), for though the attendant circumstances of generation are different, the analogy is the same.”—M.] It follows from this that the reference is to the Spirit of God, even the Holy Spirit, who communicates Himself in and of His own. Hence σπέρμα must not be applied to His whole Person but as the πνεῦμα radiating from Him which is at once He Himself and His gift, a gift from Him and of His Nature. This construction is rendered imperative by ἐκτοῦθεοῦ in the final and substantiating clause of this verse which runs parallel to σπέρμα. Just as one who is born of God is not on that account God and has not like Christ the fulness of God bodily indwelling, so σπέρμα is not the full Person of the Spirit of God, of the Holy Spirit, but something that comes forth from His Being, which, while it cannot be separated from Him, must be distinguished from Him. Therefore we have to say with the Greek expositors that σπέρμα is πνεῦμαυἱοθέσιας, τὸπνευματικὸνχάρισμα, the Spiritus Sanctus et ejus virtus (Calvin, Beza, Dόsterdieck), nativitas spiritualis (Estius), vires regenerations (S. Schmidt), Divine life-powers (de Wette, Neander), the πνεῦμα begotten of the Holy Spirit (Sander), the germ of the new life, of the new man, Christ implanted in us (Ebrard, Lόcke, Huther). But it is not σπέρμα as analogous to ζֶ ?ψַ ?ς =τέκνον (Bengel: “semen dei i.e. qui natus est ex deo”), or “semen quasi divinum” (Semler), the formative principle of the good (Paulus), or religion (Fritzsche).—It is important to recollect that while μένει is used of σπέρμα, μένει is also said of the believer (1 John 3:6), and that he is bidden notwithstanding: μένετε=(1 John 2:28). On this account, and because the reference is not to a full ear of grain gathered in the barn, but to σπέρμα cast into the earth destined to grow under the influence of all kinds of weather, we need not suppose, that therefore it must abide and could neither be lost again nor perish. Nothing is said on this point, it is neither affirmed nor denied, and therefore we are not warranted to introduce or assume it here; the subject in question is simply and solely that in the σπέρμα and its abiding in conformity with its nature, the child of God receives the power of not committing sin. Although we cannot explain ὅτι by ἐφ̓ὅσον as if it wepe=quantum, quamdiu, quatenus, it is involved in the thought (The Greek, R. Catholic and Evangelical commentators). And he cannot sin, because he is born of God.—Now the Apostle adds the most important particular, viz., his inability of sinning on the ground of his having been born of God, with which St. John began, as he now concludes this section. With reference to the seed of God abiding in the child of God, he now asserts the absolute contrariety of a child of God and sinning in the words: οὐδύναταιἁμαρτάνειν. Non potest peccare is at all events much stronger and more than potest non peccare; it declares not the possibility of not sinning, but the impossibility of sinning. A servant of sin has become a servant of righteousness (Romans 6:16-23); in virtue of the seed of God abiding in him he only wills and only can do the Divine, righteousness (Dόsterdieck and most expositors); hence ἁμαρτάνειν must neither be intensified into “committing mortal sins” (the Romanists), to sin diabolically (Besser), to sin deliberately and intentionally (Ebrard), nor be limited to hating the brethren (Augustine, Bede), nor must οὐδύναται be weakened into ζgre, difficulter est (Grotius, “res aliena est ab ejus ingenio;” Paulus, “his whole spiritual nature and Habit resist it”). Nor must it be changed into οὐβούλεται (the Greek commentators) or non debet. Nor is this declaration of the Apostle only a goal and standard far above the reality of the Christian life on earth, only of relative importance and without reality. Bengel: “Res se habet, ut in abstemio, qui non potest vinum bibere, et in variis antipathiζ generibus.” On the substantiating clause Bengel strikingly observes: “priora verba ex deo majorem habent in pronunciando accentum; quod ubi observatur, patet, non idem per idem probari, collato initio versus.” Because he is born of God, he that is born of God cannot sin; the child of God cannot sin, because it is the child of God. Very pertinent also is the note of Luther: “In summa nos Christiani nascimur, nec fuco quodam aut specie, sed ipsa natura sumus Christiani, quare non est possibile ut peccemus.” [Wordsworth: “He that hath been born of God, and liveth as a son of God cannot be a sinner. It is inconsistent with the essential condition of his spiritual birth, by which he is dead to sin. It is contrary to the nature which he has as a child of God. This is well expressed by Didymus here, who says, “St. John does not assert that the man who has been born of God will never commit sin; but he asserts that he does not work sin.—Non scriptum est non peccabit, sed non peccatum facit, non idem est peccare et peccatum facere; a child of two days old, by reason of his natural childhood, cannot sin, but a child of God cannot be a sinner.” This distinction he draws from the difference between the Present Infinite and the Aorist Infinitive; see Winer § 44, p. 346, 348, 349, who quotes from Stallbaum, Plat. Euthyd., p. 1John 140: “Aoristus (Infin.) quia nullam facit significationem perpetuitatis et continuationis, prouti vel initium vel progressus vel finis actionis verbo expressζ spectatur, ita solet usurpari, ut dicatur vel de eo, quod statim et e vestigio fit ideoque etiam certo futurum est, vel de re semel tantum eveniente, quζ diurnitatis et perpeluitatis cogitationem aut non fert aut certe non requirit, vel denique de re brevi et uno veluti temporis ictu peracta.” Thus e.g. πιστεῦσαι is to make a profession of faith, or an act of faith, at a particular time; but πιστεύειν is to believe, to be a believer; δουλεῦσαι is to do an act of service, δουλεύειν, to be a slave; οὐδεὶςοἰκέτηςδύναταιδυσὶκυρίοιςδούλεύειν, no servant can be a slave to two masters; so ἁμαρτεῖν is to commit a sin, but ἁμαρτάνειν is much more than this, it is to be a sinner.” Ignatius, ad. Eph. 8 says: “Let no one deceive you. They who are carnal cannot do the things which are spiritual; nor can they who are spiritual do the things which are carnal. Faith cannot do the works of unbelief, nor can unbelief do the works of faith. The works which ye do in the flesh are spiritual, because ye work all your works in Jesus Christ.”—M.]. Conclusion. 1 John 3:10 a. 1 John 3:10 a. In this are manifest the children of God and the children of the devil. —Ἐντούτῳ refers back to the preceding. Cf. on 1 John 2:3. The point under notice is ἐκτοῦδεοῦ and ἐκτοῦδιαβόλουεἶναι. This is apparent in the doing of righteousness or in the working of sin, the sinner entangling himself in sin, as a child of the devil, while the believer, as being born of God, resists it. Being a child of God or a child of the devil is hidden and manifest in doing. Hence this clause must not be referred to the sequel (Grotius, Spener, Ebrard and others) as there is not the least occasion for it; de Wette, Sander, and others leave this point undetermined. It is not said here to whom τὰτέκνατοῦθεοῦ and, τὰτέκνατοῦδιαβόλουφανεράἐστιν but 1 John 3:1 (κόσμοςοὐγινώσκειἡμᾶς) renders it certain that it is not manifest to the world but only to the Christian. That difference is only manifest in the light of the divine κρίσις, the uncritical world blends together and confounds good and evil, God and the devil (Lόcke, Sander). “To the children of the devil their own moral nature remains a mystery until they accept the judgment of the Holy Spirit and through the divine seed are born of God and become the children of God.” Cf. Matthew 7:16-21; Luke 6:43-46.—The phrase τὰτέκνατοῦδιαβόλου occurs only here in the New Testament although we encounter the following variations: υἱὸςδιαβόλου said of Elymas Bar-Jesus, Acts 13:10; ὁυἱὸςτῆςἀπωλείας said of Judas, John 17:12; and υἱοὶτῆςἀπειθείας and τέκναφύσειὀργῆς, Ephesians 2:3, instead of which τέκνοντοῦδιαβόλου might have been used, if that expression had not been studiously avoided in order to prevent the misunderstanding that we might as well speak of a birth (out) of the devil as of a birth (out) of God (see notes on 1 John 3:8) and in order not to give nourishment to the dualistic notion that their conversion or regeneration is impossible, to intimate, on the contrary, that it is more probable to see a child of the devil become a child of God than a child of God become a child of the devil. But it cannot be inferred from these different expressions that the terms τὰτέκνατοῦθεοῦ and τὰτέκνατοῦδιαβόλου denote the two extremes between which other men are found. This antithesis embraces rather the totality of mankind just as ἁμαρτάνειν and οὐχἁμαρτάνειν comprise the whole attitude of men. Socinus is surely right: “Ex apostoli verbis satis aperte colligi potest, quod inter filios dei et filios diaboli nulli sint homines medii.” AND ETHICAL1. The nature of sin. The word ἁμαρτία while indicating aberration from the right way, the right goal, the straight direction and order does not tell us wherefrom said aberration takes place. On this account the word ἀνομία is added. It is evident that sin is in direct antagonism to the νόμος, the divine ordinance. Hofmann pertinently compares 2 Thessalonians 2:7 (Schriftbeweis I., 487). The first thing is that sin contradicts the divine ordinance. The extent of ἀνομία is also that of ἁμαρτία; whatever does not accord with the divine ordinance of life, be it little or small or as it please, is ἁμαρτῖα, which is always to be regarded primarily as an injury done to God who has appointed the νόμος. Hence the notion of guilt adheres at all events to the notion of sin, although the sinner be not conscious of it at the time or soon after the act; the sense of guilt is sure to come sooner or later, but invariably with the knowledge of sin, even as David expresses it: “Against thee only, have I sinned” (Psalms 51:4) and St. Paul ὑπόδικοςτῷθεῷ (Romans 3:19). The injury done to one’s own soul which lies at the bottom of ἁγνίζεινἑαυτὸν, and is declared in τηρεῖαὐτὸν as contrasted (ἀλλὰ) with ἁμαρτάνειν is likewise the reason why the sinner is outside of fellowship with Christ who is life, gives life and takes away sin. [Pearson (p. 539) says: “The law of God is the rule of the actions of men, and any aberration from that rule is sin: the law of God is pure and whatsoever is contrary to the law is impure. Whatsoever therefore is done by man, or is in man, having any contrariety or opposition to the law of God, is sin. Every action, every word, every thought, against the law, is a sin of omission, as it is terminated to an object dissonant from, and contrary to, the prohibition of the law, as a negative precept. Every omission of a duty required of us is a sin, as being contrary to the commanding part of the law, or an affirmative precept. Every evil habit contracted in the soul of man by the actions committed against the law of God, is a sin constituting a man truly a sinner, even then, when he actually sinneth not. Any corruption and inclination in the soul, to do that which God forbiddeth, and to omit that which God commandeth, howsoever such corruption and evil inclination came into the soul, whether by an act of his own will, or by the act of the will of another, is a sin, as being something dissonant from, and repugnant to the law of God. And this I conceive sufficient to declare the nature of sin.”—M.]. 2. The nature of righteousness, as the opposite of sin, is therefore a conduct consonant with the νόμος, a doing regulated by the divine ordinances of life, from the work of our hands to the act of thinking and the power of the will. 3. The corruption of sin is manifest in that it entangles men in a relation to Satan which at once defines his attitude and shows itself in it. It comes from Satan and is the act of Satan, so that living in sin and the working of sin are evidences of the sinner’s dependence on the devil, his appurtenance and similarity of nature to the devil. Although man’s sin is the sin of the seduced, in virtue of such seduction he is yet as much doomed to the power of the kingdom of the Evil One as he is guilty before God; and he that ought and might have become a child of God, has become a child of the devil. As surely as fellowship with God and righteousness are gained in Christ, so surely does sin evidence fellowship with the devil. 4. Satan is a person, opposed to God, the opposite of God and not only of Christ, who came to take away sin and to destroy the works of the devil. Strauss (Dogmatik II. 15) justly observes: “The whole idea of Messiah and His kingdom is as impossible without its counterpart of a kingdom of demons with a personal head, as the north pole of a magnet without the south pole. If Christ came to destroy the works of the devil, there was no necessity for His coming if there was no devil; if there is a devil, but only as the personification of the principle of evil—well, then we ought also to be satisfied with a Christ as an impersonal idea.” Besides to deny the existence and personality of the devil is to give up the personality of God Himself. God would be the Absolute and not the absolute Personality, if in this Johannean complex of ideas we are permitted to understand Satan to be only a principle, though it be the cosmical.—But there are here no data whatsoever for a dualistic conception. Two things are certain; First: the devil’s opposition to God cannot be so construed as to give the devil the character of the contestant counter-god from all eternity and to divest him of the attributes of the creature; the text contains no warranty for either; the purpose of Christ’s manifestation and the circumstance that this purpose must be supposed to be fully accomplished and accomplishing in all essential points, warrant us rather to conclude that said true assumptions, as a perfectly dualistic opposition of the devil and God, are incompatible with the fundamental views of the Apostle. Secondly: it cannot be inferred from this passage that men are naturally and essentially devilish. For John plainly declares that not the devil’s nature (to which he does not make the faintest allusion), but the devil’s work shows itself in the sins of men and that Christ came not to destroy the nature of the devil but to destroy the works of the devil. Nor must it be overlooked that, as contrasted with the terms γεγεννημένοςἐντοῦθεοῦ, σπέρμαθεοῦἐναὐτῷ, ἐκθεοῦεἶναι, ἐκαὐτῷμένων, τέκνονθεοῦ, the Apostle is very sparing in his reference to the devil and does not go beyond saying ἐκτοῦδιαβόλουεἶναι and τέκνοντοῦδιαβόλου, opposing the latter term, as it were by constraint, to the phrase “child of God,” so that Augustine justly refers to an imitari diabolum, observing: “Omnes peccatores ex diabolo nati sunt, in quantum peccatores. Adam a deo factus est. sed quando consensit diabolo, ex diabolo natus est, et tales omnes genuit qualis erat.” There is not the faintest intimation for the supposition that man does not sin of his own will, not voluntaria but naturaliter, and that the sin which he commits is not his fault, but solely the devil’s fault; the contrary is evident from the exhortation in 1 John 3:7 and the paracletical tendency which lies at the bottom of the whole. Neither dualism nor determinism can be deduced from this passage. But concerning subjection and personal transactions reference is made to cosmical powers in God the Father with the Son and in the devil, as the ultimate and chief factors of all personal development. 5. The work of Satan is sin, and sin from the beginning, i.e. from the beginning of sin on the part of mankind, which is the only subject under notice here. Hence he is most truly the sinner, the original sinner. As he was actively engaged in the first sin, so he still is actively engaged in every sin. But beyond this fact nothing is said as to the nature of his activity, as to its concurrence with that of man which is not excluded, and as to the manner how sin comes to pass. But it is intimated that contrary to Christ who was manifested and did appear in order to destroy the works of the devil, the devil was not manifested but remained and continued to walk in concealment, and that the children of God and the children of the devil cannot be identified at once, even as the world (which knows neither God nor the children of God (1 John 3:1), nor itself) does not discover the devil’s work in its own sin; for the reference is to πνευματικὰτῆςπονηρίας (Ephesians 6:12). It is just the man, who, as St. James says (James 1:14 sq.), is incited and enticed by his own lust (ὑπὸτῆςἰδίαςἐπιθυμίαςἐξελκόμενοςκαὶδελεαζόμενος) and commits sin without an inward struggle, without offering any resistance, in a calm course of development (ἡἐπιθυμίασυλλαβοῦσατίκτειτὴνἁμαρτίαν), has the devil as the father of sin and is himself a child of the devil. In sins it becomes manifest that the anti-divine on earth is intimately and vitally connected with the kingdom and influence of the devil and that ultimately the whole matter resolves itself into a world-combat between God and the devil, and a world-victory of God in Christ over the devil (compare Harless, Ethics § 28. ***: Nitzsch, System. p. 244. sqq.) 6. Redemption from sin is the work of the Sinless One, the purpose of the manifestation of the Sinless One, whose aim it is not to bring a new doctrine but to produce a new life. According to this the most important thing is, of course, not the exposition of the law marked by the utmost profoundness of apprehension and lucidity of statement, but the exhibition of the law to its full extent in a pure life, which not only evinces its strength in suffering and the assumption of human sin, but also satisfies and reconciles the Father, so that for the Son’s sake He now once more turns to mankind as hallowed and mankind overcome and attracted by the Sinless One, parts company with sin and turns away from it. It is inconceivable to have known and understood the Sinless One and yet to continue in sin all the same; to abide in Christ and to abide in sin are incompatible opposites; the one excludes the other. John, to be sure, has respect only to the principle or the result, as the issue is a life that terminates not in a moment but has its historical course and internal development. This is predicated of the life in Christ (1 John 3:2-3,) and by analogy we are constrained to assume it of the life in sin. 7. Being determines the doing, the doing does not determine the being, but we know the being from the doing. The being is the cause, the doing the effect. Hence he that does not commit sin but worketh righteousness (1 John 3:6-9) must be born of God (1 John 2:29; 1 John 3:9-10) and have seen and known Christ (1 John 3:6), but he that is of the devil, commits sin and worketh no righteousness (1 John 3:8). So Luther (Erlangen ed. 27, 191): “Good, pious works nevermore make a good, pious man, but a good pious man will do good, pious works. Evil works nevermore make an evil man, but an evil man will do evil works. Consequently the person must everyways be good and pious prior to all good works, and good works must follow and proceed from the good, pious person (Matthew 7:18).” Hence a man must have become righteous by justification, before he can act righteously in sanctification. This is the truth and the right of the Lutheran and Reformed confessions in opposition to Rome; but on the subject of becoming righteous John confines himself to saying that it takes place (out) of God in Christ by regeneration and propitiation; hence it simply indicates the objective ground and not the subjective accomplishment. On this point no other particulars can be inferred from our passage. 8. While the not-sinning and the impossibility of sinning on the part of a Christian born of God, must be held fast as a fact, we must be on our guard against hasty inferences therefrom, for which John gives us no warrant. In the first place this passage (1 John 3:9) must be susceptible of a construction that does not contradict 1 John 1:8 sqq., for John could not have made both statements, if they were incompatible with one another. Hence the Roman Catholics are as much in the wrong for holding, as de Lyra says, that it is the prerogative of the saints, i.e. only individuals in virtue of special grace in regeneration, not to sin and not being able to sin, as are the Lutherans for contending that all truly regenerated persons live without sin; for such an assertion is as arrogant as that contained in the sentence of Seneca, the Stoic (see Dόsterdieck II. 148 from Wetstein): “Vir bonus non potest non facere, quod facit; in omni actu par sibi, jam non consilio bonus, sed more eo perductus; ut non tantum recte facere possit, sed nisi recte facere non possit.” 1 John 1:8 sqq. forbids such a construction of 1 John 3:9. The Gichtelites, who in virtue of Mat 22:30 used to call themselves the brethren of the angels and refusing to be considered a sect laid claim to being the invisible Church, and the Molinists who were Quietists, claimed with some Pietists such a state of perfection, and being called Perfectists by their adversaries, called them in turn Conatists; the Methodists who maintain that they stand daily and hourly in need of the atoning merits of Christ do not belong to this category although they hold the sinless perfection of the regenerate; but this certainly exposes them like the Roman Catholics to the danger of regarding or treating concupiscence as a matter of indifference. The Synod of Dort, moreover, cannot on the strength of this passage reject the following proposition (see Niemeyer, p. 719 sub III): “Vere credentes et regenitos non tantum posse a fide justificante, item gratia et salute totaliter et finaliter excidere, sed eitam reipsa non raro ex iis excidere atque in ζternum perire,” nor is Calvin warranted to say: “Johannes non solum docet, quam efficaciter agat semel deus in homine, sed clare affirmat, spiritum suam gratiam in nobis ad extremum usque persequi, ut ad vitζ novitatem inflexibilis perseverantia accedat,” because the Apostle teaches here not a word on that subject. He neither says 1 John 1:8 sqq. that the regenerate in reality does not seldom fall from grace and perish eternally (!), but only, that his sinning notwithstanding, his sins would be forgiven him, nor here at 1 John 3:9, that the gift of sonship and regeneration can never be lost again or impaired, or that the σπέρμα is and must be brought to perfection in every child of God, or that the donum perseverantiζ is added by God to the gift of His grace, so that the two are intimately united and inseparable. A view hitting the truth may be found already in Jovinian (at the end of the fourth century) as stated in the controversial writing of his opponent (Hieronymus adv. Jovinianum libri II), if we remember that he said besides what here follows, viz: “eos, qui plena fide in baptismate renati sunt, a diabolo non posse subverti,” or “a diabolo non posse tentari; quicunque autem tentati fuerint, ostendi eos aqua tantum et non spiritu baptizatos”—that the Christian is not called upon to fight and to labour “ut majora prζmia accipiat” but only “ne perdat quod accepit,” and that he did add “qui suum baptisma servaverint.” For John neither affirms nor excludes by an intimation that the work and act of God to man must be accepted and received by man, that man with the divinely-given strength must become self-acting so that he not only do not resist and thus not resisting, obicem non ponens, become sanctified after having been justified, but also that entering into the work and act of God he exercise himself by his own personal efforts and thus appropriate more and more and receive into his own nature that which is God’s, by giving up and sacrificing his self without doing injury to his seity. All these things John does not touch upon because he is not concerned with subjective execution but solely with the objective ground and foundation. Hence he says: he that is born of God, as such (as God’s child), without any reference to his former condition and its reaction, does not really sin in the literal acceptation of the term; sin may still take place in him, but he himself, as the child of God, in the power of regeneration, does not and cannot commit it (cf. Harless Ethics § 26. **).—Hence we cannot see at all why the regenerate, if he neglects, in conflicts and collisions which may arise, to be on his guard and to hold fast all that God has given to him, done for him and is offering to him, may not by degrees fall entirely from grace, and such an issue necessitates or justifies the assumption that God did not seriously intend, energetically will and efficiently accomplish his regeneration and that lastly the lapsed was right and God in the wrong, that it is God’s fault that he, though already redeemed from the power of the devil, had again fallen a prey to the devil. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ 4. Brotherly Love is the Sum-Total of the Divine Law1 John 3:10-18 (10b-18) 10b Whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his 11brother. For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another. 12Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother’s righteous. 13Marvel not, my brethren, if the world hate you. We know that we 14have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not 15his brother abideth in death. Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and 16ye know that no murderer13 hath eternal life abiding in him. Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren. 17But whoso hath this world’s good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the 18love of God in him? My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth. AND The transition. 1 John 3:10 b. 1 John 3:10 b. Every one that doeth not righteousness, is not of God.—Thus the Apostle compresses the one, positive, formally taken and described side of the preceding section and having thus fully, concisely and distinctly recapitulated, he now quickly adds the essential characteristic of that righteousness as the leading theme of what follows, viz.: And he that loveth not his brother.—Calvin: “Hoc membrum vice expositonis additum est.” It is interesting to compare the progress of thought in this part with that in the first part: this section 1 John 3:10-18 is related to 1 John 2:29; 1 John 3:1-10 like 1 John 2:6-11 to 1 John 1:5 and 1 John 1:6 to 1 John 2:5; 1 John 2:6-7; 1 John 2:11 : ἡἐντολὴ, ὁλόγος, ἡἀγγελία brotherly love, and 1 John 3:11 the ἀγγελία, 1 John 2:7 : ἣνεἴχετε—1 John 3:11 : ἣνἠκούσατεἀπ̓ἀρχῆς as in 1 John 3:11; the ὀφείλειν 1 John 2:6; 1 John 3:16; and both times after the example of Christ; respectively disclosing our relation to death and life here (1 John 3:14-15) and to light and darkness there (1 John 2:9-11). But this section draws more on life (Cain and Abel 1 John 3:12, poverty and benevolence 1 John 3:17-18) and reaches more into life. Πᾶςὁποιῶνδικαιοσύνην refers back to 1 John 2:29; 1 John 3:7, but the omission of the Article renders the idea more general and indicates the leading thought with the self-evident reference to God and Christ. Thus ἐκτοῦθεοῦεἶναι denotes here both to be born of God and to be the child of God. Καὶ before ὁμὴἀγαπῶντὸνἀδελφὸναὐτοῦ is epexegetical, and explains δικαιοσύνη as ἀγάπη; hence it is neither=proinde (Episcopius) nor adds a new particular, something different (Rickli, Socinus, who defines ἀγάπη as Christian virtue excelling Jewish legality); nor is ἀγάπη a part or moment of δικαιοσύνη (Bengel, Spener, Neander, Gerlach), but its “substance and nature” (Huther, also Dόsterdieck). Cf. Romans 13:8-10; Galatians 5:14; Colossians 3:14; 1 Timothy 1:5; John 13:34 sq.; John 14:15; John 15:12; John 15:17. “Brotherly love is the sum-total of all right-doing” (Besser), love is the fulfilling of the law. Ἀλλήλους, in the Johannean passages like ἀδελφὸναὐτοῦ here, denotes brotherly love, the love which Christians have for one another; so also in the corresponding sections 1 John 2:9-11; 1 John 4:20-21. Ἀδελφὸς is consequently not=πλησίον Luke 10:36 (Ebrard, who sees here a contradiction to Matthew 5:44; 1 Corinthians 4:12, but without sufficient reason; Rickli and others). The commandment of Christ, 1 John 3:11. 1 John 3:11. Because this is the message which ye have heard from the beginning, that we should love one another.—He that loves the brother must be (out) of God, and brotherly love is the deed of righteousness, because the commandment is from Him. Ἀγγελία is here=ἐντολὴ 1 John 2:7. Bengel’s remark is only half true: “liberalissima appellatio, nunquam legem appellat;” ἐντολὴ occurs often, but νόμος never. But the message implies the commandment as indicated by ἵνα. The reading ἐπαγγελία, promise, cannot be sustained without a forced interpretation: it is the goodness, power and grace of God that we should love one another. The commandment of brotherly love has been given from the beginning, since the Gospel has been preached, since you have been Christians; it is and remains indissolubly united with the Gospel and Christianity; ἠκούσατεἀπ̓ἀρχῆς applies to the first and to all Christians. Ἵνα denotes the purpose, the work to be done and not only the substance or contents of the ἀγγελία (Huther), for the reference is not only to the substance of a commandment, but to a commandment specified by means of the message, which lies in the message given as a task, a work to be done. The opposite in Cain. 1 John 3:12-13. 1 John 3:12. Not, as Cain was of the wicked one and slew his brother.—The sentence is imperfect like John 6:58, and is a breviloquentia, of frequent and diversified occurrence in the classics; cf. Winer, p. 646, who cites in a note a parallel sentence from Demosthenes (Mid. p. 415). The comparison is left incomplete, as in animated conversation when there is no room for misunderstanding; there is nothing to be supplied; the reader or hearer knows from the context what is meant. In the present case: Not, as Cain was of the wicked one and slew his brother, (shall it or may it be so with us). [See note 5 in Apparat. Crit.—M.]. Hence it is neither an independent exclamation (Sander); nor need we supply ὦμενἐκτοῦπονηροῦ (Grotius, Lόcke), nor ὃς (Beza, Socinus), nor sitis or the like.—Ἐκτοῦπονηροῦ refers back to 1 John 3:8 as contrasted with ἐκτοῦθεοῦ 1 John 3:10 b. Hence the reference is to the wicked one. The sentence specifies the reason of that action, even as 1 John 3:8. ποιεῖντὴνἁμαρτίαν and ὁδιάβολοςἁμαρτάνελ are correlates. [The wild notion of the Rabbis concerning the diabolical nature of Cain may be interesting to the student (Zohar in Genes, Genesis 4:1): “Rabbi Eeazar dixit: Cum projecisset serpens ille immunditiem suam in Evam, eaque illam suscepisset, remque cum Adam habuisset, peperit duos filios, unum ex latere illo immundo et unum ex latere Adami; fuitque Cain similis imagine superiorum h. e. angelorum et Abel imagine inferiorum h. e. hominum, ac propterea diversζ fue-runt viζ istius ab illius viis. Equidem Cain fuit filius spiritus immundi, qui est serpens malus; Abel vero fuit filius Adami; et propterea quod venit de parte angeli mortis, ideo interfecit fratrem suum.”--M.]. The verb σφάζειν denotes cultro jugulum aperire ut sanguis effluat, then to kill, in sacrifice, as the martyrs were slain by the ungodly. Revelation 5:6; Revelation 6:4; Revelation 6:9; Revelation 18:24. Hence the word does not warrant the inference that the knife was the instrument of the murder (Piscator), but rather denotes that the death of Abel was martyrdom inflicted by an ungodly hand, or finely intimates that Cain, in his hatred, offered a sacrifice to his God, the devil. The next clause, at all events gives prominence to the diabolical character of Cain’s deed, the eager question “And wherefore slew he him?” being promptly answered thus: “Because his works were wicked, but his brother’s righteous. Τὰἕργααὐτοῦπονηρὰἧν answers to ἐκτοῦπονηροῦἦν, and denotes Cain’s whole manner of life” (Spener), of which the murder of his brother was one form of expression, his whole manner of life as well as this specific exhibition of it being identical as to cause and origin—namely the devil. For if the wicked one had not influenced Cain’s whole manner of life and if that had not been wholly wicked, he would not and could not have committed this specific act of fratricide. The term πονηρὸς, as distinguished from κακός is very significant. πονηρὸς, from πονεῖν or πόνος, denotes toil or hardship (and is opposed to χρηστός, good, honest, useful, friendly, serviceable) and then malignity, malignus; κακός, bad, malus, is the opposite of ἀγαθός, good and valuable. Revelation 16:2; Sir 31:4; Matthew 7:11; Matthew 12:35; Matthew 5:11; Luke 12:35; 3 John 1:10. The inwardly evil nature is κακόν, that which is inimical, hurtful and displeasing to others is πονηρόν. Ὁπονηρὸς is the most suitable term to describe the nature of Satan, the enemy of God, His kingdom and His people, as well as the works of the devil’s children. The additional clause τὰδὲτοῦἀδελφοῦαὐτοῦδίκαια the context requires us to refer to ἐκτοῦθεοῦεἶναι, as pointing out that the piety and the walk of the children of God exactly answering to the law of God are loathsome to the anti-divine world. That devilishness continues still John 3:19; John 7:7; John 17:14. Hence the monition: 1 John 3:13. Marvel not, brethren, if the world hateth you.—The same idea is already expressed in 1 John 3:1 (διὰτοῦτο) Cain is the type of the; κόσμος 1 John 2:15-17). “Magis esset mirabile, si diligerent eos.” (Didymus). The address ἀδελφοὶ in this connection exerts a beneficial influence: John expresses his love of those whom the world hates and this expression contains a ground of their rejoicing and conveys to them the sweet consolation of the fellowship of love. The particle εἰ is and remains=if; if it had been the Apostle’s object to describe the hatred of the world as actually present, he might have used ὅτι; but he signifies by εἰ that the readers collectively or individuals at the time being, will not in the end have to endure hatred; but the Indicative μισεῖ denotes that the case will doubtless arise. So Mark 15:44 (Vulgate falsely: si jam odisset); Acts 26:8; Winer, Grammar p. 307; Kόhner, 2:480 sq. Hence Sander, who makes εἰ ?=ὅτι, S. Schmidt who makes it=etiamsi, and Ebrard who explains=if ever the case occurs, are in the wrong, for the reference is to a necessary condition. [“Εἰ denotes neither a doubt nor only a possibility, for it is not only possible but from the nature of the case necessary, that the world hates the children of God; only the form of the sentence is hypothetical, not the thought it expresses. Cf. John 15:18.” Huther.—M.]. Amplification of the Antitheses: Love and Life, Hatred and Death; 1 John 3:14-15. 1 John 3:14. We Know.—In ἡμεῖς John includes himself among those he had just called ἀδελφοὶ and expresses their confident assurance, the world and its hatred notwithstanding, which is and ought to be a source of strength and consolation. The object affirmed in the sequel shows that the reference is to the experience of believers, of the children of God, and not to the Apostles only, (Lyra) or that it is only the conclusion drawn on the ground of a good conscience, (Estius). That we have passed over out of Death into Life.—The Prefect μεταβεβήκαμεν signifies an action of the past or the past of an action still continuing in the present, in the condition that has been effected: we are those who have passed over, Winer, Grammar, p. 288, 299. The Perfect must not be taken per enallagen, for the Future (Schlichting) or the Present (Didymus, Oecumenius), or the verb must not be construed =jus or spem habere ad vitam (Grotius, Carpzov). Cf. John 5:24 : ὁπιστεύων—μετεβέβηκενἐκτοῦθανάτουεἰςτὴνζωὴν. Of course ἐκτοῦθανάτουεἰςτὴνζωὴν cannot be taken physically but spiritually, but it must be taken as a real fact; it is=γεγεννῆσθαιἐκτοῦθεοῦ, 1 John 2:29 : for ἡζωὴ is the real life, divine, eternal life (1 John 1:1-2; 1 John 2:17; 1 John 2:25),=the φῶς and the ἀλήθεια (1 John 1:5; 1 John 2:21-22) of which the children of God are partakers; the θάνατος is the opposite of this life,=the σκοτία and the ψεῦδος, all of which belong to the ἐκτοῦδιαβόλου. The Apostle, therefore, does not speak of a sentiment (Paulus) or caligo, infelicitas moralis (Semler), but of relations and conditions, of regeneration, of the new life of the reconciled child of God. This implies that those who have, not yet passed over, are still or will be ἐντῷθανάτῳ before this transition into life in Christ; hence there is not the faintest colour for the assertion of Hilgenfeld, that the Apostle did share the gnostic view of the original metaphysical difference of men. Because we love the brethren.—From this conduct we may know that relation, from these acts of brotherly love that state of adoption by God. Hence the former is the first and this the second and it is false to consider brotherly love as the cause of regeneration or even as a part of justification in order to complete it, and as conditio gratiose a Deo requisita, as do the R. Catholics (Estius, Lyra) and the Pelagians (Episcopius). Brotherly love is only the condition of the certainty of the knowledge that we are justified and the children of God, and not the condition of this new life itself. [ζωή and ἀγάπη are really one and the same thing with this difference that ζωή is the state and ἀγάπη the activity of the believer; from this blissful, eternal life groweth love, and love in its turn worketh happiness and eternal life; hence the Apostle adds—(Huther)—M]. He that loveth not, abideth in death.—As usual (1 John 1:8, sqq., 1 John 2:22, sqq.), the negative is added in a concise, pregnant form. [See note 11 in Appar. Critic.—M]. The statement is quite general “he that loveth not,” without specifying the object, viz. the brother. The force of the Present μένει should be retained. To be in death is connected, as something permanent, with not loving. They are one in the other, yet not so that the not loving is the cause of the abiding in death, but, as is manifest from the context, so that we may know the abiding in death from the not loving. [The two are identical. Besser, “Where hatred is there is death, where love is there is life; yes, love is life itself.”—M.]. 1 John 3:15. Every one that hateth his brother is a man-killer.—Πᾶς denotes the universal application of this thought. Not loving is described as equal to hating one’s brother. [Not to love=to hate.—M.]; “pure indifference is impossible to the living spirit of man” (Huther). Luther rightly observes: Nova sententia coram mundo, quod non diligere sit occidere.” Bengel: “Omne odium est conatus contra vitam; at vita vitam non insectatur; qui odit fratrem, aut ilium autse ipsum vult occidere.” Lyra (odisse pejus quam non diligere.”), Schlichting (“Qui non amat, nec bene vult nec male; qui vero odit, male vult ”); and others are wrong. Not loving is only the state of quiescence exhibited in acts of hatred. According to our Lord’s exposition of the fifth commandment (Matthew 5:21-26) he is an ἀνθρωποκτόνος that hateth his brother. “Nam quem odimus, vellemus periisse” (Calvin); hatred is not only a beginning or cause of murder, but a murder in heart, be it a wish, a thought or a purpose or only the passion which afflicts the brother’s life without thinking of his death. “Latro es, antequam inquines manum” (Seneca). Here is evidently a reference to Cain, 1 John 5:12; the case of Cain shows plainly how hatred of one’s brother and homicide go together. The word ἀνθρωποκτόνος, only here and John 8:44, in this place applies to Cain who slew Abel, his brother, in the Gospel to Satan who destroyed, murdered Adam. Notwithstanding this difference, the two passages are connected with each other, the one shedding light on the other. Cf. Lange on John 8:44; Vol. IV. p. 244 sq.—The devil, having seduced Eve, and Adam through her to sin, to the transgression of the divine law of which death was the penalty fixed by God.—Sin causing mortality is itself a kind of dying, the fall or falling into death [German: The fall of sin, i.e. the fall, a fall of death.—M], and sin, born of lust, when it is finished, bringeth forth death (James 1:15); the first sin was a falling from the life created (out) of God into death threatened as a punishment. Thus Satan became the murderer of Adam and Eve in the strictest sense of the word (Wis 1:11-13; Wis 2:23-24). With the entrance of sin, moreover, there died in Eve the love of her husband whom she had seduced, and in Adam the love of his wife whom he accused to God and on whom he laid the guilt. There hatred and death are again together. In Cain also there was the hatred of his brother united with the murder of his brother, whereby he showed that he was ἐκτοῦδιαβόλου. Cf. Stier, Reden Jesu, Vol. I 3:414 sqq. And ye know that no man-killer hath eternal life abiding in him.—This concludes the thought: μὴἀγαπῶντὸνἀδελφὸν 1 John 3:10 b led the Apostle to speak of μὴἀγαπῶν 1 John 3:14, then of μισῶντὸνἀδελφὸν 1 John 3:15 and in remembrance of Cain of ἀνθρωποκτόνος; he first said οὐκἔστινἐκτοῦθεοῦ 1 John 3:10 b μένειἐνθάνατῳ, but here οὐχἕχειζωὴναἰώνιονἐναὐτῷμένουσαν. Before he said, he is in death, but now, in him is not eternal life, consequently death is in him. The Apostle denies that he “possesses permanently and fully” (Lόcke) eternal life and thus denotes the “permanent state of death” (Dόsterdieck) of him that hates and kills his brother. The Present ἄξει has respect to this present life; it is not habebit (a Lapide). Hence ζωὴαἰώνιος not the future glory (a Lapide, Bede and others). Μένουσαν certainly intimates the existence of eternal life, of baptism, etc., out of or in the word of God by means of Christian instruction and the Christian family-discipline; for the Apostle speaks of and to Christians. But even such gifts of God are consumed by hatred abiding; hence he loses entirely the possession of eternal life, so that nothing thereof abideth in him; μένουσαν is therefore not an intensified to be (Huther), nor must the want of the Article be pressed as if the reference were only to powers of the future world (Ebrard). This the Apostle lays down as an undeniable fact of Christian experience and consciousness (οἴδατε); hence they know it not from the fifth commandment (S. Schmidt) or from the Old Testament with its death-penalty in the case of murderers, spiritually interpreted (Grotius, Lόcke). Description of brotherly love, 1 John 3:16-18. 1 John 3:16. Hereby have we known love that He laid down His life for us.—S. Schmidt: “Ne quis vel se ipsum decipiat, vel ab aliis decipiatur, exponendum etiam erit, quζe sit vera et Christiana caritas.” First after the example of Christ. On ἐντούτῳ cf. on 1 John 2:3; on ἐκεῖνος, 1 John 3:3; 1 John 3:7; 1 John 2:6; ἐγνώκαμεν = cognitum habemus. Τὴνἀγάπην should be taken in a general sense without any further qualification: love.—Bengel: “Amoris natura.” In Christ may be known love, the being and nature of love. Hence we must not supply τοῦΧριστοῦ (Carpzov and others), or τοῦθεοῦ (Grotius, Calov, Spener, al.); the Vulgate (amorem Dei) constrains the Romanists to do so. Ebrard’s explanation is rather forced: “we have known love as consisting in this,” as if we had ἐντούτῳοὖσαν, and this were described in the following ὅτι as the predicate and as if ἐγνώκαμεν had only an introductory and secondary sense. Both the form (the position of the words) and the thought (to give His life = love) render that exposition untenable. The point is that whereby love is known: τὴνψυχὴντιθέναι (John 15:13; cf. John 10:11; cf. John 10:15; cf. John 10:17-18; John 13:37-38)=vitam ponere (Cicero ad Fam. 9:24); this is the highest proof of love; for love imparts her very best, her most precious goods, παραδοῦναι the ψυχή or ἑαυτόν (Galatians 2:20; Ephesians 5:2); this makes Christ the object of the Father’s love (John 10:17). The context required here ὑπὲρἡμῶν, for our protection; literally over us, who had fallen, were wounded, in danger, of perishing from our wounds or in the hands of enemies, fighting against the enemies, protecting us, becoming our substitute and assuming the fight for us: hence it is not exactly identical with ἀντὶ, and yet the two prepositions touch each other in thought “in indissoluble correlation” (Dόsterdieck) cf. 1 John 2:2. And we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.—From the act of Christ’s love for us springs a duty towards our brethren, incumbent on us (ὀφείλομεν); the thought is similar to 1 John 2:3; 1 John 2:6. The example of Christ must not be without corresponding works on our part (1 John 3:3; 1 John 3:7). The essential union of believers to Christ must exhibit itself in the real moulding of their life after the pattern of Christ, in the use of the imparted gifts and the solution of the task assigned to us by the bestowal of that gift. Cf. John 13:34; John 15:12-13; John 21:18-19; Romans 16:3-4. 1 John 3:17. But whoso has the world’s goods (sustenance of life). By the adversative δὲ “John denotes the progress from the greater, which is justly insisted upon, to the less, the non-performance of which, therefore, appears as a correspondingly greater violation of the rule just laid down.” (Dόsterdieck), Ὅςδ̓ἂν makes the sentence quite general. The proverb quoted by Grotius: “βίοςβίουδεόμενοςοὐκἔστιβίος” gives the double sense of life, and the necessaries of life, or the means of sustaining life. Cf. Mark 12:44 (Luke 21:4); Luke 8:45; Luke 15:30. Col. 5:12. Beza: “res mundanζ,” “des biens de ce monde.” The Genitive τοῦκόσμου simply points to the sphere to which the βίος belongs, and, according to 1 John 2:17, denotes the profane and worthless character of these goods, as contrasted with the eternal love and the eternal life in Christ. Βίοςτοῦκόσμου is the antithesis of ζωὴαἰώνοις; the Christian shares the latter with Christ, the former with the world. The reference is not to uncommon wealth, but rather to any kind of property (ἕχῃ, emphatically in anteposition), though it be in limited circumstances, a mere mite, or bread and potatoes. He that hath the means to give and Seeth his brother have need.—θεωρεῖ pictorially describes the attitude and activity of the spectator; it is not a hasty look, but permanent looking on and into it (Matthew 27:35; Mark 15:40; Mark 15:47; Mark 12:41; Luke 21:6; Luke 23:35; John 2:23; John 6:19; John 6:62; John 7:3; John 9:8; John 10:12; John 14:17; John 16:10; John 16:16); he has it before him like a picture which he contemplates with calmness and attention, τὸνἀδελφὸναὐτοῦχρείανἔχοντα. On the expression and the thought cf. Ephesians 4:28; Mark 2:25. Acts 2:45; Acts 4:35; Acts 20:34; Acts 28:10; Philippians 4:6. [He beholds the brother’s need with unmoved eye—M.]. And shutteth up his bowels [inwards] from Him.—After the analogy of the Hebrew ψַ ?ηֲ ?ξִ ?ιν, σπλάγχνα is =καρδία, Proverbs 12:10 and very often in the New Testament. Bengel: “Cum visceribus clauditur vel aperitur res familiaris. Aspectus miserorum corda spectatorum illico pulsat vel etiam aperit.” The heart ought to open itself in compassion and sympathy and move and open the hand to communicate; but it is under the aggravating circumstances of his having the means and beholding his brother’s need that he shutteth up his heart and turns away from him (ἀπ̓αὐτοῦ). The same pregnancy of thought occurs at 1 John 2:28. A similar use of κρύπτεινἀπὸ may be seen at Luke 19:42; John 12:36 b. Hence we need neither supply ἀποστρεφόμενος (Carpzov), nor ἀπὸ ?̀ ?=coram (Socinus). [This was the case of Dives. He saw Lazarus flung at his gate, Lazarus desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table, but he desired in vain; Dives saw him lie in misery; the dogs had pity and sympathized with the poor man, but Dives, who fared sumptuously every day, looked with unpitying eye on his brother’s distress; he saw in him a beggar, not a brother. See Augustine, Serm. 178, c. 3, and Massillon’s beautiful Lent Sermon on this subject.—M.]—The negative is emphatically expressed with an implied paracletical inference in the interrogative sentence: How abideth the love of God in him?—A similar construction may be seen 1 John 4:20; John 3:12; John 5:47. The substance of the question answers to 1 John 3:15 : οὐκἔχειζωὴναἰώνιονἐναὐτῷμένουσαν, where eternal life not abiding and even not being in him is inferred from the non-existence of brotherly love, while here the non-existence of the love of God is inferred from the same premises. Ἀγάπητοῦθεοῦ is our love to God and indicates the motion of eternal life to its fountain, as in 1 John 2:5. This love to God does not abide, where it does not become operative and preserve its vitality in the active exhibition of brotherly love. Hence it is neither God’s love to us (Calov), nor the love prescribed by God (Socinus, Grotius), nor the love which answers to that of God and Christ (S. Schmidt). Final exhortation, 1 John 3:18. 1 John 3:18. Little children, let us not love [German: that we do not love] in word, nor with the tongue, but in deed and in truth.—The affecting address, τέκνια, denotes at once the geniality and zeal of John; his earnestness is brought out in the rapid, hortatory, all-embracing expression: μὴἀγαπῶμεν. The four substantives occur in pairs and as correlates. First: λόγῳ and τῇγλώσσῃ to describe false love; then: ἐντῷἔργῳ and (ἐν) ἀληθείᾳ. It is important to note that the first pair in the Dative indicates only the means by which love is or becomes operative, while the preposition ἐν which by the copula καὶ belongs also to ἀληθείᾳ denotes the element wherein it moves (John 4:24). The first pair simply denotes the outwardness of a love which only makes use of words and the tongue, while the contrast indicates that it is destitute of deed and truth, that it is of real activity and inward heartiness which are the characteristics of true love. The Apostle accordingly annexes to λόγος, the word, which possibly might announce or accompany the deed, the emphatic μηδὲτῇγλώσσῃ, the Article serving the purpose “of rendering the expression more conspicuous” (Lόcke); the tongue, “as the member appointed to utter the word” (Huther); so that love is not simply the word which might flow from the heart and be the instrument of its application, but stops with the tongue, the means and sole instrument of the word which does not proceed from the heart. Therefore λόγῳ is contrasted with ἐνἔργῳ and τῇγλώσσῃ with ἐνἀληθείᾳ ?—Ἔργον and λόγος frequently connected together, as in Luke 24:19; Acts 7:22; sometimes λόγος and δύναμις (1 Corinthians 4:19-20), or λόγος and δύναμιςκαὶπνεῦμαἅγιονκαὶπληροφορία (1 Thessalonians 1:5) are placed in opposition. Bengel: “Sermone otioso, lingua simulante.” Lyra says excellently: “Verbo, facto nihil; lingua fallaci; hic amor non solum, fictitius et nanus, sed etidm proditorius.” Τῇγλώσσῃ denotes “the hollow nothingness,” “the purely outward babble which without inward truth produces only a hypocritical show” (Dόsterdieck). Hence we need not supply μόνον to λόγῳ (Bede, Socinus, Sander and others); and Grotius is also wrong who chiastically [i e. crosswise—M.] opposes: λόγῳ and ἀληθεία, γλώσσῃἔργῳ, thus: “Verbo amat qui prζdicat a se diligi proximum, non autem vere diligit; lingua diligit qui egenti dat bona verba.” Nor is Huther right, who takes τῇγλώσσῃ and ἀληθείᾳ as epexegetical additions without introducing a difference to λόγῳ and ἕργῳ respectively, as if the two words of each member expressed only one idea [He says, to express the idea mathematically, that λόγῳ: γλώσσῃ ?=ἐνἕργῳ: (ἐν) ἀληθείᾳ.—M. Compare ἀγαπᾷνἐνἀληθείᾳ 2 John 1:1; 3 John 1:1, and James 2:15-16. AND ETHICAL1. All the doings (ποιεῖντὴνδικαιοσύνην 1 John 3:10 b, ἔργαδίκαια and ἔργαπονηρὰ 1 John 3:12) and all the dispositions (ἀγαπῶν 1 John 3:10 b and 1 John 3:14, ὁμισῶν 1 John 3:15) of men points to a deeper ground, a fellowship with God or with Satan which is not discernible per se, neither to others nor to the respective persons themselves, but discernible by their disposition and doing. 2. The grossest transgression, e.g. the fratricide of Cain, is never alone, but exhibits itself as one of many, as one of a greater complex of manifold transgressions and plainly indicates, that matters must be bad in other respects, because otherwise this would not have happened (1 John 3:12). 3. Like attracts like, unlike repels unlike: love and antipathy are reciprocal. The Christian need not be surprised that the world from which he has separated himself, has turned away and remains alienated from him, dislikes and hates him; it is just so with himself, with this difference, that the world hates to persecute and destroy, whereas the Christian strives to improve and to overcome. 4. Before it can be said: μεταβεβήκαμενἐκτοῦθανάτου (1 John 3:14), we are ἐντῷθανάτῳ, ἐκτοῦπονηροῦ. Consequently: 1. Before such a stepping forth has taken place and without it, no one is a child of God. 2. Such stepping forth is indispensable in the case of any and every one who desires to become a child of God. 3. It is possible to all who are called to become the children of God. 4. The children of God and the children of the world are perfectly alike in kind and nature before the difference connected with such transition sets in. 5. Consider that those who are not yet brethren, may and shall become brethren as well as thou.—Indeed, it is not said here how it comes to pass, but it is plainly stated and may be seen at John 5:24, a passage to which the Apostle unmistakably refers here, and from which may be inferred what is said here and well expressed by Scholiast II.: τὸνλόγοναὐτοῦδεξάμενοι, of course ἐνπίστει. But we must not by any means say with the Roman Catholics that although faith produces the beginning of our justification before God, yet the love to God and to our neighbour increases the same. This love is simply the sign and mark of recognition that our justification has taken place, that we are justified. Augustine accordingly says very correctly: “Redeat unus quisque ad cor suum; si ibi invenerit caritatem fraternam, securus sit—jam in dextera est.” 5. The principle affirmed at 1 John 3:16 as a duty (ὁφείλομεν) with reference to the example of Christ that we also should lay down our lives, is a general one. We must not regard it with the Roman Catholics as a counsel (consilium), but view and observe it with Evangelical Christians as a precept (prζceptum). It applies not only to priests or saints, but to all Christians: “Ministri verbi non debent fugere in periculo pestis” (Luther); neither physicians in case of a pestilence, nor parents and brothers and sisters, nor the government in seasons of insurrection, nor soldiers in war, in the fight, before a battle, nor a mother when she has to nurse her child, nor a man when duty calls. This saying, moreover, must not be treated casuistically after the manner of Socinus, who thinks a Christian ought to die for a non-Christian if thereby his soul may be saved, or if the preservation of a brother is more necessary to the common weal than his own; or after that of Ammon (Sittenlehre 3, 24 sq.) be set aside, who thinks it right that in common danger of shipwreck, fire or self-defence, men are justified to kill others if they cannot save their own life in any other way. Dόsterdieck rightly observes: “Concrete directions respecting the practical application of the principle can only be given in the connection of a complete system of Ethics in which especially the duties of Christian self-preservation and the virtues of Christian prudence and simplicity as well as those of Christian self-denial and Christian courage must be exhibited not as limitations, but as sacred ordinances of the fully valid evangelical principle as described by St. John.” As St. Paul says 1 Corinthians 3:22 : πάνταὑμῶνἐστιν—εἴτεζωὴεἴτεθάνατος and at Philippians 1:21 calls: τὸἀποθανεῖνκέρδος, so the giving up of one’s own life in the calling and for the love of Christ is an άποθανεῖντῷκυρίῳ (Romans 14:8). Cf. Matthew 10:39; Matthew 16:25.— 6. The duty of beneficence is universal; it relates as much to the rich as to the poor; it is immaterial whether a man has much or little of the βίοςτοῦκόσμου. The having much or little determines the giving with or without self-denial, with or without deprivation, consequently the giving with ease or with difficulty. But nothing is said here on that head or on the situation of the necessitous, his greater or lesser need, which may be very extraordinary; nor is any thing said of the worthiness or unworthiness of the necessitous. But the remark of Luther has a very important bearing on the care of our parochial poor; he says: “Vult nos de nostro largiri; non de alieno aut communi, sicut stulti Anabaptistζ faciunt, qui tollunt proprietatem rerum, sine qua non possunt respublicζ consistere.” Private charity, even personal charity, is here distinctly referred to. In this connection it must be supposed as ranged under the fifth commandment.—Its opposite is Stoicism which includes also compassion among the passions to be left off: σοὶμὴὀργὴνεἶναι, μὴμῆνιν, μὴφθόνον, μὴἔλεον. 7. We must not think lightly of the word and its instrument, the tongue. But as the mouth-work of hypocrisy is hateful to the Lord (Matthew 6:5), so the mouth-work of brotherly love is equally hateful to John, since neither the word nor the tongue is in the service of the love of the heart and speaks or is spoken separate from the heart and contrary to the life in the heart. The friendly utterance of the mouth must and ought to be in the case of Christians the friendly utterance of the heart. Otherwise it is only a μόρφωσιςτῆςεὐσεβείας without the δύναμις (2 Timothy 3:5). For the contrary see, Matthew 12:34-35; Romans 10:8-10. 8. These concrete particulars of the laying down of our lives, of communicating the sustenance of life and of the love to our brother in deed and in truth plainly and pathetically indicate that regeneration and adoption by God, (1 John 2:29) if it is a reality, penetrates, as the central life-power the whole periphery of life, so that we read not only of a εὐσέβεια but of εὐσέβειαι, 2 Peter 3:11 and even of the θεοσέβειαδἰἔργωνἀγαθῶν (1 Timothy 2:10). For the diversity of good works induced by the faith of the heart makes it evident to others that the Christian sonship is not a show, but power and truth; his conduct towards the brethren reveals his relation to God the Father and this relation produces such conduct. [The Apostle’s declaration that every one that hateth his brother is a murderer or man-killer embodies the well known ethical principle that the moral quality of an action does not belong to the outward act, nor to the conception of it, nor to the resolution to carry it into effect, but to the intention. Hatred in St. John’s view, is murder committed in intention, and he that cherishes hatred towards his brother stands convicted of murder before God and at the bar of his own conscience.—M.] AND The twofold piety of a child of God; 1. Obedience to the Father; 2. Love of the brethren.—Like the elder brother thou mightest stay with the Father and work in His field, be envious of and take offence at the friendly reception accorded to the younger son by the Father in the parable of the prodigal (Luke 16). Cain was the elder brother. This applies primarily to the servants of the Church but it applies also to many others. Cain did not hate Abel because of his herds, for he had his fair fields; or because of his parent’s love, for he was his mother’s pride; or because of personal beauty or any outward, temporal good; but he hated him because of his piety, on account of the favour he found before God.—Cain [χιִ ?ο a lance a spear, a weapon.—M.], called by Eve in feminine rashness her weapon, and in maternal vanity favoured and spoiled by her, made his offering of anything he found without any particular discrimination as to its quality, while Abel, disregarded and neglected, carefully selected the best of the best and presented it as an offering to his God.—Thou art able to take the life of thy brother’s body but in doing so thou forfeitest thy own immortal life; thou becomest a man-killer in respect of thy brother’s body, but in respect of thyself, a suicide, even a suicide of thy soul; depriving thy brother of his bodily, earthly life, thou deprivest thyself of thy spiritual, eternal life.—Three difficult questions: 1. Canst thou hate those whom God loves? 2. Darest thou shorten or waste the term of grace which God accords? 3. Wilt thou cast from thee the gift of God in thee, eternal life?—Threefold exhibition of brotherly love: 1. Laying down one’s life for the brethren at duty’s call. 2. Communication of one’s possessions to the needy brethren. 3. Friendly and sincere readiness to oblige and aid the brethren.—Three things thou hast for the benefit of others: Body and life, goods and property, hand and heart. Epistle to Diognetus [cap. 6]:—As the soul is in the body, so are Christians in the world. The soul dwells in the body but is not of the body; so Christians also dwell in the world, but are not of the world. The invisible soul is, as it were, keeping guard in the visible body; this is the mark of Christians as long as they remain in the world: their piety is invisible. The flesh hates and wars against the soul, which (the soul) is, however, by no means wronged [ἀδικομμένη=affecta injuria.—M.] by it because it (the soul) forbids the indulgence of the lusts of the flesh; so the world hates the Christians, although they by no means wrong it but only resist the lusts of the world. The soul loves the flesh and the members which hate it; so also Christians love their enemies. [Cf. Matthew 5:44.—M.] Basilius:—Because the devil’s hatred cannot reach God, he seeks to hurt and destroy man, the image of God. Augustine:—The Christian lives, but, as it were, in winter; the root is alive but the boughs look dry; the living pith and marrow is within, and within are hidden the leaves and the fruits—but they wait for summer. Ambrose:—“Nemo dicat proprium, quod commune est; esurientium panis est, quem tu detines; nudorum indumentum est, quod tu recludis.” Luther:—The world is a den of murderers, subject to the devil. Would we live on earth we ought to be satisfied with being guests therein and putting up at an inn whose host is a roguish host, whose house bears the sign and title over the door: “Murder and lie.” For Christ Himself did affix such a sign and title to his house right over the door by saying that He is a murderer and a liar. A murderer to destroy the body; a liar to seduce the soul. Starke:—Because God is Love and loves those who are born of Him, therefore love of the brethren is also the mark of the regenerate.—Art thou tempted with the thought that thou art without the grace of God, without the adoption, without salvation: be of good courage! If thou really and heartily lovest the godly, yea even the wicked and thy foes, thou mayest be quite sure that all these blessings are thy own.—Good Christian, whenever thou readest and hearest some portion of Divine truth, consider well the purpose of God in announcing it and shape thy course accordingly.—Contrary dispositions are not uncommon among actual brothers; the one may be good, the other bad, the one may be saved, the other damned.—The power of Satan over those children is so great that he changes even natural love into hatred.—Mad features of the ungodly! they cannot bear that the works of others are good—why? What is it that envy will not do? They also do not like it because it puts them to shame and sometimes becomes the means of their punishment.—Happy state of believers as contrasted with that of unbelievers! The former truly live, the latter are dead though their body is alive. We mourn for the dead—how much more ought we to mourn for the ungodly, for they are spiritually dead, before they die, and if they die, they fall into eternal death.—God has not only connected the hand but also the mouth and the heart with the fifth commandment.—Hatred is not a trifling sin of infirmity compatible with a man’s continuing in a state of grace, but so great a sin as to entail the loss of eternal life, which is irrecoverably lost while hatred lasts. He that hates is a double murderer, he wants to hurt others and deprives himself of eternal life.—To have had life does not render us blessed; but he is blessed with whom eternal life abides.—It is one thing to have this world’s goods and another to covet them: the one is the blessing of God, the other covetousness.—Poverty is no disgrace: a man may be poor and yet be the child of God, the brother of Christ and of good Christians.—Doing good to the poor is not only incumbent upon the rich, possessed of great abundance, but to every one who has this world’s goods and is able to communicate; even as every one has to work, also for this purpose, that he may have something to give to the poor.—Love is blind in not having respect to the person of the poor, whether it be known or unknown, strange or native; but it is not blind in taking cognizance of the need it is to relieve.—Do not always wait for a poor brother’s application, begging, supplication and appeal to thy love; many are ashamed to disclose their need; but if thou knowest thy brother’s case, show pity unasked and joyfully.—If unable to do anything else, thou canst love with the tongue by words of good counsel and consolation; but see that thy heart be with thy tongue.—The greatness of a benefaction does not determine its worth before God, nor does its smallness lessen it; a great benefaction without sincere love is small, even nothing before God; but a small benefaction prompted by sincere and hearty love is great in God’s sight. Neander: As Cain hated and slew Abel in consequence of the contrast between a godly and an ungodly disposition, so the world hates and slays the children of God in consequence of the same contrariety of disposition. Hence the world and the children of God are ever at war like love and selfishness. Hence Christians need not be surprised, if the world hates them. This is to them the stamp of the divine life, the possession of which renders them the opposite of the world. Heubner. Being without love makes men like Cain, whose kind is not extinct. The mind of Cain is to destroy the hated children of God; literary murder also belongs to this head. As to its secret, inmost tendency, all hatred aims at murder.—The duplicity of mankind was prefigured in the case of Cain and Abel; this dichotomy runs through the whole Bible. Cain is the prototype of the evil and unloving, Abel the prototype of Christ.—A Christian Nil admirari, Psalms 37. Hatred and enmity is that which disquiets, vexes, excites and disconcerts the natural man most. But the Christian is bidden not even to be surprised at it! He knows the world, is aware of what he has to expect of it, he is at peace with God, lives a life of introversion, is so well rooted and grounded in God, so abundantly satisfied with the grace of God, that the world’s hatred does not disturb him. God is his fortress: but he must not leave that fortress.—Where the hatred of the world has not yet fully developed, there is most surely a want of decided Christianity.—Love displays its most glorious beauty under the world’s hatred. The Christian loves while the world has no idea of the existence of his love.—Formerly this world was extra-Christian, but now there is a world on the soil of the Christian Church. Is it offensive, hostile, presumptuous to speak of this difference? then it is the fault of the Bible, of Jesus Christ. We ought to hold up a mirror to all: you are either this or that. But it would be presumption to refer individuals to the class to which they belong, for this is the prerogative of God.—Death is the state of insensibility and impotence with respect to whatever is good and godly, the conscience is blunted and without receptivity, the heart is dead without any emotion, or interest in religion. Life is activity, emotion, a sense for, an impulse to and ability for the holy, a work after the will of God, a state of holiness, of a walk well-pleasing to God. Brotherly love is mentioned as a criterion, as a test of life.—Think of hatred as the root and beginning of murder. Often a bitter grief is to others more deadly and vitally injurious than a gross bodily injury.—Distinguish between that which passes with men and that which passes with God.—Never make room for secret anger: or life, the Holy Ghost will depart from thee.—The unloving thinks more highly of lifeless, worthless metal than of the living man created in the image of God.—What can you accomplish with the metal? Refresh the weary, comfort their hearts and dry their tears! Then you transmute stones into bread, earthly treasures into heavenly.—The word is only the shadow of the deed and by no means an equivalent of love or gratitude. (Themistius). Besser:—Where hatred is, there is death: where love is, there is life; yea, love itself is the life.—Thus Luther showed that he was willing to lay down his life for the brethren when in the year 1527 he stayed at Wittenberg with those who were stricken with the plague. So the ancient historian Eusebius narrates how a pestilence at Alexandria brought out the difference between the Christians and the pagans. So Hans Egede laid down his life when for the sake of the poor Greenlanders he exchanged his comfortable parish for hunger and cold, for unspeakable toil and sufferings; and the coast of Africa, also, lined with grave-hills with the seed of the negroes proclaims the love which is stronger than death. Would that it might be said of the Christians of our time what Tacitus said of the Christians, viz.: that they are as inflexible concerning their faith, as they are ready in the exhibition of mercy.—How can he live on God’s compassionating love in whom no compassionating love does live? On the Epistle for the second Sunday after Trinity, 1 John 3:15-18. Heubner, during the siege of Wittenberg, in 1813, preached on the hatred of the world to which Christians are exposed, and said, notwithstanding the presence of the French garrison, when he came to speak of deserved hatred: the hatred is deserved, which visits the tyrant who sacrifices thousands and the welfare of thousands to his lust of rule. The Christian under the hatred of the world. 1. How dignified is his demeanour in bearing it a. with calmness, composure and patience (1 John 3:13); b. with the consciousness of his innocence, his love, as known to God (1 John 3:14); c. with the hope of being one day justified (1 John 3:2); 2. how holily he uses it: a. as a warning against all the motions of hatred (1 John 3:15); b. as a challenge to become more like Christ in love (1 John 3:16); c. as an instrument to reconcile the world to himself by love (1 John 3:17-18). Motives of comfort for Christians under the world’s hatred. 1. (1 John 3:13). They are unknown and misunderstood; 2. (1 John 3:14); they become conscious of their life; 3. (1 John 3:15); they are encouraged to fight against all unlovingness; 4. (1 John 3:16); they resemble Christ; 5. (1 John 3:17); become more and more assured of the love of God; 6. (1 John 3:18); they hope to gain their enemies over. The mind of the Christian and of the world opposed to each other in love and hatred. 1. To hate is natural to the world, to love to the Christian (1 John 3:13-14); 2. Hatred destroys, love sacrifices the life (1 John 3:15-16); 3. The world shuts up, the Christian opens the heart (1 John 3:18). Whither do we come if the spirit of love leaves us? 1. Answer: we come from the fellowship of the saints to the fellowship of the world (1 John 3:13), from the life of God to spiritual death (1 John 3:14), to vice and shame (1 John 3:15), to forfeiting our salvation and the fruits of the death of Christ (1 John 3:16).—2. Application: learn the worth of true love (1 John 3:16), fight against every motion of unlovingness (1 John 3:17), practise love in deed and in truth (1 John 3:18). The strong warnings given to Christians against an unloving mind.—Love appears most beautiful under the world’s hatred.—Love, a sign of life.—It is only by love that a Christian can know whether he is a child of God or regenerate. 1. The truth. 2. The laying to heart being reminded of this truth. F. A. Wolf:—The Apostolical refutation of the principal errors prevailing on the subject of Christian love: 1. The fate of love, 2. The reign of love, 3. The value of love, 4. The origin of love. Caspari:—Of the nature of true love: 1. Its consolation, 2. Its powers, 3. Its purity. Kapff:—How necessary true brotherly love Isaiah , 1. As a test of our spiritual life; 2. As a condition (?) of eternal life.—The Law and the Testimony: Of Brotherly Love. I. Motives. 1. The contrast of Cain; 2. Marks of discipleship and regeneration; 3. The passing away and perdition of the hater. II. Marks. 1. Laying down one’s life; 2. Communication of one’s goods; 3. Love in deed. The true life in love and certain death in hatred: 1. The ground, fruit and nature of the true life; 2. Certain death in hatred of the brethren, as to ground and nature. Brotherly love. 1. Who are our brethren? 2. How do we love the brethren? 3. What moves us to such love? How operative is the love which flows from the living knowledge of the sacrificing love of Christ! 1. It takes us from death to life; beloved of God in Christ, we love. 2. It alone is able to bear the hatred of the world without ceasing to love (Matthew 5:39-42). 3. It is not only love in words and with the tongue, but in deed and in truth. We know that we are born of God, for, 1. The world hates us; 2. We love the brethren; 3. We hate hatred, but not the hater; 4. We lay down our life for the brethren. A heart-test of what spirit we are (Luke 9:55-56; Jeremiah 8:6). 1. For the satisfaction of the righteous who in their love grieve over the world’s hatred; 2. For the terror of the ungodly who hate their neighbour without fear or anxiety; 3. for the awakening of the hypocrites who love their neighbour only in appearance.—Questions of Confession. [Ignatius:—(ad Smyrm, 6.): “Observe those who are heterodox with regard to the grace of Christ, how contrary they are to the mind of God. They have no regard for love,—περὶἀγάπηςοὐμέλειαὐτοῖς—they do not care for the widow, or the orphan, or the hungry or the thirsty.”—M.]. [Wordsworth: (on 1 John 3:16).—“And we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren;” a remarkable saying on the duty of Christian martyrdom. It was probably suggested by the seductive tenets of the false teachers (αἱπλανῶντες mentioned 1 John 2:26; 1 John 3:7), who courted popularity in times of persecution; by alleging that provided a man had knowledge of the doctrines of Christianity as delivered by them, and adopted their theories, it was not necessary for him to expose himself to any danger in the maintenance of the faith, much less to endure martyrdom and to lay down his life for the brethren: but that he might freely associate with the heathen in their worship, and eat things offered to idols. This was particularly the doctrine of the Simonians (Origen c. Cels. VI. p. 282; Euseb. II. 13), and of the Nicolaitans (Revelation 2:15. Irenζus I. 23) and of the Cerinthians (Philastr. hζr. c. 36).—Tertullian wrote his book called Scorpiace against these notions and he refers to this passage in proof of the duty of martyrdom, c. 12.—M.]. [Macknight: (1 John 3:14-15):—According to the Apostle in this place, the surest mark, by which we can know our actual state, is to consider whether we possess that characteristic disposition towards our brethren, which the Christian religion enjoins. The high encomiums, passed in this and the following verse on love to mankind, are not to be so understood, as if no virtue but benevolence were necessary to complete the Christian character. The virtues have all such a connection with each other, that they cannot subsist separately. And therefore, if one really loves his brethren, he will not only be charitable to the poor, but he will be just in his dealings, true to his promises, faithful in all the trusts committed unto him. In short, he will carefully abstain from injuring his neighbour in any respect, and will perform every duty he owes to him, from a sincere principle of piety towards God, whereby his whole conduct will be rendered uniformly virtuous.—M.]. [Secker:—If we do a person no harm, yet if we wish him harm, St. John has here determined the case, “Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer.” For indeed, hatred not only leads to murder, and too often, when indulged, produces it unexpectedly; but it is always, though perhaps for the most part in a lower degree, the very spirit of murder in the heart; and it is by our hearts that God will judge us.—M.]. [Clarke: (on 1 John 3:15).—This text has been quoted to prove, that no murderer can be saved. This is not said in the text; and there have been many instances of persons who have been guilty of murder, having had deep and genuine repentance; and who, doubtless, found mercy from His hands who prayed for His murderers, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” It is, however, an awful text for the consideration of those who shed human blood on frivolous pretences; or in those wars which have their origin in the worst passions of the human heart. (On 1 John 3:17).—Here is a test of this love: if we do not divide our bread with the hungry, we certainly would not lay down our life for him. Whatever love we may pretend to mankind, if we are not charitable and benevolent, we give the lie to our profession. If we have not bowels of compassion, we have not the love of God in us: if we shut up our bowels against the poor, we shut Christ out of our hearts and ourselves out of heaven. (On 1 John 3:18). There is a good saying in Yalcut Rubeni, p. 145, 4. on this point: “If love consisted in word only, then love ceaseth as soon as the word is pronounced. Such was the love between Balak and Balaam. But, if love consists not in word, it cannot be dissolved; such was the love of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the jest of the patriarchs which were before them.”—M.]. [Trower: (on 1 John 3:17).—“What a picture is here brought before us, of a Christian possessed of this world’s good, and seeing his brother have need; yet turning away his eyes, and hardening his heart against the claims of charity, shutting up his bowels of compassion from him! How unlike Him who, though He was rich, yet for our sake became poor, that we through His poverty might be rich. May we learn more and more that whatever share we enjoy of “this world’s good,” is intrusted to us as stewards for God; and that all pretence of possessing Christian love is vain, unless we minister freely to the necessities of our brethren what we have so freely received. Hereby alone can we know that we are of the truth, and can assure our hearts before Him.”—M.]. [Stanhope:—The good we would do, but cannot, shall be rewarded; and the evil, which we are disposed to do, though not actually done, shall be punished. Hence, if a man keep malice, though but in his heart, if he wish or rejoice at the misery or harm of his brother, this man is, in the eye of God, and of the Gospel dispensation, a murderer.—If some sudden change befalls my neighbour’s fortunes, the diminution of his honour or estate, the blemishing his credit and reputation, and I feel a secret pleasure in such calamities, can it be charity that ties up my tongue from bitterness or slander, or my hands from invasion and cruelty? No, certainly.—He that triumphs in mischief and doth not act it himself; he that is fond of and cherisheth a scandal, but forbears to raise or spread it; it is not religion, but some other consideration, by which even this man is restrained. But alas! how few are there, in comparison, who think themselves bound to stop here! How few who, while they hold their hands from action, make no scruple to give their tongues a liberty of speaking “all words that may do hurt,” and so contribute to the disgrace and grief of their injured and afflicted brother! and if they, with these sharp razors, wound and mangle a bleeding reputation, would not the same malice unsheath their sword and thrust it into his bowels, if their own safety, the fear of human laws, or some other prudential consideration, did not bind their hands, which leaves their tongues and thoughts at liberty? For, were religion, were the fear and love of God, their check, they would prevent the very beginnings of malice. This tells us that we must be compassionate and kind; that we must do to every man whatsover we would that he should do unto us; that but to meditate or delight in evil is a sin, and that no instance of goodness should be wanting which the circumstances of any brother render seasonable for him to receive, and ours have put in our power to give; that a design of making him uneasy is not one whit less murderous and guilty, because not prosecuted in tenderness to one’s self, and not to be effected with impunity. Thus God interprets it, and by this rule He will proceed with us; for He declares Himself a trier of the heart, and that in our last great reckoning, “every secret thing shall be brought into judgment.”—M.]. Footnotes: [1 John 3:10 b. πᾶςὁ ?=“ Every one that.” So German.—M.] [καὶ ?=“And.” So German, and most foreign versions.—M.] [1 John 3:11. ὅτι=“Because.” So German.—M.] ἀγγελία A. B. G. K.; ἐπαγγελία C. Sin. and a few, unimportant Codd.—The context admits the sense “promise” only on the artificial interpretation that it is a gift and a happiness to love. [1 John 3:12. οὐκαθὼςΚάϊνἐκτοῦπονηροῦἦν. German: “Not as Cain was of the wicked one.”—Lόcke: “Some supply after οὐ: ἀγαπῶμεν, others ποιῶμεν and the like. But in the first case there arises an irony unsuitable in this connection; and in both cases a second supplement becomes necessary, to wit, of ὅς after Κάϊν, which, as. the omission of the relative pronoun is in classic as well as in N. T. Greek without example, could hardly be justified. Much simpler is it with Grotius to complete the sentence thus: οὐκὦμενἐκτοῦπονηροῦ, καθὼςΚάϊνἐκτοῦπονηροῦἦν.” Winer: “Properly, there is nothing to be supplied (ὦμεν or ποιῶμεν would not suit οὐ), but, the comparison being negligently expressed, the reader easily adjusts the clauses for himself: that we love one another, not as Cain was of the wicked one, etc., shall it or may it be so with us.” For further authorities see Lillie.—M.] [German: “Because his works were wicked, but his brother’s righteous.” It is difficult to determine the right reading, whether it is αὐτοῦ, αὑτοῦ or ἑαυτοῦ (B.) Most probably αὑτοῦ.—The correspondence between Κάϊνἐκτοῦπονηροῦἦν and τὰἔργααὐτοῦπονηρὰἦν should by all means be brought out.—M.] [δὲ ?=“but,” not “and,” as E. V.—M.] [1 John 3:13. German: “Marvel not, brethren,” agreeing with Sin. G. K. Rec. al. in omitting μου.—M.] [μισεῖ. German, Wiclif. al. retain the Indicative mood.—M.] [1 John 3:14. German: “We have passed out of death into life.”—M.] Ἀγαπῶν without τὸνἀδελφὸν, A. B. Sin.; with it C. G, K., although less authentic, and rather inserted than omitted. [German: omits the words, and renders: “He that loveth not abideth in death.”—M. [1 John 3:15. πᾶςὁ ?=Every one.—M.] [ἀνθρωποκτόνος; German: “man-murderer,” but better to render, “man-killer” (Lillie following Rhemish vers. at John 8:44), which is free from the extenuating force suggested by the technical use of such words as “homicide” or “man-slaughter.”—M.] [1 John 3:16. German: “Hereby have we known.”—M.] θεῖναι A. B. C. Sin. al., decidedly preferable to τιθέναι G. K. al. [1 John 3:17. German: “Life-sustenance.” Goods might be used in that sense.—M.] [German: “His inwards;” but “bowels” without the supplement “compassion” should by all means be retained.—M.] ἀπ̓αὐτοῦ A. B. C. Sin.; the words are omitted only by several unimportant Codd. [German: “Abideth.”—M.] μου after τεκνία occurs in Rec. after G. K., but is wanting in the best Codd.—M. The Article τῇ before γλώσση is wanting in Rec. Sin., but found in A. B. C. G. K. and most of the Codd. verss. and editions. [German: “with the tongue.”—M.]; ἐν, omitted by K., is found in almost all the authoritative Codd., including Sin. Huther in a note [2d ed. p. 163] replies to the objection of Ebrard and Myrberg that this could only apply to our love of God and not to our love of the brethren, that in John’s opinion Christian love of the brethren is identical with the love of God, because the Christian loves his brother as one born of God. He suggests also that ἀγάπη might be better denned as the “essential exhibition” of δικαιοσύνη—M.]. 5. The Glorious Consequences of our Adoption by God 1 John 3:19-2419 And hereby we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before 20him. For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things. 21Beloved, if our heart condemn us not, then have we confidence toward God. 22And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight. 23And this is his commandment, That we should believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment. 24And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us. AND Transition and first consequence: the assurance of being of the truth. 1 John 3:19 a.—And hereby we shall know that we are of the truth.—The connection is by the copula καὶ; the Future γνωσόμεθα is occasioned by the hortatory form of 1 John 3:18 : μὴἀγαπῶμεν, the sense being: “If we love ἐνἔργῳκαὶἀληθείᾳ, we shall know thereby that etc.” (Huther); the object of our knowing, ὅτιἐκτῆςἀληθείαςἐσμέν, is defined by what is said in 1 John 3:18. Thus close is the connection of the Apostle’s argument with the preceding section in which he treated of obedience to the commandments of God and more particularly of brotherly love (1 John 3:10-18). Ἐντούτῳ refers to what precedes, as in 1 John 2:5 b, and not to what follows as in 1 John 2:3.—1 John 3:19 is plainly connected with 1 John 3:18, not with 1 John 3:10 (Rickli, de Wette), or 1 John 3:14 (Lucke). The Future has here the same sense as in John 7:17; John 3:31-32; John 13:35. denoting the possibility of a case which may justly be expected to arise. Winer, Grammar, p. 294, sq.—Ἐκἀληθείαςεἶναι requires to be interpreted like ἐκθεοῦεἶναι, τέκνονθεοῦεἶναι both on account of the force of the preposition ἐκ which signifies principium vel ortum, and of the pregnant sense which John attaches to the word ἀληθεία. It is the truth eternal, originating in and springing from God revealed in Christ, testified to by the Holy Spirit as the Spirit of truth, the real substance of the Gospel, and designed to be expressed in the life of believers; it comes nearest to the idea of φῶς, and we ought therefore to compare the term: υἱοὶφωτός (John 12:36). Cf. John 18:37.—It is not covered by ἐκθεοῦεἶναι, but should be combined with it. The truth (out) of God is the nature of those who love the brethren and a well of life in them.—Hence we must not explain with Bede: “ex veritate quζ Deus est” (so also Calvin, Rickli and others), or with Calov: “ex verbo veritatis” (so also Spener, Bengel, Lόcke, de Wette), and still less understand with Jachmann “the true religion,” or with Nφsselt: “doctrina divina,” or with Semler: “perfectior vita.” These definitions do not explain the idea ἀληθεία. Nor must we weaken the force of the preposition ’εκ and explain with Oecumenius: “ἀληθεύειν,” or with a Lapide: “veracem esse, veraciter ambulare,” or with Socinus: “vere talem esse, ut quis se esse se profitetur,” or with Grotius: “congruere evangelio.” Second consequence: An assured heart before God, 1 John 3:19 b. 20. 1 John 3:19 b. And we shall persuade our hearts before Him.—Πείθειν either to convince or to persuade; the object καρδίαςἡμῶν points to a difference within the personality, qualified by καταγινώσκῃ and hence perceptible. It is an ethico-religious difference: the accusation and condemnation of our heart against our own person. The Apostle designates by καρδία the inmost seat of the emotions (John 14:1; John 14:27; John 16:6; John 16:22), the source of our actions (John 13:2), and here also the judge within; συνείδησις in John, occurs only in the spurious passage John 8:9, but is frequently used by Paul (Romans 2:15; Romans 9:1; Romans 13:5; 1 Corinthians 8:7; 2 Corinthians 5:11; Acts 24:16) and also at 1 Peter 3:16; 1 Peter 3:21; Hebrews 13:18. Origen cites 1 John 3:21, plainly either as: “ἐὰνμὴἡσυνείδησιςκαταγινώσκῃἡμῶν,” or as “ἐὰνᾑσυνείδησιςἡμῶνμὴκαταγινώσκῃ.” The Greeks take καρδία simply for συνείδησις. Although καρδία is more comprehensive than συνείδησις, yet the latter is contained in the former, viz., conscience is in the heart, which we must conceive to be disquieted and excited by and with the conscience. The connection requires us to construe πείθειν aimed at the point “ut desistant condemnare” (Bengel), as at Matthew 28:14 : πείσομεναὐτὸν, i.e., the ἡγεμόνα and ἀμερίμνουςποιήσομεν the soldiers on guard who had fled on the morning of the resurrection. According to the context and conformably to usage πείθειν denotes a pacifying persuasion. The antithesis 1 John 3:21 : ἐὰνμὴκαταγινώσκῃ ?—παῤῥησίανἔχομεν likewise makes ἐὰνκαταγινώσκῃ ?—πείσομεν denote to pacify, to quiet as the effect of persuasion. Hence Fritsche’s explanation: “flectemus animos—ad amorem ostendendum,” is false and wholly repugnant to the context. The reference however is not to the last judgment when the final decision and separation will take place, but rather to the inward transactions, which though prophetical of the last judgment, precede the same during this our earthly life. Accordingly, ἔμπροσθεναὐτοῦ is not coram illo in the last judgment and πείσομεν relates not to eternity (as Socinus, Lόcke, de Wette construe), but only coram illo, in His presence, in His light. As the accusing heart on the ground of the Divine word, and in virtue of the impulse of and the fellowship with the Holy Spirit is disquieted, and the voice of God is heard in the conscience, so the heart must be quieted before God, on the ground and in virtue of His word and promise and in the fellowship with Him, so that the following words: “μείζωνἐστὶνὁθεὸςκαὶγινώσκειπάντα; explain ἔμπροσθεναὐτοῦ; imaginings of our own spirit and worldly diversions do not promote such quieting. Compare Dόsterdieck. Hence we should construe the Future πείσομεν in coφrdination with γνωσόμεθα and so connected with καὶ that it is also governed by ἐντούτῳ, although the latter connected zeugmatically with γνωσόμεθα denotes thereat, with πείσομεν, thereby; this is the more practicable, because ἐκτῆςἀληθείαςεἶναι intervenes and completes ἐνἀληθείᾳἀγαπᾷν and γνωσόμεθα introduces πείσομεν. It is therefore wrong to begin a new sentence with ἔμπροσθεν (Paulus, Fritzsche, Ebrard). 1 John 3:20. Because, if the heart condemn us, because God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things.—The reading ὅτιἐὰν—ὅτιμείζων is so well established that neither a conjecture like that of Stephanus, who proposes to read ἔτιμείζων, nor the cancelling of the second ὅτι, as done by Grotius, warrants us to lessen or remove the difficulties which are also rather contained in the thought. We have now the reason specified that we shall quiet our hearts before Him in case our heart should condemn us and find a verdict against us. Hence ἐὰν with the Subjunctive is perfectly right. Winer, Grammar, pp. 307, 308.—“Καταγινώσκειν stands midway between κατηγορεῖν, to accuse (Romans 2:15), which is still accompanied by an ἀπολογεῖν (Romans 2:15), and κατακρίνειν, to sentence [in a bad sense—M], condemn (John 8:10 sq.); the latter includes the judicial punishment (John 8:10; Colossians 4), while καταγινώσκειν denotes only the verdict found against a person accused to be followed by the punishment corresponding thereto. Cf. Deuteronomy 25:1-2. The term is therefore very significant with respect to the verdict found by our own soul against ourself, which is more than the mere accusation, because the καταγινώσκειν implies also the guilt of the person accused, so that the condemnation to the punishment, the κατακρίνειν, may justly be expected” (Dόsterdieck). In the heart there is not only a party, but also a judge; the conscience is a court of justice. Hence it denotes here not only reprehendere or accuse (Vulgate, Augustine, Lόcke, al.). Why the heart finds a verdict against us the context indicates “in a relative play on the words” γνωσόμεθα—καταγινώσκῃ, exactly like John 15:2. (Dόsterdieck). Consequently [it finds the verdict against us—M.] that we are not wholly of the truth, that we do not perfectly, gladly and uninterruptedly love the brethren; for these are correlates of extraordinary difference in degree up to perfection. The explanation of the Greek commentators, who think of 1 John 3:18, and that of Dόsterdieck, who connects it with 1 John 5:19, should be combined against those of Luther and Nφsselt, who think of every defect except that of brotherly love; but every other defect would also show itself with respect to brotherly love, and render it deficient. Of course, the reference cannot be to a complete relapse, to a knowingly and grossly repeated case of untruthfulness in love or of unlovingness, since the lying words of love would have no corresponding deed (Estius, Episcopius, Lόcke, al.) though we may and should think not only of lesser but also of graver offences, seeing that the conscience of Christians is sufficiently tender and acute to find an adverse verdict also with respect to lesser defects of love. The repetition of ὅτι before ἐὰν and μείζων is not peculiar to this passage but occurs also at Ephesians 2:11-12. Lόcke cites an example from Xenophon, Anab. 7, 4, 5 and 5, 6,19 remarking, however, that while ὅτι in both places signifies that, it denotes here “because.” The reason of the epanalepsis is not the forgetfulness of the author, but the importance of the thought which allows and requires such a rhetorical emphasis. Lόcke admits the epanalepsis without hesitation, Winer, (Grammar p. 604, note 3,) is undecided, Huther hesitates and decides against it, the older and many modern commentators (Calvin, Wolf, Sander, Dόsterdieck) are for it. There is hence no reason to read with Bengel, Baumgarten-Crusius, Lachmann, ed. maj. and others ὅταν or ὅτιἐὰν=quicquid like ὃἐὰν in 1 John 3:22 instead of ὅτι. It cannot be maintained with Dόsterdieck that this is not Greek, and from the circumstance that ὃςἐὰν or even ὅστιςἐὰν never occcurs in the New Testament without the variant reading ἂν, while ὅστιςἂν frequently occurs without a variant reading, it cannot be inferred that ὅτιἐὰν cannot be read here. Cf. Winer, Grammar, p. 322, sq.—Matthew 8:19 ὅπουἐὰν occurs without the variant reading ἂν, and ὅστιςἐὰν is as well authenticated as ὃςἐὰν. But on that account it is only possible to read here ὅτιἐὰν which is occasioned by the reading ἂν in A; καταγινώσκειν, which may have its object in the Accusative, also allows that reading. But the context forbids it; for it is hardly true that we can quiet our heart at every accusation, and the reason of such quieting to be connected with πείσομεν is too much separated, while the putting and assumption of the case, as stated in 1 John 3:20, and required at 1 John 3:21, in which the heart stands in need of such quieting, is all but wiped out.—The main difficulty is, that in the circumstance of God being greater and knowing all things must be found, and that it really contains, a quieting of the heart under its accusations.—The word μείζων is of frequent occurrence in the writings of John; in a similar connection at 1 John 4:4; 1 John 5:9; in other connections, particularly at John 4:12; John 5:36; John 8:53; John 10:29; John 13:16; John 14:28; John 15:20. The context invariably supplies the sense in which it is used; here the sentence καὶγινώσκειπάντα furnishes the necessary explanation; He γινώσκει, while the heart καταγινώσκει. “Dulce paregmenon in Grζco” (Bengel). God is here called greater in comparison with our heart; the heart accuses: it is not that He accuses more than our heart, but that He judges differently, more justly than our heart; for He knoweth all things which our heart does not perceive, know or observe in giving sentence. Πάντα of course points into the heart itself and to the immediate surroundings; what is that? The context answers that question: 1 John 3:2 : οὔπωφανερώθητίἐσόμεθα, 1 John 3:9 : σπέρμααὐτοῦἐναὐτῷμένει, we do not altogether know ourselves, we have only the beginnings and germs of the life from Him; Christ, His life, His bearing and taking away sin (1 John 3:5-6), His destroying the works of the devil (1 John 3:8), objectively completed, but subjectively to be gradually completed from a life-principle of the regeneration (1 John 2:29), and moreover passing through man’s own weakness and sin (1 John 3:3 : ἁγνίζειἑαυτὸν), and through the hatred of the world (1 John 3:13 : μισεῖὑμᾶςὁκόσμος). God knows the whole (πάντα) of the new life of man even to the ὅμοιοιαὐτῷεσόμεθα (1 John 3:2), while man knows only the particular, the particular error of which the heart accuses him; God knows the power of His gift to man and its preservation in penitence, its growth and development both in the hope and the faith in him. Therefore God is greater and knoweth all things; therefore, this greatness of the God who is our Father is a ground of quieting when the heart accuses us, and in its vitality and tenderness finds a verdict against us. So Besser: “Our heart knows some things and pronounces against us: God knows all things and pronounces not against us, but for us, because the seed of the truth out of which we are born, is not concealed to Him.” He knows, as Sander says, even the smallest spark of faith in the glimmering wick, or even the hidden germs of true love (Rickli). “Conscientia pusilla est et scit aliquid nostri duntaxat, at Deus magnus est, novit omnia nostra, prζsentia, prζterita, futura, et omnium, et habet jus voluntatemque condonandi” (Bengel).—Hence this verse is, sensu evangelico, to be understood of the love which forgives and destroys sin (Luther, Spener, Bengel, Besser, Dόsterdieck, Huther and others), and not sensu legali, of judging righteousness and omniscience (Calvin, Beza, Socinus, Grotius, Calov, Lόcke, Neander, Ebrard and others). Ebrard begins a new sentence and explains thus: And before the face of God we shall convince our heart, mind, conscience, not the understanding, that if (already) our (easily deceived smaller) heart accuses us (that we do not practise love), God, the Omniscient, is greater than our heart (and that we so much the less can stand before Him, have παῤῥησία).—Nor must we construe: For, if the heart accuses us, because God is greater than our heart, He also knoweth all things; so de Wette sensu legali, Brόckner sensu evangelico. Rather the importance of the thought justifies the epanalepsis of the ὅτι. Third consequence. Filial confidence. 1 John 3:21-22. 1 John 3:21. Beloved, if our heart condemn us not.—Ἀγαπητοί as in 1 John 2:7; 1 John 3:2; 1 John 4:1; 1 John 4:7; 1 John 4:11 is here connected with the enjoyment of the forgiving love of God in order to bring out a new and other feature. The recurrence of the words ἡκαρδίακαταγινώσκῃἡμῶν indicates the connection with the foregoing (although, as Bengel maintains, καρδία, 1 John 3:20, καταγινώσκῃ has the emphasis), in the same sense, in order to mark a particular case (ἐὰν with conjunct.), which is sure to arise, and only the negative μὴ marks the antithesis; the word used is μή and not μηκέτι, which would make the supposed case the consequence of what goes before (as Huther supposes). A similar construction occurs at 1 John 1:8-9. We have confidence towards God.—The words παῤπ̔ησίανπρὸςτὸνθεὸνἔχομεν denote the state of the peace of the soul and of undisturbed confidence to God-ward which is opposed to that described before by πείθειντὰςκαρδίαςἡμῶν, like at Romans 8:15. The παῤῥησία 1 John 2:28; 1 John 4:17 is indeed the child-like free confidence before the Father in the time of judgment; the reference here also is to a judgment, in the court of the conscience, in one’s own heart, but not to the future and final judgment. Hence Estius explains falsely: fiducia evadendζ damnationis in die judicii. But the limitation of παῤῥησία to confident prayer and supplication is neither warranted by the word itself (2 Corinthians 7:4), the context, nor the construction with πρός, which simply indicates the direction and relation as in Romans 5:1 : εἰρήνην—πρὸςτὸνθεόν, nor by the parallel-passage at 1 John 5:14. Here it denotes joyful confidence to God-ward at every moment of life (Rickli, Dόsterdieck and others), but not fiducia in nostris necessitatibus recurrendi ad ipsum (Lyra), or the girdle or mendicant’s bag of all manner of necessaries (Luther), fiducia in rogando (Bengel). [Alford: “To God-ward, in our aspect as turned towards and looking to God.—It must be remembered that the words are said in the full light of the reality of the Christian State,—where the heart is awakened and enlightened, and the testimony of the Spirit is active: where the heart’s own deceit does not come into consideration as a disturbing element.”—M.]. But hereby it is not denied that the specific, yea the most significant feature of this filial confidence (Dόsterdieck) is, what follows— 1 John 3:22. And whatsoever we may (perchance, German: etwa) ask, we receive from Him.—The conjunction καὶ connects a particular already contained in παῤῥησία like καὶ in 1 John 3:10 b (Dόsterdieck). Ὃἐὰναἰτῶμεν is to be taken quite generally and to be limited only by the subject asking, namely the child of God and his wants (Dόsterdieck, Huther). [The latter beautifully adds: “The child of God asks for nothing which is contrary to the will of his Father”—M.]. The same holds good of λαμβάνομενἀπ’ αὐτοῦ (θεοῦ). The Present must not be taken for the Future (Grotius); it rather denotes the present, constant intercourse between the child of God with his God. Cf. John 14:13; John 16:24. Augustine: “Caritas ipsa novit, caritas ipsa orat, contra hanc aures claudere non novit, qui illam dedit; securus esto, caritas roget, et ibi sunt aures dei; non fit, quod vis, sed fit, quod tibi expedit.” Because we keep His commandments and do the things which are pleasing in His sight.—Here is evidently a parallelism: ἐντολὰς—τηρεῖν and τὰἀρεστὰἐνώπιοναὐτοῦποιεῖν, so that the two together constitute one idea. At John 8:29, τὰἀρεστὰαὐτῷ occurs in a connection similar to the present. Besides this also in Acts 6:2; Acts 12:3.—The term εὐαρεστός of frequent occurrence in the Pauline writings (Romans 12:1; Romans 14:18; 2 Corinthians 5:9; Ephesians 5:10; Philippians 4:18), with the Dative τῷθεῷ or τῷκυρίῳ is used Colossians 3:20 of the fourth commandment, and the parallel passage Ephesians 6:1, has δίκαιον. Cf. 1. Tim. 1 John 1 John 5:4 : ἀπόδεκτονἐνώπιοντοῦθεοῦ. Hence we must also connect τὰἀρεστὰ with the commandments. But while the first clause of the parallel sentence specifies the commandments, the second clause marks that which is pleasing in His sight and the kind of obedience, because God requires not a slavish service, but filial obedience, and that an active one (ποιοῦμεν). Hence we must not explain with the Roman Catholic expositors ἐντολαὶ of prζcepta and ἀρεστὰ of consilia evangelica. The greater difficulty is the right construction of the connection with ὅτι, which indicates the reason why our prayers are heard. But the ground is not necessarily causa meritoria as the Greek writers think who assume an ἀντιδιδόναι on the part of God; and the Roman Catholics and the Rationalists of course agree with them. The context, especially with respect to 1 John 2:29; 1 John 3:6; 1 John 3:9; 1 John 3:23-24, shows that while prominence is given to their conduct the reference is to the relation in which they stand, or with the description of their activity to the ground on which they move. The relation between God and themselves which conditions and regulates their conduct is the cause why their prayers are heard, because their conduct conditioned by that relation also regulates their prayers according to the will of God (κατὰτὸθέλημααὐτοῦ 1 John 5:14); the prayers as they are made, so they are heard, because we are the children of God. The expression of Hunnius, that the particle ὅτι is not causalis but rationativa, is beside the mark, although the idea is correct. Cf. Dόsterdieck. [Huther has multum in parvo: “ὅτι in close connection with the immediately preceding λαμβάνομεν indicates the ground of the Divine exhibition of love in hearing prayer; this ground, which must not be taken as causa meritoria, is the filial obedience of the person asking, whereby God identifies him as His child; the idea of obedience is expressed in two coφrdinated sentences (resembling the Hebrew parallelism); τὰςἐντολὰςαὐτοῦ and τὰἀρεστὰἐνώπιοναὐτοῦ are synonymous; ποιεῖν marks the obedience as being active; the second sentence points to the circumstance that it does not consist in servile subjection to the commandment, but in the filial performance of that which is well-pleasing to God.” Alford, adverting to the Romish misinterpretation, excellently expounds: “Out of Christ, there are no good works at all: entrance into Christ is not won or merited by them. In Christ, every work done of faith is good and is pleasing to God. The doing of such works is the working of the life of Christ in us: they are its sign, they are its fruits: they are not of us, but of it and of Him. They are the measure of our Christian life: according to their abundance, so is our access to God, so is our reward from God: for they are the steps of our likeness to God. Whatever is attributed to them as an efficient cause, is attributed not to us, but to Him whose fruits they are. Because Christ is thus manifested in us, God hears our prayers, which He only hears for Christ’s sake: because His Spirit works thus abundantly in us, He listens to our prayer, which in that measure has become the voice of His Spirit. So that no degree of efficacy attributed to the good works of the child of God need surprise us: it is God recognizing, God vindicating, God multiplying, God glorifying His own work in us. So that when e.g. Corn, a Lap. says, “Congruum est et congrua merces obedientiζ et amicitiζ, ut si homo faciat voluntatem Dei, Deus vicissim faciat voluntatem hominis,” all we can reply is that such a duality, such a reciprocity, does not exist for Christians: we are in God, He in us; and this St. John continually insists on. We have no claim ab extra: He works in us to do of His good pleasure: and the works which He works, which we work, manifest before Him, and before all, that we are His children.”—M.]. Fourth consequence: Fellowship of the Spirit with particular reference to the ground of these consequences, 1 John 3:23-24. 1 John 3:23. And this is His commandment.—1 John 1:5 : καὶἐστιναὕτη. Καὶ is simply copulative and connecting with τὰςἐντολὰςαὐτοῦ specifies the most essential contents of ἡἐντολὴ, which indeed embraces two commandments, faith and love, but which two commandments, being indissolubly united, contain the sum-total of the being determined by the Divine Will in Christ. Ἐντολὴ refers neither to the first commandment (J. Lange), nor must it be construed in a sense it does not bear (de Wette); it is and remains the expression of the Divine Will (Dόsterdieck). Αὐτοῦ of course is=τοῦθεοῦ. [Oecumenius: ἔχοντεςἐντολὴν, ἴνατῇπίστειτῇἐντῷὀνόματιτοῦυἱοῦαὐτοῦαὐτοῦἸησ. Χρ. ἀγαπῶμενἀλλήλους. Bede: Singulari numero mandatum prζmisit, et duo subsequentia adjungit mandata, fidem scilicet et dilectionem, quia nimirum hζc ab invicem separari nequeunt. Neque enim sine fide Christi recte nos alterutrum diligere, neque vere in nomine Jesu Christi sine dilectione possumus credere.—M.]. That we should believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ and love one another.—Here ἵνα indicates the purpose and not only the contents of the commandments, as Huther explains [But the strong telic sense of ἵνα can hardly be pressed here; see 1 John 3:1; 1 John 3:11.—M.]. The Aorist πιστεύσωμεν is not only the best authenticated and difficilior lectio, but also more thoughtful than the πιστεύωμεν formed after the pattern of ἀγαπῶμεν, and denotes by the side of the Present ἀγαπῶμεν, that the former precedes the latter, πίστις as the pre-supposition, not as being done once for all (against Dόsterdieck), but as a root of vital strength, and ἀγάπη as the stem, as in Galatians 5:6 : πίστιςἐνἀγάπῃἐνεργουμένη, or 1 Timothy 1:5 : ἀγάπη—ἐκπίστεως. Faith conceived as an ἔργονθεοῦ (John 6:29) and John 16:9 (ἁμαρτία, ὅτιοὐπιστεύουσινεἰςἐμέ) as the ground of a holy being, of the whole obedience, is yet man’s work and hence may be required in the commandment, more especially since the construction πιστεύειντινι (John 4:21; John 5:24; John 5:46-47; John 8:45) denotes the assensus with which man’s agency awakes, while πιστεύειντινα describes the received notitia, and πιστεύεινεἰςτινα the God-wrought fiducia, which embraces the least, the notitia, and also the moment next to it, the assensus. The object of faith is τὸὄνοματοῦυἱοῦαὐτοῦἹησοῦΧριστοῦ. This ὄνομα is the revelation of the being of the Son of God, and contains within itself and discloses to believers what is testified of Him and by Himself, and is to be testified; it includes both the prζdicatio (Romans 10:14) as Calvin and Beza explain, and the meritum and the promissiones Christi et de Christo, as pointed out by S. Schmidt and others. Doctrina Christiana (Episcopius), and the dignity of the Messiah (S. G. Lange), are consequently insufficient. [Alford: “To believe the Gospel-message concerning Him, and Him as living in it, in all His fulness.”—M.]. Conformably to the close connection of faith and love (John 16:4; John 16:7 sqq.) the Apostle now annexes the Present ἀγαπῶμεν to the Aorist by the copulative καὶ.—The additional clause— As He gave us commandment, being a further qualification of love (1 John 2:7-8; 1 John 3:16; John 13:34; John 15:12-13), belongs to the latter part of the sentence (Myrberg: non modo amandum est, sed etiam vere et recte amandum), and not to the former (πιστεύσωμεν), as Estius, Bengel, Sander.—Hence Christ, and not God, is and remains the subject of this lateral idea. Christ, on whom, as the Son of God, we have to believe, is the origin and standard of brotherly love. 1 John 3:24. And he that keepeth His commandments, abideth in Him and He in Him.—Passing over the lateral idea and the ἐντολὴ, 1 John 3:23, and resuming the ἐντολὰςτηρεῖν, 1 John 3:22, the Apostle now makes prominent the fourth consequence, the fellowship of God with us and our fellowship with God, according to which He is in us and we are in Him. Hence αὐτοῦ, αὐτῷ, αὐτὸς—all three—describe God and not Christ (Neander, Besser, Sander). And hereby we know that He abideth in us, from [out of] the Spirit that He gave us.—God’s abiding in us is the object of knowledge; and it is important to notice that God’s abiding in us is not specified here as res minus verisimilis (Socinus), but as the condition of our abiding in God; the two mutually include each other and must be taken in that sense. And this is known ἐντούτῳ ?=ἐκπνεύματος. Ἐντούτῳ obviously refers to what follows, as 1 John 2:3, and not to what precedes, as ch. 1 John 3:5. Surprising is the transition from the formula ἐντούτῳ, placed at the beginning of this sentence and so current in John, to ἐκπνεύματος, but the transition may be explained by the circumstance that after ὅτιμένειἐνἡμῖν the clearness and beauty of the structure required substantive proof, and that this substantive proof occasioned the fine and thoughtful description of the source and origin of that knowledge by the preposition ἐκ. Cf. 1 John 4:6 : ἐκτούτουγινώσκομεν. The πνεῦμα is the Holy Spirit who moves us, the living and powerful principle of our life from (out of) and in God. Here we should remember the χρίσμα, 1 John 2:20-26. Inadequate is de Wette’s explanation, that πνεῦμα denotes the Divine appropriated in faith and life, but that the reference here is to the right knowledge and doctrine of the person of Jesus, and even more inadequate is the opinion of Socinus, that πνεῦμα is love.—In the annexed relative sentence οὗ must not be taken as a genit. partitivus, but as the result of attraction. Winer, Part III. § 24. AND ETHICAL1. The Christian should not be or remain in a state of uncertainly whether he really is a child of God (out) of the truth; his redemption and the reconciliation of God to him and his reconciliation to God and his salvation need not be to him a doubtful or only probable state. But clear and firm knowledge on this subject he does not acquire at one stroke, over-night; he must learn it by living and exercising himself in love. The Christian in process of being [i.e., in the development of this Christian life—M.] is in a state of fermentation, or engaged in single combat, without a survey of the whole field, the battle conducing to victory, although here and there defeats occur, and he is forced to retire even unto flight—without being able to imperil the ultimate victory. Hence he has misgivings which he can and ought to discard, fearless and full of confidence and reliance on the Lord of hosts and of the victory. 2. The final cause of such assurance of faith and blessed certainty of salvation, constantly exposed to the danger of being disturbed by the accusations and charges of the heart discerning and reproving the ever-recurring omissions and imperfections and transgressions in thought, word and deed, lies not in ourselves, neither in the mark, in brotherly love and, generally, in obedience to the commandments of God, nor in such: acts of reproof of an anxious and contrite heart, but in God Himself, in that which He has promised and imparted to us, and that He abides by His word and work, also in our hearts, nursing and furthering the same even unto completion. Three things are clearly and distinctly asserted. a. If the Christian looks at himself, anxiety and doubts concerning the state of grace are justified; Hebrews 6:4-6; Hebrews 10:26-31, in, which passages Luther found “a hard knot,” and on which see R. Stier, point to the possibility of a relapse, as also Romans 8:13; Galatians 6:7-8. This is contrary to Calvin’s assumption of the donum perseverantiζ given with regeneration, and which is not taught at John 10:28-29. But if the Christian looks up to the mercy of God, he acquires confidence and joyfulness and the Holy Spirit bears witness of his adoption and Divine life-fellowship (1 John 3:24, Romans 8:16-27). This is contrary to the Roman Catholic doctrine except by that the Christian, special revelation, cannot have any certainty concerning his state of grace. b. The point in question is not a mathematical certitudo, an actus intellectus, but only fiducia as well as confidence in the pureness of a man’s disposition. c. The certain assurance of standing in God’s grace is not identical with nor to be confounded with the certainty of being predestinated. The Council of Trent was right, in opposition to the Reformed, to reject this certainty (Romans 6:15-16) but wrong in rejecting the former assurance (Romans 6:9): “Sicut nemo pius de Dei misericordia, de Christi merito deque Sacramentorum virtute et efficacia dubitare potest, sic quilibet, dum se ipsum suamque propriam infirmitatem et indispositionem respicit, de sua gratia formidare it timere potest, quam nullus scire valeat certitudine fidei, cui non potest subesse falsum, se gratiam Dei esse consecutum.” Here, as we may readily perceive, truth and falsehood are suspiciously mixed up. Cf. Frank, Theologie der K. F. 2. 78, 141. Thiersch, Vorlesungen όber Protestantismus und Katholizismus, 2, 149–159. 3. The two cases that conscience finds a verdict against us and not against us are opposed to each other, but nevertheless facts belonging to the Christian life and perfectly compatible with it, even as 1 John 1:8-9 and 1 John 3:9 do not cancel each other. These propositions cannot be classed among the paradoxes, which may not be without truth, as stated by Luther, e.g. “Si in fide fieri posset adulterium peccatum non esset,” and Proposition 32 in Grund und Artikel, which were unjustly condemned by the Romish bull (1520, Erlangen, 24, 138): A. good work done in the very best manner, is still a daily sin, etc.—Nor dare we try to aid the establishment of a morality for the people, and another morality for the saints by drawing with the Roman Catholics a distinction between prζcepta and consilia evangelica, between a selfish amor concupiscentiζ calculating on salvation and an amor amicitiζ surrendering itself in pure fidelity. We may neither separate by false distinctions the objectively given commandments with the will of God nor the subjectively imposed obligations, nor, worse still, men from one another. But we ought to contemplate both truths, that our natural disposition which is sinful before God ever and again mingles without, and contrary to the Christian’s will with the works done by the motions of the Spirit from above and in faith, and that the Christian born of God has before his eyes and in his heart the one will of God, as revealed in the Law and in Christ, which aims not at a higher or a lower morality [but at one morality—M.], and that his obedience is well-pleasing to God, not because of his own doings or nature, but solely for the sake of Christ. Our life here on earth is made up of alternate joy and grief, of rising and falling, of forgiveness of sins and cancelling and the commission of sin. Sin, moreover, is more sinful in the children of God than in the servants of perdition, for they have a more profound and lively sense of the slightest stirrings of the wrath of God, because and though their falling is not yet a falling from grace, as at Galatians 5:4 (τῆςχάριτοςἐξεπέσατε). Not every falling involves the loss of grace. But obedience and patience in good works remain marks of the state of grace. Cf. C. A. 6, 20, f. C. 4, 5, 6, Frank 1, 1; 2, 177 sq.; 181 sq.; 139 sqq.; 369 sqq. 4. Filial confidence which does not begin with the entrance upon our inheritance [but here on earth—M.], has a παῤῥησία not only in the day of judgment, but already here on earth, and it evidences itself both by zealous efforts towards self-sanctification based on the assurance of the forgiveness of sins, and by confident prayer. “Prayer is as essential to man as his conscience, because the conscience, in proportion to its clearness and vitality, necessarily passes into prayer” (Lφber, Lehre vom Gebet p. 1.). If the conscience is pacified, prayer will be sure of being heard. If man is so circumstanced that he lives and moves in God’s word, his word in prayer to God will also prevail with God, in whose being (as we may learn from the case of the praying God-man), as well as in man’s being prayer has its ultimate reason. Harless, therefore, has not very judiciously classed prayer among the subjective means of Christian virtue (Ethik §. 33).—A limitation of prayer that may be heard beyond the pattern-prayer of the Lord’s Prayer is not permitted; you may in the state of grace pray for every thing assured of being heard, but equally assured that nothing is said of the time when and the manner how your prayers will be heard. God hears whatever we ask, but not exactly as we ask. 5. Faith in God, who is Love, and (in virtue of our belief in the love of God) love of the brethren are intimately connected, the reference being to “faith as the transition from darkness to light and love as the walk in the light” (Hofmann, Schriftbeweis XI., 2, 337, cf. 1 John 3:14). 6. It follows from the testimony of the Holy Spirit within thee (cf. No. 2 above), that thou art a temple of God (1 Corinthians 3:16), or a tabernacle of God among men (Revelation 21:3). AND Much depends on knowledge, more on knowledge of the truth, most on the knowledge whether we are ourselves of the truth.—He is to be pronounced happy in whom the difficult self-knowledge was acquired and carried out as the knowledge of sin, but more happy he in whom the knowledge of God forces itself through the knowledge of himself.—Four marks of our adoption or four evidences of our being of the truth: 1. Peace of the soul under the accusations of conscience (1 John 3:19-20); 2. Filial trust under the wants and deprivations of life (1 John 3:21-22); 3. Assurance and decision under the manifold and different requirements (10. 23); 4. Joy of fellowship in solitude or desertion.—How can you pacify your heart disquieted by the accusings of conscience? 1. Know what God has hitherto done for you not in vain: He desires to save you; 2. Feel how in such a judgment the holiness of God is working in you: He desires to purify you; 3. Hope that He will gloriously accomplish it, as He has promised: He is the Master and your life will be a masterpiece at the last.—Prayer and commandment are essentially related to each other; thy word addressed to God in prayer will surely be heard, if God’s word addressed to thee in the commandment is observed. God will not be asked in vain by those who suffer themselves to be commanded by Him. The hearing of prayer is not affected by the conduct of man fixed by his relation to God, but by this relation which produces in man childlikeness, childlike obedience, childlike trust, childlike disposition and childlike ways, even as it affords paternal fidelity and paternal aid. With faith in the name of His Son Jesus Christ thou hast the love of God above all things, or the fulfilment of the commandments of the first table; and from faith in the paternal love of God revealed in Christ flows Christian brotherly love, or the fulfilment of the commandments of the second table.—He is in us, this is ever the first and most important thing; His commandments are before our obedience to them; and He is with and in them. But if we do not value His commandments we do not value ourselves, we become ruins and a desert. In desert ruins He does not dwell; we must be builded up, if not into temples, at least into tabernacles. He builds—even the tabernacle into the temple, and instead of cares of the soul in indigence of the Good and the Eternal Good, jubilant hymns of praise for the inheritance of the saints swell in majestic fulness and strength.—Without Christ, the Son of God, God is not thy Father but without the Spirit of the Father and the Son, thou hast neither God the Father nor the Saviour. Luther:—Although our conscience make us afraid and represent to us God as angry, yet God is greater than our heart. Conscience is but a single drop, but the reconciled God an ocean of consolation.—When a man is rebuked and condemned by his conscience, he grows terrified; but against this darkness of the heart we may say, God knoweth all things. Conscience is always fearful and shuts the eyes; but God is deeper and higher than thy heart and searches its inmost state most thoroughly. Starke:—We believers do not indulge in idle imaginings and suppositions, but have sure, firm, irrefragable grounds and testimonies, wrought by the Holy Ghost Himself that we are of the truth and born of God.—A man may have a great temptation and yet be a child of God.—Away with forged letters and testimonials! if the inward witness of the conscience contradicts and condemns. Conscience is more than a thousand witnesses. How false is the charge that Christianity causes melancholy and gloominess! Sorrow may indeed be found among Christians but without any fault of Christianity or of God, and moreover with them true knowledge is followed by their sorrow being turned into joy.—A heart rejoicing before God is a great treasure; O, the happiness of being permitted to appear before God in His majesty with joyfulness; therefore let us pray: Lord, give us a cheerful heart!—The spirit of joyfulness is also a spirit of prayer. Believers will receive what they ask of God in the manner which He has promised and at the time He thinks proper.—Nothing can be required of a Christian beyond faith and love: believers will not be taken captive by statutes, but they stand in liberty.—Be ashamed to say or order anything without the commandment of God, and again be ashamed to do anything in opposition to the commandment of God.—To live a good life requires us to abide good; it is not enough to have come into God, one must also abide in Him.—The believer is a great miracle, seeing that the infinite and immeasurable God wholly dwells and walks in him. Heubner:—Is here perchance taught work–confidence? No! faith remains the ground of justification but we may hope that the genuineness and purity of our faith will follow love.—The Christian’s prayer is never unheard; for God gives us that which is good although not always that to which we gave utterance, not that which we intended; the Christian ever desires the Good and the Good only, and the better we grow, the more do all our desires coincide with the will of God. Only those are able to ask who are in a state of grace; a serious, pious, honest mind is the condition of prayer; a braggart cannot pray.—The presence and continued operation of the Spirit in keeping us in the right discipline, warning, moving, strengthening and comforting us, is the sign that we belong to Christ, if He leaves us we are separated from Christ. Adapted from Ziel (Gesetz and Zeugniss, 4):—How happy they who are of the truth! 1. They may pacify their heart before Him. 2. They have a joyful confidence toward God; 3. They are they that will receive from Him whatsoever they ask.—Compare here hymns like Paul Gerhard’s: “Ist Gott fόr mich, so trete (If God is for me, etc.). Sein Geist spricht meinem GeisteHis Spirit cheers my spiritManch sόsses Trostwort zu;With words of comfort sweet;Wie Gott dem Hόlfe leiste,That they God’s help inheritDer bei Ihm suchet Ruh;Who rest with Him do seek.Und wie Er hab’ erbauet,And that He has upbuildedEin’ edle neue StadtA city fair and new,Da Aug’ und Herze schauet,Where eyes and heart foreverWas es geglaubet hat.What they believed shall view.Da ist mein Theil und ErbeFor there in glory lyingMir prδchtig zugericht’t;My lot is held in storeWenn ich gleich fall und sterbe,With all my falls, and dying,Fδllt doch mein Himmel nicht. (1 John 3:9.)My heaven falls nevermore.Also Erdmann Neumeister’s: Jesus nimmt die Sόnder an (Jesus, sinners does receive); especially 1 John 3:7. Mein Gewissen quδlt mich nicht,My conscience now is purified,Moses darf mich nicht verklagen;All plea to Moses is denied,Der mich frei und ledig spricht,He acquitteth me to-dayHat die Sόnden abgetragen (1 John 3:5),Who all sin did take away;Dass mich Nichts verdammen kann;Nothing can condemn or grieveJesus nimmt die Sόnder an.Jesus sinners does receive.[Pyle: 1 John 3:19-21.—This will show us to be Christians indeed; and while the impartial testimony and inward sense of our own consciences assure us of the sincere performance of our own duty, we may safely conclude that God, the Searcher of hearts and Standard of all truth, will approve of and reward us. And on the contrary, whoever by the clear conviction of his own mind knows and feels himself to be a hypocritical transgressor of his moral duty, must be assured that God, who knows him better than he does himself, cannot fail to be his more severe judge and avenger.—M.]. [Bull: 1 John 3:20.—If a man be conscious to himself of his own wickedness, yea, the very secret wickedness and hypocrisy of his heart, sure God Himself, who set up in every man this “candle” of conscience, as Solomon calls it, Proverbs 20:27, cannot be ignorant of it; He being the fountain of all knowledge, and all knowledge in the creature derivative from Him, and so knowing all things that are knowable by any creature, and infinitely more.—M.]. [Macknight: 1 John 3:22.—This general declaration must be limited by the conditions, which in other passages of Scripture are made necessary to our petitions being granted by God; such as, that we ask things agreeable to His Will, 1 John 5:14-15; and that we ask them in faith, James 1:6; that is, in the full persuasion of the Divine wisdom and goodness, and with sincerity and resignation. Such prayers, they who keep the commandments of God, may hope will be heard, because they keep His commandments by habitually doing the things which are well-pleasing to Him.—M.]. [Pyle: 1 John 3:23-24.—These verses may be thus paraphrased; In short, true faith in the doctrine of Christ, and true charity to mankind, especially to our Christian brethren, is the sum-total of our duty. And you, that have already duly performed it, have a sufficient pledge and earnest of your acceptance with God, as true disciples of Christ, by the gifts and graces of His Holy Spirit conferred upon you.—M.]. [Ridley: 1 John 3:24.—The way of the Spirit is not to be traced; the working of God is not to be perceived. The Divine Author and His operation are hidden from us, but His work is manifest. And though we cannot see God at any time, or feel the motion of the Spirit in our hearts, yet is there certain evidence whether we are brought on by Him or not. St. John gives us an infallible rule, that we may know that God, by His Spirit, dwelleth in us, if we keep His commandments.—M.]. [Ezekiel Hopkins:—A clear conscience gives us boldness of access unto God. Guilt abashes the soul, and makes it both ashamed and afraid to appear in the presence of God: and therefore Adam, as soon as he had sinned against his Maker, presently hides himself from Him. We may observe in ourselves, what a slavish dejectedness seizeth us when we come to God in duty, after we have wronged Him by any known sin: we come to Him suspiciously; and with such a misgiving fear, as if we would not have God take notice that we are before Him; and are still in pain, till the duty be over. But, when our consciences are clear, oh, with what delight do we haste to God, and with what content do we stay with Him! How doth the soul dilate and spread itself under the smiles of God, beating full upon it! “So, O Lord, here is a heart that I labour to make and keep void of offence; do thou fill it with thy promised grace and Spirit. It is not, indeed, a mansion pure enough for the pure and holy God; yet it is such, as thou wilt accept, and in which thou wilt dwell. There are still many hidden corruptions in it, but do thou search them out; and thou, who hast kept thy servant from presumptuous sins, do thou also cleanse me from secret faults.” Thus a clear conscience, with a holy and reverend boldness, addresseth itself to God; and sweetly closeth up every duty and every prayer, with full assurance of obtaining mercy from God. So the Apostle (Hebrews 9:22): “Let us draw near …. in full assurance of faith:” how may we gain this full assurance, when we draw near to God? By “having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience:” get but a pure and clear conscience, and that will enable you to draw near to God in full assurance of faith, and so here (1 John 3:21): “Beloved, if our heart condemn us not, then have we confidence towards God:” if conscience be not evil to accuse us, then have we confidence towards God: when the face of man’s conscience looks cheerful, and hath not a frown or a wrinkle upon it, this makes us joyfully to apprehend that God’s face towards us is serene also, and that we shall be welcome at all times into our Father’s presence: this conscience suggests to us, and makes us come with a holy, yet with an awful boldness unto God.—M.]. [Barrow:—No man can otherwise found any assurance of God’s special love to him, than upon a good conscience: testifying that he doth sincerely love God, and endeavour faithfully to obey His commandments.—If we desire to judge reasonably about ourselves, or to know our true state, the only way is to compare our hearts and lives with the law of God, judging ourselves by that rule according to which God will judge us. If we find in our hearts the love of God and goodness (sincere although imperfect); if we perceive ourselves disposed to keep God’s commandments (to live piously, righteously and soberly in this world); then may we have a satisfactory hope concerning our state; then “we may (as St. John saith) have confidence toward God, because we keep His commandments and do those things that are pleasing to Him:” but if we do not find that mind in us, and that practice, we, in conceiting well of ourselves upon any other grounds, do but flatter and impose upon ourselves; if all the world should account us good, and take us to be in a good case, we should not at all believe them, or mind them; for let no man deceive us, he that doeth righteousness, he (and he alone) is righteous, is the most faithful advice and unquestionable sentence of St. John. It is therefore (that by resting on such false bottoms we be not abused, and drawn thence to neglect the amendment of our hearts and ways, in order to our final account) a duty incumbent upon us thus to search our hearts and try our ways, and accordingly to judge ourselves: the doing which with care and conscience would dispose us to prepare for the judgment we speak of; for, if (saith St. Paul) we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged, or not condemned.—M.]. [Neander:—(Christ), when about to partfrom His disciples, no more to be with them in His personal bodily presence, promised that He would be invisibly near and present among them, no less truly than during His earthly manifestation. The proof of this, His actual presence among them, should be the communication to them of His Spirit. This should be the medium between believers and their Saviour, until vision takes the place of faith; till that immediate view of Christ, enjoyed by His disciples in the familiar intercourse of his earthly life, is restored in heightened glory to believers. It is to this inward experience that the Apostle makes his appeal with these Churches and to it the inward experience of believers in all ages bears witness. Here, then, are conjoined two characteristic marks of fellowship with Christ which cannot be discovered from each other; the one inward, perceptible to the immediate inner consciousness, the other belonging to the outward life, but presupposing the former, of which it is at once the outward expression and the condition of its continuance. The first is-Participation in the Spirit—promised by Christ; the second, Obedience to His commandments, which is the fruit of that Spirit’s agency, and in which such participation makes itself apparent. This being the Spirit’s work, is also, as the evidence of this work, the condition of its continuance; all Divine gifts being conditioned upon the faithful use of what “is bestowed, according to the words of Christ: Whoso hath, to him shall be given.”—M.]. [On 1 John 3:19-20see De corde condemnante, Critici Sacri Thes. No 3:2, 991.John 3:20.A Sermon by Robert South, D. D. Sermon Themes: God greater than our heart.Conscience an earnest of the last judgment.Use to be made of the misgivings of conscience.John 3:20-21.Charles Simeon, A good and evil conscience, Works 20, p. 454.John 3:21.R. South, The nature and measures of conscience, 2 Sermons.John 3:23.Andrew Gray, The mystery of faith opened up, 6 Sermons.Isaac Williams, The Gospel a feast of Love, Serm. 2, 67.John 3:24.John Flavel, The Spirit’s indwelling, Works, 2, 328.J. Basnage, L’union de l’βme avec Jιsus-Christ, Serm. 2, 501.—M.].Footnotes: 1 John 3:19. Καὶ, though wanting in A. B., is found in C. G. K. Sin., many cursives and versions. 1 John 3:19. γνωσόμεθα with A. B. C. Sin; γιγνώσκομεν G. K.; another reading is γινώσκομεθα, cognoscemur. [German: We shall know.—M.] 1 John 3:19. [German: “Out of the truth.”—M.] 1 John 3:19. [German: “And shall persuade our hearts before Him.”—M.] 1 John 3:20. ὅτι, is written by Lachmann ὅτι, only after A, which reads ὅτιἂν. [German: “because.”—M.] 1 John 3:20. καταγινώσκη is the reading of the best Codd. also of Sinait; elsewhere καταγινώσκει. 1 John 3:20. ὅτι before μείζων, B. C. G. K. Sin. is well authenticated [and adopted in the German which reads: “Because God is greater etc.”—M.] 1 John 3:21. καταγινώσκῃ, elsewhere καταγινώσκει, Sin;—κω, is at all events an error of the pen like ἔκπροσθεν 1 John 3:19, ἔσσφαξἑν 1 John 3:12.—Besides A. omits the first, and B. C. the second ἡμῶν, but both occur in G. K. Sin; and B. C. testify for the former, A. for the second. 1 John 3:21. ἔχομεν well supported instead of ἔχει B, ἔχωμεν, habeamus. 1 John 3:22. German: “And whatsoever we may ask.”—M. 1 John 3:22. ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ A. B. C. Cod, Sin;—παρ’ αὐτοῦ G. K. 1 John 3:22. τηρῶμεν A. K. Sin. is probably a slip of the pen for τηροῦμεν. 1 John 3:22. [καὶτὰἀρεστὰκ. τ. λ. “And do the things, etc.;” the demonstrative pronoun is unnecessary and is not used in most of the versions, the German renders “and do the well-pleasing before Him.”—M.] 1 John 3:23. πιστεύσωμεν B. G. K.—A. C. Cod. Sin. πιστεύωμεν. 1 John 3:23. ἡμῖν after ἐντολὴν in Cod. Sin. before or after ἔδωκεν in the best authentic Codd. 1 John 3:24. [German: “abideth” to be retained to preserve the uniformity.—M.] 1 John 3:24. [ἐκτοῦπνεύματος=of the Spirit; so German.—M.] 6. Warning and Exhortation with Reference to the False Teachers 1 John 4:1-61 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. 2Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: 3And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of1 God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. 4Ye are of1 God, little children, and have 5overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world. They are of1 the world: therefore speak they of1 the world, and the world heareth them. 6We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of1 God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error. AND The difference of the spirits renders the trial necessary, 1 John 4:1. 1 John 4:1. Beloved:—The Apostle begins with ἀγαπητοί as 1 John 3:21 [cf. 1 John 4:7. 1 John 3:2.—M], in the joyful consciousness of the common blessings of the Divine adoption, and earnestly solicitous of inciting and exhorting those to the exhibition of brotherly love who are loved of God. Believe not every spirit.—Here, as in 1 John 2:18-28, the Apostle adverts to the false teachers. Those who are to believe on the name of the Son of God (1 John 3:23) in the power of the Holy Ghost (1 John 3:24) given to them and bearing witness to their spirit that they are the children of God (cf. Romans 8:16), must not believe every spirit. The reference is to a plurality, a multitude of spirits (πάντιπνεύματι), not to a Dual but to a Plural. Hence, we must understand the expression of the spirits of men to whom the spirit bears witness. Every human spirit has its peculiarity, its special gifts and views, its mode of expression, which the animating, moving Spirit does not change or render uniform. Many a spirit might secure our approbation, sympathy and attention, which is not influenced by the Spirit of God. Hence the warning, to which, because of its great importance, there is forthwith annexed the exhortation:—“But try the spirits whether they are of God.” [Huther: The idea πνεῦμα is closely connected with ψευδοπροφῆται. The true prophets spoke, as we read 1 Peter 1:21, ὑπὸπνεύματοςἁγίουφερόμενοι; the source of the revelations whose utterers (πρόφημι) they are, is the πνεῦμαἅγιον or the πεῦματοῦθεοῦ, whereby is described, not an affection of their mind, but the Divine Power, different from their own individuality, which animates and influences them (δύναμιςὑψίστου, the synonyme of πνεῦμαἅγιον, Luke 1:35.). This πνεῦμα speaks by the prophet, entering into his πνεῦμα and communicating to him the truth to be revealed; and thus the πνεῦμα of the prophet becomes a πνεῦμαἐκτοῦθεοῦ. But since every prophet has his own πνεῦμα, there is, although the πνεῦμαἅγιον is One, a plurality of prophetical spirits. The same relation takes place in an opposite direction, in the case of the pseudo-prophets. They also are under the influence of one spiritual being, to wit, under that of the πνεῦμα, that ἐκτοῦδεοῦοὐκἕστι, the πνεῦματῆςπλάνης; this spirit also is one, but since it penetrates with its lie the πνεῦματα of the pseudo-prophets and makes them like itself, we may say of the πνεῦμα of each individual prophet that is not of God, that it is not a πνεῦματῆςἀληθείας, but a πνεῦματῆςπλάνης.”—The rationalistic interpretation of Socinus (“sensus hominis aliquo modo inspiratus”) and Episcopius (“doctrina”), and the figurative construction of the word πνεύμα=λαλοῦντεςἐνπνεύματι of Lόcke, de Wette and Calvin (“pro eo qui spiritus dono se prζditum esse jactat ad obeundum prophetiζ munus”), are equally irrelevant.—M.]. But try the spirits whether they are of God.—John evidently speaks of a plurality of spirits (τὰπνεύματα). Instead of a receiving surrender to and of agreeing with them, of the assensus (πιστεύειν) John requires a δοκιμάζειν, a cautious criticism before the κατέχειν (1 Thessalonians 5:21), and he requires it of all like Paul, Romans 12:2; Philippians 1:20; Ephesians 5:10; 1 Corinthians 10:15; 1 Corinthians 11:13, although some may have a special gift in discerning the spirits (1 Corinthians 12:10 : διακρίσειςπνευμάτων Calvin: “alloquitur—singulos fideles,” as opposed to Lorinus: “Non omnium est probare; unum oportet in ecclesia summum judicem quζstionum de fide moribusque; id est sine dubio Pontifex Maximus.” [This may be conclusive reasoning to Romanists, but will be utterly repudiated by Protestants, as an arbitrary dictum repugnant to Holy Writ.—M.]. The falsity of this exposition is evident both from the object of this text which every man ought to know; εἰἐκτοῦθεοῦἐστίν, whether they are of, originate in or proceed from God: the confession of Jesus Christ come in the flesh (1 John 4:2), and from the danger, urging such a test, to which every one is exposed and which necessitates the decision [the Apostle proceeds to specify the reason why this trial is necessary.—M.]. Because many false prophets are gone out into the world.—These ψευδοπροφῆται answer to the ἀντιχρίστοις (1 John 2:18). Cf. Matthew 7:15; Matthew 24:11; Matthew 24:24 (where also ψευδόχριστοι are specified), 2 Peter 2:1 (where ψευδοδιδάσκαλοι are paralleled with the ψευδοπροφῆται of the Old Testament). The idea of predicting something future is not any more the prominent point here than it constitutes in general the leading characteristic of the prophet; he derives his name from πρόφημι, because he has, as it were, behind him the Spirit that inspires him, whose thoughts he speaks out and makes known. The true prophet must be clearly distinguished from the hidden πνεῦμα influencing him, the true prophet is ὑπὸπνευμάτοςἁγίουφερόμενος (2 Peter 1:21); this πνεῦμαδύναμιςὑψίστου (Luke 1:35). The point at which He unites with the prophet, is the prophet’s πνεῦμα, which as an organ to be influenced, must be clearly distinguished from the πνεῦμαἅγιον who operates through it; for the πνεῦμαἅγιον is the Source and Principle of the revelation, enters into the prophet’s πνεῦμα, moves and imparts to the prophet, animates and prompts him, and thus the prophet’s πνεῦμα becomes a πνεῦμαἐκτοῦθεοῦ, yet so that thereby the characteristics of the prophet’s spirit are neither obliterated nor annulled, neither as to his temperament, nor as to his mode of utterance, nor as to qualification for specific relations of the spiritual or material worlds. Hence there are as many πνεύματα as there are προφῆται, notwithstanding the unity of the efficient principle which influences them. But alongside this πνεῦμαἅγιον, πνεῦματῆςἀληθείας, there is a πνεῦματοῦἀντιχρίστου (1 John 4:3), τῆςπλάνης (1 John 4:6), that makes the ψευδοπροφήτας and whose spirit must not be believed. The πνεῦμα and πνεύματα designate not absolutely ψευδοπροφῆται (Calvin, Lόcke, de Wette and others), nor the sensus hominis aliquo modo inspiratus (Socinus), nor doctrina (Episcopius), nor the superhuman principle animating man (Greek Comment., Augustine, Luther, Spener, Bengel (spiritui, quo doctor aliquis agitur), Neander, Dόsterdieck and others). Cf. Huther [whose note I have translated above, under “Believe not every spirit.”—M.].—With ἐξεληλύθασινεἰςτὸνκόσμον Dόsterdieck appropriately compares γεγόνασιν 1 John 2:18. After ἐκτοῦθεοῦ we ought to supply a reference to the sending forth, the missionary activity which in the case of the false prophets is an aping of the Apostles and the prophets; they come from, proceed, go out from him that makes them prophets. Cf. John 8:42; John 13:3; John 16:27, etc. cf. John 17:18; Matthew 13:49. It is therefore neither=in publicum prodire, as Matthew 13:3; Matthew 26:55; Mark 1:35; Mark 8:11; Acts 7:7 (Grotius, Calov, Lόcke, al.), nor=ex apostolis et eorum ecclesia, as in 1 John 2:19 (S. Schmidt), nor=ex sedibus suis 2 John 1:7. (Bengel).—On εἰςτὸνκόσμον cf. John 6:14; John 10:36. They come into the world, which Christ was sent to redeem, which belongs to Him, in order to destroy it with their αἱρέσειςἀπωλείας. (2 Peter 2:1). The standard of the trial. 1 John 4:2-3. 1 John 4:2. In this know ye the Spirit of God.—Ἐντούτῳ here evidently points to the following sentence and γινώσκετε is not Indicative, but like πιστεύετε, δοκιμάζετε 1 John 4:1, the Imperative [on the other hand Alford, on account of the very frequent ἐντούτῳγινώσκομεν, would let analogy prevail and take it as Indicative; but Huther, de Wette, Lόcke and most commentators take it as Imperative.—M.].—That τὸπνεῦματοῦθεοῦ denotes the Holy Spirit is evident both from the expression itself and from the antithesis τὸτοῦἀντιχρίστου 1 John 4:3; the reference therefore is not to a loquens de spiritualibus ex inspiratione divina (Lyra). But the sequel shows that we have to think of the Divine Spirit working in the spirit of the prophets, to wit: Every spirit which confesseth Jesus Christ come in the flesh, is of God.—Ὁμολογεῖν is the oral confession of a doctrinal truth (cf. 2 John 1:10.), like 1 John 2:23 (Dόsterdieck, Huther and al.); confession with a walk agreeing with a Christian is not indicated here (Greek comm., Augustine, Bede), even though only a confession with the mouth emanating from the faith of the heart under the influence of the indwelling Spirit of God can be meant here, as in Romans 10:9-10; cf. 1 John 5:11 sq.; 1 John 2:22 sq.—The object of the confession: ἸησοῦνΧριστὸνἐνσαρκὶἐληλυθότα. The form is that of a substantival objective-sentence; hence the participial form should be retained, and the rendering avoided which would make it an Infinitive thus: that Jesus Christ is or has come in the flesh; it is not a predicative sentence, but ἐνσαρκὶἐληλυθότα is added attributively; that which is known is added in the Accusative. The names are taken in their literal sense at 1 John 2:22; here they stand, as in 1 John 1:3, in juxtaposition and must not be separated according to 1 John 2:22, as if they imported: Jesus the Christ who is come in the flesh; so Luther renders wrongly in his Scholia, and Huther inclines in that direction. In like manner ἐνσαρκὶ must be held fast and not be made equivalent to εἰςσάρκα, as maintained by Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Piscator, Sander and al.; ἐνσαρκὶ denotes the mode of existence, in which He appeared and came; nor is there any ground here to assume here a pregnancy common among the Greeks who conjoin ἐν with verbs of motion in order to describe the result, the rest (cf. Winer, p. 449), to wit, that He had come into the flesh in order to remain and work in the flesh; so S. Schmidt and others.—Jesus Christ came in the flesh from the time of His birth after He σὰρξἐγένετο and ἐσκήνωσενἐνἡμῖν (John 1:14) cf. 1 John 1:1, sqq.—The conversatio in carne, inter homines, in vera natura humana, nor the incarnatio, which is pre-supposed as the transition, is meant here; nor is here a limiting reference to innumera mala and ipsa cruenta mors, as maintained by Socinus, who erroneously refers to Hebrews 2:14; Hebrews 5:7, and Grotius who adverts to a Hebraism.—Ἔρχεσθαι indeed is often used to designate the appearance of teachers, but then it either occurs with a qualifying ἐπὶτῷὀνόματι, Matthew 24:5, or ἐντῷὀνόματι, John 5:43, or εἰςμαρτυρίαν, John 1:7, or with an indication of the subject as ἐμπαῖκται, 2 Peter 3:3, or an addition like καὶταύτηντὴνδιδαχὴνοὐφέρει, 2 John 1:10, or as in Matthew 11:18, of John, μήτεἐσθίωνμήτεπίνων or as in Matthew 17:11 of Elias καὶἀποκαταστήσειπάντα, so that the context invariably marks either the appearance of the teacher, or distinctly states that he is not exclusively referred to as a teacher, namely in his vocation of teacher. Here also the reference seems not to be exclusively to the office of a teacher or a prophet, which is by no means indicated by ἐνσαρκὶ. But it is important to notice here the tense; for while we have in this place the part. perfecti ἐληλυθότα, 1 John 5:6 gives the part. aor. ὁἐλθὼν and 2 John 1:7 the part. prζs. ἐρχόμενον; the Present denotes the fact which is not a single act, in a moment, like birth, but has a longer duration which may be seen and represents this in a timeless form; the Aorist denotes an act as purely historical, the Perfect an act which, though historically completed, has present continuance (Winer, Part III. § 40). Thus this confession contains the fundamental truth of the Gospel; Χριστὸς and ἐνσαρκὶἐληλυθότα indicate the dignity and existence of the Son of God and emphatically assert His humanity as a reality and a historical fact for all time. Bengel excellently remarks: “In carne, est ergo Ipse aliquid prζter carnem; hζreses veritatem carnis Jesu Christi negantes prζsupponunt et eo ipso confirmant deitatem ejus, quippe cum qua non poterant conciliare carnem, tanquam ea dignam.” 1 John 4:3. And every spirit which confesses not Jesus, is not of God.—ΤὸνἸησοῦν comprehends what was said in 1 John 4:2, viz.; Χριστὸνἐνσαρκὶἐληλυθότα, it is just the historical Christ and none other.—Ὃμὴὁμολογεῖ ?=if he does not confess, while ὃοὐχὁμολογεῖ would be=who does not confess. From this it is evident that John contemplates not so much distinct persons, as only distinct doctrines. Winer, part III. § 55. [Huther observes that μὴ denotes the contradiction of the true confession, while οὐ would express only a simple denial.—M.]. And this is the (spirit) of antichrist, of which ye have heard that it cometh, and now it is in the world already.—Τοῦτο refers to πνεῦμα, not to ὁμολογεῖν, and τὸτοῦἀντιχρίστου is the (πνεῦμα) of antichrist; for τὸ pre-supposes a substantive or constitutes a substantival idea; were it, as Valla, Episcopius, Huther and al. render, proprium antichristi, matter of antichrist, τοῦτο would not refer to πνεῦμα but to ὁμολογεῖν; this would be rather an artificial construction and τὸ before τοῦἀντίχριστου would be superfluous. The passages adduced, viz. Matthew 21:21; 1 Corinthians 10:24; 2 Peter 2:22; James 4:14, are somewhat different, for they import one and all a substantival idea, τὸτῆςσυκῆς, τὸἑαυτοῦ, τὸτῆςπαροιμίας, τὸτῆςαὔριον [that of the fig tree, that of himself, that of the proverb, the event of the morrow—M.], while here the Genitive alone would have been sufficient.—Ἀκηκόατε refers not to the written word 1 John 2:18 where we have already ἠκούσατε, but to the previous oral instruction they had received. The last clause καὶνῦνἐντῷκόσμῳἐστὶνἤδη, which emphatically asserts that the spirit of antichrist is already now, at the present time, working in the antichrists, is not governed by ἀκηκόατε but coφrdinated with καὶτοῦτόἐστίντὸτοῦἀντιχρίστου. Cf. 1 John 2:18. Comfortable strengthening and assurance against the false prophets. 1 John 4:4-6. 1 John 4:4. Ye are of God, little children.—The Apostle moved, and affectionately confident (τεκνία) that they all stand in the fundamental truth and are the children of God (1 John 3:1-2; 1 John 3:13-14), urgently represents to them (ὑμεῖς emphatically placed first as in 1 John 2:24; 1 John 2:27), what is given to them: ἐκτοῦθεοῦἐστέ, agreeing with the leading thought 1 John 2:29 and the context: the trial to be made is εἰἐκτοῦθεοῦἐστίν (1 John 4:1) and he that confesseth Jesus is ἐκτοῦθεοῦἐστίν (1 John 4:3) and he that confesseth not Jesus ἐκτοῦθεοῦοὐκἔστιν. And have overcome them.—Αὐτοὺς are the ψεῦδοπροφήτας (1 John 4:1), in whom the πνεῦματοῦἀντιχρίστου is operative and connected with their πνεῦμα. Hence not: antichristum et mundum (Erasmus); the Vulgate renders falsely eum, which Lyra interprets: mundum, devincendo concupiscentiam, and other Roman Catholics: antichristum or spiritum antichristi in antichristis.—The Perfect νενικήσατε as at 1 John 2:13-14, where τὸνπονηρόν is the person overcome. The victory referred to there is inward in their hearts, here it is a victory not only in their hearts but also outward, visible in the life, in the sphere of their church-life, the Church; in the former place the victory is over Satan himself, here over his false prophets. But it is a victory actually achieved, and moreover a victory of continuous duration notwithstanding a succession of conflicts; through these very struggles and conflicts runs the victory already achieved and decisive, ye have overcome! ye have it! by your fidelity they with their seductive arts and temptations have been confounded (Ebrard). Cf. John 16:33. Νενικήκατε is the Perfect not propter futuritionis certitudinem (Episcopius),=potestis superare (Rosenmόller). Calvin renders not very accurately: “In media pugna jam extra periculum sunt, quia futuri sunt superiores.” The ground of their victory and overcoming lies indeed in them, yet nevertheless above them. Because He (that is) in you is greater than he (that is) in the world.—Ὁἐνὑμῖν is He of (out of) whom they are, who abideth in them (1 John 3:24; 1 John 4:1-2), that is ὁθεὸς (Greek Comm., Calvin, Bengel, de Wette, Sander, Dόsterdieck, Huther); this is also clear from the antithesis; it is understood of Christ by Augustine, Grotius, etc.—Ὁἐντῷκόσμῳ ?=ὁδιάβολος, whose children (τέκνα) the antichrists are, 1 John 3:10 a—God is not only greater than our heart (1 John 3:20), but also greater than Satan, than all things (John 10:29; 2 Corinthians 2:14); all things belong to Him (1 Corinthians 15:57; 1 Corinthians 3:23).—[Huther: “Instead of the more specific ἐναὐτοῖς the Apostle uses ἐντῷκόσμῳ to intimate that the former, though having been for some time in the Church, belong to the κόσμος, which is expressly declared in the words following. Socinus: “Quamvis Johannes, non de eo, qui sit in falsis prophetis, sed de eo, qui sit in mundo, verba faciat, tamen necesse est, ut mundi appellatione falsos istos Prophetas comprehendat, vel polius plane intelligat, quod satis aperte declarant sequentia verba.”—M.]. 1 John 4:5. The antithesis as to essence, work and success:They are of the world.—Ἐκτοῦκόσμου, quatenus Satanas est ejus princeps (Calvin), hence not ἐξἡμῶν (1 John 2:19). Cf. John 8:23; John 8:44. The reference is not only to worldly lusts and carnal desires but to the ground and source of their life determining the exhibition of their life (διὰτοῦτο). Therefore they speak of the world and the world heareth them.—The substance of what they speak and their success with the world are conditioned by their being of [out of, from—as to origin—M.] the world. This λαλεῖνἐκτοῦκόσμου also is deep-reaching: ex mundi vita ac sensu sermones suos promere (Bengel). Huther capitally distinguishes λαλεῖνἐκτοῦκόσμου from ἐκτῆςγῆςλαλεῖν (John 3:31) by the remark that ἡγῆ is not an ethical notion like ὁκόσμος. Although the separate points made by Oecumenius (κατὰτὰςσαρκικὰςἐπιθυμίας), the Scholiasts (ἐκτῆςπονηρᾶςαὐτῶνγνώμης), Luther (ea quζ mundus intelligit ac probat), Grotius (mundi affectibus congruentia) and others, are correct, yet they shed light only on particular points and not on the whole. The approval and agreement of the world constitute a proof against them on the principle τῷγὰρὁμοίῳτὸὅμοιονπροστρέχει. Cf. John 8:37; John 8:43; John 8:47; John 18:37. [The false prophets left the Church and went out into the world to which they stood in inward affinity, and proclaimed to it a wisdom that originated in it; therefore the world heard them, i.e. approved and assented to their word; τῷγὰρὁμοίῷκ. τ. λ. (Oecumenius); whereas the believers were hated and persecuted by the world, Huther.—M.].—Αὐτῶνἀκούει denotes hearing attentively with inward delight, while ἀκούειντινα signifies hearing in general without determining the sympathy of the hearer. Inference and conclusion. 1 John 4:6. 1 John 4:6. We are of God.—A quickly added contrast of the false prospects without δὲ. After what precedes there are here implied the two thoughts which are not expressed: διὰτοῦτοἐκτοῦθεοῦλαλοῦμενκαὶὑμεῖςἡμῶνἀκούετε, although the latter is indicated by ὁγινώσκωντὸνθεὸνἀκούειἡμῶν. Hence the Apostle understands by ἡμεῖς himself with the Apostles and the teachers in the Church (and not himself and the Church ὑμεῖς), as opposed to αὐτοὶ (1 John 4:5) and the ψευδοπροφῆται (1 John 4:1). This is the view of most commentators in opposition to Calvin, Spener, Lόcke and al. He that knoweth God, heareth us; he who is not of God doth not hear us.—The antithesis ὁγινώσκωντὸνθεὸν and ὃςοὐκἔστινἐκτοῦθεοῦ requires, as is well known, that we should understand in the former clause ἐκτοῦθεοῦεἶναι and supply in the second γινώσκειντὸνθεὸν as the consequence. Hence ἐκτοῦθεοῦεἶναι must not be taken here differently from 1 John 4:1-4 and according to the contrast in 1 John 4:5. It is consequently not a general drawing and impulse towards God (as held by Lόcke and Neander), but the state of grace of God’s children, and their understanding of and conduct towards the word of God as preached to them. But nothing is said here concerning the manner how they did come into this state, nor is here any reference to predetermination (Hilgenfeld) or predestination (Calvin); we know also from 1 John 2:2; 1 John 4:14; cf. John 3:16; John 1:10 sqq. 29, that all are desired and may enter into the sonship. [Alford: Here we must remember carefully what the context is and what its purpose. The Apostle is giving a text to distinguish, not the children of God from those who are not children of God, but the spirit of truth from the spirit of error, as is clear from the words following. And this he does by saying that in the case of the teachers of the truth, they are heard and received by those who apprehend God, but refused by those who are not of God. It is evident then that these two terms here, ὁγινώσκωντὸνθεόν, and ὃςοὐκἔστινἐκτοῦθεοῦ represent two patent matters of fact, two classes open and patent to all: one of them identical with the κόσμος above: the other consisting of those of whom it is said above, ἐγνώκατετὸνπατέρα…. ἐγνώκατετὸνἀπ’ ἀρχῆς, 1 John 2:13-14. How these two classes are what they are, it is not the purpose of this passage to set forth, nor need we here inquire; we have elsewhere tests to distinguish them, 1 John 3:9-10. …; we have a striking parallel, in fact the key to these words, in the saying of our Lord to Pilate, John 18:37.—M.]. From this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error (deception).—Ἐκτούτου refers to hearing, but since the matter in hand relates to the trial of the spirits that teach, the reference is to hearing the false prophets and to hearing the Apostles and the ministers of the Divine word [i.e. to the reception given to both classes.—M.]. Hence we must not think here of the criterion specified in 1 John 4:2-3, as maintained by the Roman Catholic Comm., Calvin, Hunnius, Calov and Neander. In γινώσκομεν John includes the Apostles and the Church. On τὸπνεῦματῆςἀληθείας, cf. John 14:17; John 15:26; John 16:13; from which passages it is evident that the Genitive indicates that which the Spirit gives, testifies, whereto He helpeth and whither He guideth and leadeth; He is that Spirit that proceedeth from God and teacheth the truth to men. In like manner, τὸπνεῦματῆςπλάνης is the spirit proceeding from the devil, deceiving and seducing men (1 John 1:8; 1 John 2:26; 2 John 1:8; 1 Timothy 4:1; 1 Thessalonians 2:3; 2 Thessalonians 2:11.) The latter is certainly in him whom the world hears, the former in Him to whom the children of God give ear. AND ETHICAL1. Δοκιμάζειν is used here as by St. Paul, (see notes on 1 John 4:1, in Exegetical and Critical) and as the Lord Himself bids His Church do, Matthew 7:15-16. The Roman Catholic proposition: “Ecclesia in suis prζlatis est judex controversiarum” is not true; they limit to the ecclesia repr�sentans and to the [visible] head of that, what the Lord of the Church and his Apostles say to all believers. However it is important to remember that the Apostle restricts this right and duty of trial simply to the question whether the teachers are of God, and that he does not mean questions affecting the learning, wisdom or eloquence of teachers, or questions of secondary importance and on controversial points; he only refers to that which is necessary to the salvation of our souls. On this head every Christian ought and may, if necessary, apply the test. 2. The believing Confession of One Jesus Christ uniting in Himself the Godhead and the Manhood, even the confession of the historical Christ is necessary to salvation and essentially Christian. John, of course, understands ὁμολογεῖν as engaging the powers of the whole Christian and not only the oral confession without the heart; for he adverts to the πνεύματα, specifies the antithesis μὴὁμολογεῖν and proceeds throughout in a contemplative manner. If this were not so, the true disciples of Jesus would have the same confession as the demons as their distinguishing mark (Luke 4:41; Matthew 8:29); hence the contents of the confession are not decisive per se. Cf. Harless, Ethik § 39** p. 174.—But Estius has no warranty for limiting St. John’s direction to the apostolical age and for considering the confession of the Lord’s Supper as the criterion now; on the former confession depends also the latter, for the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper reflects of course the Christology, since the fellowship with Christ is accomplished in the most pregnant manner in the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. Nothing is truly Christian without the living Christ. 3. According to the Johannean mode of expression the contrast brought out here is to be conceived as an error wholly gnostic, spiritualizing and misinterpreting the historic and directed more against the corporealness, i.e. the manhood of Christ than against his Godhead, an error rather Docetical than Ebionite. For σάρξ does not denote merely the human body apart from the human ψυχή, the human νοῦς, the human will or self-consciousness, which could not be done by the preposition ἐν, but it signifies the human nature, the manhood; and this is conceived in the precise manner in which He appeared in the world. Cf. Hofmann, Schriftbeweis ii. 1. p. 76, sq. 4. John does not predicate of man independence, self-glory and perfect freedom in the sphere of his spiritual life; either the Spirit of God or the spirit of Satan determines the spirit of man and conditions his views, inclinations, knowledge, words and deeds. Behind the πνεῦμα of man stands the directing, determining, operating and fulfilling πνεῦμα, which through the former and united with it, works on the world and on men. 5. But any disposition of the human spirit for the Spirit of God or the spirit of Satan is no more taken for granted here than that the Spirit of God and the spirit of Satan are or might be supposed to be in a state of coφrdination. Rather, we should say, does this victory, of which the Apostle discourses in such lofty strains (1 John 4:4, cf. 1 John 2:13-14; 1 John 4:4-5), assert the superiority of the Divine Spirit to Satan and denote both the monarchy of God and the enmity of Satan, at the same time intimating however, that, though men may suffer themselves to be controlled either by God or Satan, all men ought to be and might become God’s. 6. The Apostle contemplates the reality and the possession of the Divine sonship (εἶναιἐκτοῦθεοῦ ?=γεγεννῆσθαιἐκτοῦθεοῦ), which is evident from his specification of the marks whereby the existence of this relation may be determined; the reference, therefore, is not to the origin, the beginning of one’s being of God, to the manner how it is attained. The same remark applies to John 18:36-37 and also to John 8:43-47, as is manifest from John 4:30 : πολλοὶἐπίστευσανεἰςαὐτὸν and John 4:31 : ἐὰνμείνητεἐντῷλόγῳτῷἐμῷ. The sonship or state of grace of faith in John 8 is however quite young and only begun, while the case before Pilate and in the passage under notice respects the believing people in His Kingdom and under His Rule. According to the Johannean conception we have to view the sonship or state of grace of believers as complete from the beginning although ever progressing towards perfection and consummation and to the inheritance itself. A young babe or a suckling is surely a perfect man, a rational creature, though only as to the germ, and not yet a man, not yet fully developed in all the powers and gifts wherewith it is endowed. [7. As supplemental to the exegetical notes on 1 John 4:3, and No. 3, above, it may be profitable to put together some of the interpretations of this difficult passage. 1. The Socinian.—Socinus: “Jesum Christum, i.e. Jesum qui dicitur Christus, non modo mortalem hominem fuisse, sed etiam innumeris malis et denique ipsi cruentζ morti obnoxium.” Grotius: “Non cum regia pompa et exercitibus, sed in statu humili, abjecto, multisque malis ac postremum cruci obnoxio.” But it has been shown that ἐνσαρκί cannot be construed in this sense. 2. Those assertive and not only implicative of our Lord’s Incarnation. The commentators, most of them orthodox, who give this interpretation, either confound ἐνσαρκί with εἰςσάρκα (Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Piscator, Sander and al.), or waver between ἐν and εἰς, e.g. Hunnius: “Tunc venire in carne dicitur Jesus Christus quando λόγος ex sua velut arcana sede prodiens assumta visibili carne se in terris manifestat. Here we must also name the exposition of Augustine, who introduces in the train of the Incarnation the death and redeeming love of Christ, and makes the confession denial depend on “caritatem habere” (Alford); saying: “Deus erat et in carne venit: Deus enim mori non poterat, caro mori poterat: ideo ergo venit in carne ut moreretur pro nobis. Quemadmodum autem mortuus est pro nobis? Majorem hac caritatem nemo habet, quam ut animam suam ponat pro amicis suis. Caritas ergo ilum adduxit ad crucem. Quisquis ergo non habet caritatem, negat Christum in carne venisse.”—To put the question in his own words: “Arius and Eunomius, and Macedonius and Nestorius own that Jesus Christ came in the flesh, are not they therefore of God?” and then replies that those hierarchs did not in fact confess Christ to have come in the flesh, because whatever they might do by words, they in their works denied Him (Titus 1:16). “They have not charity,” he say “because they have not unity, and therefore all their other gifts are of no avail.” (1 Corinthians 13:1-3).—But the Apostle says here nothing of charity, or unity, or of the love of Christ, but he simply asserts the true Manhood of our Lord, and this brings us 3. To the true interpretation which takes ἐν in its proper meaning and applies the passage to the case of the Docetζ who maintained that our Lord had only an apparent and not a real body. See also the extracts from Irenζus and Origen above in Appar. Crit. note 4.—M.]. AND The command: Try! 1. The occasion (1 John 4:1 : many false prophets); 2. The importance (1 John 4:1 : whether they are of God); 3. The difficulty (1 John 4:1 : the spirits); 4. The right (1 John 4:4 : ye are of God); 5. The standard (1 John 4:1; 1 John 4:3 : the confession and the contradiction, cf. 1 John 4:6.).—Be not afraid of the majority of votes, but fear the majesty of the truth of (out of) God; take care that thou do not violate it; the former cannot and must not have any influence in matters of eternal truth and of eternal life. Not from the masses comes the truth, but from One, with whom you ought to vote and to whom you ought to assent; but though it comes only from One it is nevertheless designed for all and should be brought to and diffused among the masses by means of preaching, testimony and confession.—You ought to regard as a Christian and a brother whoever clings to Christ in faith, no matter how heretical the sect to which he may belong.—Communities and Christians grow more and more imperfect, the former into sects and the latter illiberal in proportion as they strive to give undue prominence to any one point of the truth except that of a believing and vital confession of Christ. You may not even push into the background the sphere of creation with its appointments before redemption and its glory, for Christ is also the Creator of the world.—The question is the pursuit of victory in order to secure and preserve unimpaired eternal peace for eternity.—The fundamental truth is simple and ever plain to the simplicity of the heart. That with which you are familiar you understand and love; what you cling to, cleaves to you; that in which you live, lives in you; that, for and of which you speak, speaks out of you.—Either a prophet of God or a false prophet, either of God or of the world, moved either by the Spirit of God or by the spirit of antichrist, by the Spirit of truth or the spirit of error; a middle way and a third course are not provided.—Neither you nor any of your acquaintance may be able clearly to perceive your point of gravity, but it is there, and One, now a Saviour, but hereafter the Judge, knows where and what it is and will make it manifest in preliminary judgments here, but in the final judgment there. Starke:—Trust, believe, whom? It concerns not riches and possessions, but your soul and salvation. It is amazing that most men are concerned about false wares, whereby they incur certain and eternal loss. The prudent will make inquiries and not join in with an inconsiderate credit.—Lying spirit, that sayest that the Christian religion is founded on credulity! Gross lies! it requires faith, but rejects credulity.—We ought to believe sincere, experienced and honest teachers, yet so that we look only and solely to God and rest in Him as the author of the wisdom which they proclaim. Teachers should willingly subject their teaching to the trial of others, even to the trial of their own hearers, and consequently not only not deter them from it but also to urge them to it, and direct them away from themselves to God and His Spirit; otherwise they will not make honest Christians but render themselves suspicious.—The government alone has not the power of appointing teachers at its option regardless of the views and wishes of the whole Church (or congregation), whose wishes should be duly consulted, for God has clothed it also with the power and ability to try the spirits. [Such a caution, however relevant on the Continent of Europe, is of course unnecessary in the U. S.—M.].—Whatever obscures and lessens in word or deed the person, office, doctrine and glory of Christ, is heretical.—Be of good courage! though the world and the devil rage, thou hast a strong support, for God, who is with, by and in thee, is greater than all.—Whenever we are victorious, we ought to ascribe the glory of our victory not to ourselves but to God; otherwise if we take the least credit to ourselves, we rouse a new enemy, spiritual pride, most dangerous in this that it enables Satan easily to overcome us.—Like seeks like; the world loves its own but hates those who have gone out from the world. Heubner:—The Christian spirit of trial is intimately connected with faith. Faith is not credulity.—This trying is a duty which belongs to every age and especially in our age when so many teach against the Scripture and still set up the pretension that they have the Spirit, and consider themselves full of spirit and others spiritless. It is the duty of all Christians; consequently, also the duty of the laity.—The conditions of this trial are simplicity of heart, a firm faith, and prayer to the Lord for clearness of perception (to open our eyes). The deceived have indeed excuses to offer; but there would not be so many of the deceived, if they had a pure mind and would try. Try the more frequently and carefully, the more the spirit of deceivers flatters thee and thy vanity, and the greater the number of these spirits grow.—Everything which lays irreverent hands on the Person of Christ, from any side, is decidedly unchristian.—Should John have given us a false criterion? Maintaining this is already the sign of a bad cause. Whatever is anti-christian shows its true character by its contradicting the Apostles.—The superiority of the Spirit of Christ to the error-spirit of the world gives to the Christian the preponderance; he need not fear any assaults of unbelief. John foretells certain victory. All the shouts of victory on the part of unbelievers are nothing but false alarm. All antichristianity panders to the spirit of the world; it flatters, if not the loose morality, yet the vanity and conceit of the world which finds it burdensome and confounding to believe in the Crucified One.—The false apostles prove the dignity of the true Apostles. Besser:—Any pupil in a catechism-class, in order to be on his guard against the false prophets, may determine whether the teaching of a prophet has the grape-taste of Christ’s vine or the sloe-taste of the thorn of the flesh and reason.—It is not because of the parts of the truth they hold in common with the Church, but because of the error wherewith they contradict the confession of the Church, because of the broken branch on the tree of truth, because of the cancer in the body of truth, that the sects are congregated as separate communities. Krummacher:—The frontier of Christianity. 1. In which way is it decided? Are the cumbersome trinity, God, virtue and immortality, or birth within the pale of Christendom, individual interpretation, the opinion of the majority of one’s contemporaries—to determine Christianness? 2. The final infallible decision, over against the skeptics, those who are at variance with the confession, those who only seek for the word of God in the Scriptures but do not receive the Scriptures as the word of God, is given by the fundamental fact of the supernatural revelation in Christ, the necessity of regeneration, the personal preλxistence of Christ or of the Godhead. Fronmόller:—Of the trial of the Spirits. 1. Why it is necessary? Many false spirits have gone out into the world, the spirit of antichrist is already now in the world—in the Church, in the school, in the family, in private life, in the great and in the small. 2. Which is its end and aim? Whether they are of God or not. 3. Which is its rule? The confession. [Burkitt: 1 John 4:1.—Believe not every spirit, etc. That is, every teacher who pretends to be inspired, and every doctrine that lays claim to the authority of Divine revelation: “but try the spirits,” that is, examine their doctrine by the rule of the word of God, and try from whom they come, whether from the Spirit of God or from Satan.—M.]. [Bp. Hall: 1 John 4:2.—Every one who confesseth Jesus Christ to have been God from all eternity, and in the fulness of time to have taken our nature upon Him, and to be come in the flesh, to accomplish the perfect work of man’s redemption, is of God and speaks from God. And so by the contraries 1 John 4:3.—M.]. [Barrow:—He was not only (as the Gnostics and some other heretics have conceited) in shape and outward appearance (as a spectre, deluding men’s sight and fancy), but in most real truth, a very perfect man; having a real body, figured and circumscribed like ours, compacted of flesh and blood, visible and tangible; which was nourished and did grow, which needed and received sustenance, which was tender and sensible, frail and passible, which was bruised with stripes, torn with scourges, pricked with thorns, pierced with nails, transfixed with a spear; which was mortal and underwent death by expiring its breath, and being disjoined from the soul that enlivened it. He had also a soul, endued with the same faculties as ours; with an understanding, capable of learning and improvement (for He was a man, ignorant of some things which He might know: and He grew in wisdom and in stature), with a will, subject and submissive to the Divine Will (see Mark 13:32; Luke 2:52; Matthew 26:39; Luke 22:42; John 5:30; Matthew 21:18; John 4:6-7), with several appetites, of meat, of drink, of sleep and rest (for we read that He was hungry, that He thirsted, that He was weary); yea with various passions and affections (φυσικὰκαὶἀδιάβληταπάθη, I mean, that is, natural and irreprehensible passions), and these of the most troublesome and afflictive sort, such as zeal, pity and sorrow; the which were sometimes declared by very pathetical significations and are expressed in high terms; as upon occasion of His friend Lazarus’s death it is said, He groaned in Spirit and was troubled; He then and upon other occasions, out of pity and sorrow, did weep; and ye know what excesses of sorrow, what anxieties and agonies, what tribulations, disturbances and amazements, the Evangelists, using those very terms, describe Him to have undergone at His passion; so that, as the Apostle to the Hebrews speaketh, “We have not an highpriest that could not compassionate (or sympathize with) our infirmities, but who was in all points tempted (or exercised and proved) as we are, yet without sin.”—M.]. [Neander:—Here is no other test of true faith, no other law for Christian union, than steadfast adherence to that one fundamental fact of the appearing of the Divine-human Redeemer. In all which proceeds from this belief, the influences of the Divine Spirit should be acknowledged. Hence it follows, that provided faith in this one fundamental fact be the soul of the Christian life, no minor difference of creed should be allowed to disturb Christian unity; that mistakes and alloys of Christian truth, which trench not on this one fundamental fact, should not hinder us from recognizing the Divine Stamp in him whose faith and profession have their root therein,—that the bonds of Christian fellowship should not thereby be sundered or loosened. Steadfast adherence to this one foundation is the mark of being from God, of the Spirit derived from God.— Truth and error have each their peculiar history of development. As in the continued development of Christian truth, the Holy Spirit is ever revealing Himself in the inward consciousness of believers, that Anointing spoken of by St. John; so does error, proceeding side by side with this revelation, mingle therewith its own disturbing and adulterating influence,—rending single truths from their connection with the whole system of truth and giving them the stamp of error. These are the two currents, proceeding from the ever operative Spirit of Christ and from the spirit of the world; the latter mingling with the revelations of the former its own disturbing element and imitating them with a deceptive outward seeming.—M.]. [Sermons and Sermon-themes. John 4:1. Augustine,Believe not every Spirit. Libr. of Fathers, 20. 954.Tillotson,Abp. Of the trial of the Spirits. Sermons 2, 29.Waterland,Daniel, The springs and motives of false pretences to the Holy Spirit; with the rules and marks of trying and detecting them. Sermons. Works 9, 336.Edwards,Jonathan, The distinguishing marks of a work of the Spirit of God, applied to that uncommon operation that has lately appeared in New England. 120. 1742. Works. 2, 254.Zollikoffer, C. J.Fanaticism in general.Fanaticism with regard to religious conceptions in particular. Sermons on prevalent errors and vices I. 95. 111.Smith, JohnPye, On the means of obtaining satisfaction with regard to the truth of religious sentiments. A Sermon, London, 1822.John 4:2. Augustine,Every Spirit that confesseth not, etc. Libr. of the Fathers 20, 960.De probatione Spiritum. Cr. Sac.Thes.Nov.2. 999.John 4:2-3. Wilberforce, R. I.,The sacramental system. Serm. on the New Birth, 222.Vaughan, I. C.,John’s test of truth. Sermons (1851), 121.John 4:4. Saurin, I.,The superior evidence and influence of Christianity. Sermons; 2, 323. In French, 7, 129.Extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost.John 4:4-5. Tillotson, Abp.,The advantages of truth in opposition to error. 2 Sermons. Serm. xi. 389.—M.].Footnotes: 1 John 4:1. [ἐκ, German: “out of.”—M.] 1 John 4:2. γινώσκετε A. B. C. G. al. Cod. Sin. has in the text γινώσκομεν, but corrected γινώσκετε. 1 John 4:2. ἐληλυθότα A. C. Sinait.—B. reads ἐληλυθέναι; Vulgate: venisse conforming to the usage of Latin. [German: “Every spirit which confesseth Jesus Christ come in the flesh.”—M.] 1 John 4:3. Instead of the reading of A. B. τὸνΙησοῦν, G. K. and Sin. have Χριστὸνἐνσαρκὶἐληλυθότα, but G. has also the Article and Sin. reads κύριον instead of Χριστὸν. Both readings, the shorter τὸνἸησοῦν, and the longer agreeing with 1 John 4:2, are well authenticated, and either may pass for the original reading, it being equally probable that the longer reading was abbreviated into the shorter, and that the shorter was changed into the longer; the testimony for both renders the decision very difficult; but the shorter form seems to be the lectio difficilior.—By the side of the reading ὃμὴὁμολογεὶτὸνἸησοῦν, the Church Fathers have the variation ὃλύειτὸνἸησοῦν, among the Latins Tertullian (negantes—et solventes, adv. Marc. 5, 16), Augustine qui solvit Jesum et negat in carne venisse) also the two conjoined. It is repeatedly asserted, that the heretics suppressed λύειν (Socrates h. l. 7, 32; Fulbert and Hincmar: Eraserunt, in Tischendorf 1859 editio major). Bengel well observes: humanam potius artem, quam apostolicam redolet (λύει) sapientiam. It is a dogmatical terminus technicus to denote the Nestorianism which dissolves the union of the Godhead and the humanity in Jesus, Christ. [Socrates, H. E. VII. 1John 32: γέγραπτοἐντοῖςπαλαιοῖςἀντιγράφοιςὅτιπᾶνπνεῦμαὃλύειτὸνἸησοῦν, ἀπὸτοῦθεοῦοὐκἔστιν. Irenζus (III, 8, p. 511 ed. Stieren): Igitur omnes extra dispositionem sunt, qui sub obtentu agnitionis alterum quidem Jesum intelligunt, alterum autem Christum, et alterum Unigenitum, et alterum Salvatorem … Sententia enim eorum homicidalis, Deos quidem plures confingens et Patres multos simulans. Comminuens autem et per multa dividens Filium Dei; quos et Dominus nobis cavere prζdixit, et discipulus ejus Joannes in prζdicta epistola fugere eos prζcepit dicens: “Multi seductores exierunt in hunc mundum, qui non confitentur Jesum Christum in carne venisse. Hic est seductor et Antichristus. Videte eos, ne perdatis quod operati estis.” Et rursus in Epistola ait: “Multi pseudo-prophetζ exierunt de sζculo. In hoc cognoscite Spiritum Dei. Omnis spiritus qui confttetur Jesum Christum in carne venisse, ex Deo est. Et omnis Spiritus qui solvit Jesum, non est ex Deo, sed de antichristo est.” Hζc autem similia sunt illi quod in Evangelio dictum est, quoniam “Verbum caro factum est, et habitavit in nobis.”—Origen on Matthew 25:14 (Vol. I 4:359–361 ed. Lommat.): Secundum hanc divinitatis suζ naturam non peregrinatur, sed peregrinatur secundum dispensationem corporis quod suscepit.—Haec autem dicentes non solvimus suscepti corporis hominem, cum sit scriptum apud Joannem “Omnis spiritus qui solvit Jesum non est ex Deo:” sed unicuique substantiζ proprietatem servamus. Si enim omnis homo fidelis “qui conjungitur Domino unus spiritus est:” quanto magis homo ille quem secundum dispensationem. carnis Christus suscepit non est solvendus ab eo, nec alter est dicendus ab eo? Et vide quomodo ait: “Sicut homo peregre futurus” quoniam non erat homo, sed sicut homo et quasi homo peregrinabitur, qui erat ubique secundum divinitatis naturam.” While thus Irenζus and Origen clearly had the reading ὃλύει before them, Polycarp, on the other hand, seems to quote, though loosely, the received text (Ep. ad. Philipp. cap. 7): ΠάςγὰρὃςἂνμὴὁμολογῇἸησοῦνΧριστὸνἐνσαρκὶἐληλυθέναι, ἀντίχριρτόςἐστι. καὶὃςἂνμὴὁμολογῇτὸμαρτύριοντοῦσταυροῦἐκτοῦδιαβόλουἐστί. καὶὃςἂνμεθοδεύῃτὰλόγιατοῦκυρίουπρὸςτὰςἰδίαςἐπιθυμίαςκαὶλέγῃμήτεἀνάστασινμήτεκρίσινεἶναι, οὗτοςπρωτότοκόςἐστιτοῦΣατανᾶ. [Alford].—Huther: Very singular is the opinion of Semler that ὃλύει originated oculorum vitio; the reading may probably be accounted for from the polemics against Gnosticism (Grotius, Lόcke, de Wette, Huther), and this supposition is borne out by the scholion in Matthζi p. 1John 225: προώδευσανγὰραὐτοῦ (τοῦἀντιχριστοῦ) αἱαἱρέσεις, ὧνχαρακτεριστικὸντὸδιὰψευδοπροφητῶνκαὶπνευμάτωνλύειντονἸησοῦνἐντῷμὴὁμολογεῖναὐτὸνἐνσαρκὶἐληλυθέαι.—M.]. [German: “And every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God.”—M.] 1 John 4:3. [German: “And this is the [spirit] of antichrist, of which ye have heard that it cometh, and now it is in the world already.” So Alford.—M.]. 1 John 4:6. ὃςοὐκἔστινἐκτοῦθεοῦ, οὐκἀκούειἡμῶν is wanting in A. G. (perhaps by mistake?) 1 John 4:6. ἐκτούτου B. G. K. Sinait; important on account of 1 John 3:24; ἐκτοῦπνεύματος. [German: “From this.”—M.] 7. Brotherly Love and Divine Love as Related to Each Other on the Ground of Christ’s Advent 1 John 4:7-217 Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. 8He that loveth not, knoweth not God; for God is love. 9In this was manifested the love of God toward” us, because that God sent his 10only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. Herein Isaiah 16 love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. 11Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another. 12No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, 13and his love is perfected in us. Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because16 he hath given us of his Spirit. 14And we have seen and do testify that 15the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world. Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth13 in him, and he in God. 16And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth13 17in love dwelleth13 in God, and God in him. Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world. 18There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love. 19We love him, because he first loved us. 20If a man say, love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen? 21And this commandment have we from him, That he who loveth God love his brother also. AND Connection. The whole section 1 John 4:7-21 insists upon the exhibition of brotherly love, because love is the very Essence of God (1 John 4:8; 1 John 4:16), as is evident from the sending and revelation of His Son (1 John 4:8; 1 John 4:10-11; 1 John 4:14-15), from our past and present experience of the love of God (1 John 4:10-11; 1 John 4:16), from the experience of our confidence towards Him without fear (1 John 4:17-18), and because as the children of God, we ought in grateful obedience prove our enjoyment of such love by the love of our brethren, His children (1 John 4:19-21). Based on the γεννηθῆναιἐκτοῦθεοῦ (1 John 4:7), this exhortation belongs under the great leading thought 1 John 2:29, and connects with the warning against the false teachers, because faith in Jesus, in whom the love of the Father has been manifested and brought near to us, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit (1 John 4:13), the Spirit of truth, and the Witness of God’s love in us, must evidence and manifest their truth and vitality in brotherly love. Exhortation to brotherly love founded on the Being of God. 1 John 4:7-8. 1 John 4:7. Beloved, let us love one another.—Ἀγαπητοί, ἀγαπῶμεν, a very emphatic expression; being loved we must love; being in the enjoyment of love we are and dare not be without love; the exhortation, as ἀλλήλους shows, must be restricted to brotherly [Christian—M.] love and not be extended to general love of man. [But the ground, on which this exortation is based, viz. that God is Love (1 John 4:8) and that He sent His Son εἰςτὸνκόσμον (1 John 4:9), shows that the love of man in general is not excluded here. Cf. 1 John 3:13; so Ebrard.—M.]. Because the love is of God, and every one, that loveth, is born of God and knoweth God.—Ὅτι indicates the ground on which the preceding exhortation is made to rest. The demonstration is conducted on a general axiom of truth: Omnis amor ex Deo est (Bengel), originem habet a Deo (Calov). This thought especially strengthened by ἐκ, must not be weakened into caritas res divina maxime laudabilis (Socinus, Episcopius), Deo maxime placet (Grotius), love is Divine as to its nature (de Wette), Deus caritatis auctor est, quatenus nobis mutuζ caritatis causas abunde suppeditat (Schlichting). Neither must we add with A. τὸνθεὸν, nor supply “the brother” with S. Schmidt, Lόcke and al.—[Didymus singularly understood ἀγαπή here of Christ,—ἥτιναοὐκἀλληνεἶναινομιστέονἢτὸνμονογενῆ, ὥσπερθεὸνἐκθεοῦ, οὕτωκαὶἀγάπηνἐξἀγάπηςὄντα:—and Augustine fitting together “Dilectio est ex Deo,” and “Dilectio est Deus” infers that “Dilectio est Deus ex Deo,” which comparing with Rom. 1 John 4:5, he infers that love is the Holy Spirit (Tract. 7:6). Alford—M.].—Now since love and life are and spring from God, a man that is born of God proves that he is born of God by loving; for he must have part of that which is in God and comes from Him. The Perfect also alongside the Present shows that here again being born of God is regarded as the antecedent fact, as the cause of love, and love as a consequence warrants and necessitates the back-inference of the truth and reality of being born of God. Cf. 1 John 2:29. Every one that is born of God knows also in his belonging to God, in his fellowship with God, God as the Source of love, and love as the Essence of God, and hence he must insist upon love and practise love, so that thereby he may prove his knowledge of and familiarity with God; to love and to know God are correlates, because love is of God. Hence Grotius (ostendit se Deum nosse sicut oportet) errs less than Calvin (vera Dei cognitio amorem Dei necessario in nobis generat). 1 John 4:8. He that loveth not hath never known God.—Consequently: he that lacks love in general, has not known God, has never learnt to know Him at all (Lόcke), has never made even the beginning of the knowledge of God (Dόsterdieck); this rendering is required by the Aorist ἔγνω joined to ὁμὴἀγαπῶν. The reason of this is given in the following: Because God is love.—A proposition which in the negative formula, according to the well-known manner of the Apostle, still further defines the former assertion that “love is of God.” This relation of the two propositions and of their contents requires us to give to ὅτι a causal construction; hence it indicates the reason and not the contents of ἔγνω (Tirinus: non novit, Deum esse caritatem); in that case ὁθεὸς also ought to be wanting and it would be: οὐκἔγνωτὸνθεόν, ὅτιἀγάπηἐστίν. Cf. Acts 14:13. Winer, p. 469. Ὁθεὸςἀγάπηἐστίν=Deus nihil est quam mera caritas (Luther), Dei natura nihil aliud est, quam caritas, quam bonitas, quam summum bonum, sui ipsius communicativum (Hunnius). The Being of God is Love; therefore love springs from God. The word is to be taken essentialiter with most Catholic [Anglican—M.] and Lutheran Commentators, and not ἐνεργητικῶς with Calvin and Beza: Dei natura est homines diligere; for this construction makes God’s Love-Essence give place to God’s manifestation of love and adds the limitation of its application to men, whereas angels and even the Trinitarian God are objects of the love of God. Still farther removed from the depth of this saying, even to shallowness, are the expositions of Socinus (caritas est Dei ipsiusque voluntas effectus et is quidem maxime proprius), Grotius (Deus est plenus caritate), Rosenmόller (benignissimus). In this, that God is love as to His essential Being, lies the reason, why he that is born of God, must also have love and live in love and why the love of God must be allied with the love of the brethren who are also born of God. [Equally shallow are the explanations of Benson: “God is the most benevolent of all beings; full of love to all His creatures,” Whitby: “The Apostle intends not to express what God is in His Essence … but what He is demonstrative, ἐνεργητικῶς, showing great philanthropy to men,” and Hammond “God is made up of love and kindness to mankind.”—Alford reviewing these quotations says that in them the whole force of the axiom as it stands in the Apostle’s argument is lost; “unless he is speaking of the Essential Being of God, quorsum pertineat, to say that he that loveth not never knew God, because “God is love?” Put for these last words, “God is loving,” and we get at once a fallacy of an undistributed middle: He that loveth not never knew what love is: God is loving: but what would follow? that in as far as God is loving, he never knew Him: but he may have known Him as far as He is just or powerful. But take ὁθεὸςἀγάπηἐστίν of God’s essential Being,—as a strict definition of God, and the argumentation will be strict: He that loveth not never knew love: God is love [the terms are co-essential and co-extensive]: therefore he who loveth not never knew God.”—M.]. Revelation of the love of God through Christ. 1 John 4:9-10. 1 John 4:9. In this was manifested the love of God in (on) us.—“We hear the lovely, the living echo of Christ, John 3:16.” (Heubner). Ἐντούτῳ points to the sequel. Ἐφανερώθη as contrasted with the hidden Being of the invisible God, annexes the objective, actual appearing and manifestation of the ἀγάπητοῦθεοῦ, of the love which is God’s, in God, as in 1 John 1:2; 1 John 3:5; 1 Timothy 3:16; there is no reference whatever to subjective knowledge. [Huther: “The Apostle does not want to say that the love of God has been known by us through the sending of His Son; cf. 1 John 4:16, but that therein it stepped forth from its concealment, and did in reality manifest itself.”—M.].—Ἐνἡμῖν defines either the sphere in which, or the object at which [with regard to which—M.] the manifestation took place; it should be connected with the verb and rendered, either among us, with us, or at [in, with regard to] us. But the context does not introduce us merely as spectators but as receivers of the Divine love (ἵναζήσωμεν); and this love is not only to us an object of contemplation, which would be expressed by the Dative ἡμῖν without the preposition; but we ourselves are objects of this love, every one of us believers has experienced it; hence we ought not to leave the matter undecided (Lόcke), but must decide for the rendering at [in, with regard to—M.] us (Dόsterdieck), according to the manifest analogy of Joh 9:3, where ἐν must be thus construed and explained; hence we may not connect it with ἀγάπητοῦθεοῦ (Huther and al.); for it was not the love of God in believers which was manifested, as if the believers existed before the manifestation of God’s love in Christ, but the love of God appeared in Christ and was manifested not to, but at [in] the believers. On this account Bengel’s explanation: “Amor Dei, qui nunc in nobis est,” is equally untenable. Still less admissible is it to make ἐνἡμῖν=εἰςἡμᾶς, as is done by Luther, Spener and al. Cf. Winer, pp. 231, 436.—Ἐφανερώθη is explained by what follows: That God hath sent His son, the only-begotten, into the world.This is the fact of the manifestation. The designation τὸνμονογενῆ the only child (Luke 7:12; Luke 8:42; Luke 9:38; Hebrews 11:17; John 1:14; John 1:18; John 3:18), ad auxesin valet (Calvin); what love, that He sent His only son (Huther)! It is therefore not=ἀγαπητός, omnium creaturarum longe carissimus, sibi dilectissimus (S. G. Lange, Socinus, Grotius). John thus marks the exaltation of the Son, just as the term ἀπέσταλκενεἰςτὸνκόσμον denotes His pre-existence (John 3:17; John 10:36): to be sent, to be sent into the world can only be true of one already born, not of one who is only born in the world, but one existing above and before the world, 1 John 1:1. That we might live through Him.—Thus ἐνἡμῖν is explained. This indication of the purpose, ἵνα, points as much to the life-fulness in Christ as to our poverty. Cf. 1 John 3:16-17. [Baumgarten-Crusius: Μονογενής and ζήσομεν are the two emphatic words: The most exalted One—for our salvation!—M.]. 1 John 4:10. In this exists love.—[German like Greek “the love,” i.e. love in the abstract.—M.]. Ἀγάπη is to be taken quite general, as at 1 John 3:16 (Neander, Dόsterdieck, Huther), without the supplement of τοῦθεοῦ (Spener, Lόcke, Sander, de Wette, Brόckner and al.), as at Romans 5:5. Not that we loved God, but that He loved us.—The simplest construction is to supply ἐντούτῷ to οὐχ and ἀλλά. Thus preparation is made for the comprehensive term πρῶτος 1 John 4:19; the initiation of loving is with God; the beginning and origin of love is in God (ἐκτοῦθεοῦ); ἡμεῖς and αὐτὸς are here emphatically contrasted like τὸνθεόν; amari dignissimum, and ἡμᾶς, indignissimos (Bengel), the self-existence, independence, of the Divine love are intimated by the prevenience of that love absolutely unconditioned by any merit on the part of men; the former is what is really said here (Huther), the other, as we may justly infer from what follows, (ἱλασμὸν) and from what precedes (ἵναζήσωμεν), is implied (Dόsterdieck). Hence there is no reason whatsoever for rendering ὅτι once “because” and then “that” (Baumgarten-Crusius), or for translating both times “because” but only as protases, thus: not because we loved Him but because He loved us, did He send His Son (Lachmann), or for a transposition of the words as if we did read: ὅτιοὐκ (Grotius), or for taking the first proposition as a dependent clause=ἡμῶνμὴἀγαπησάντων (Meyer: that although we have not loved God before, yet did He love us). a Lapide erroneously assigns to the implication the first place saying: “Hic caritatem Dei ponderat et exaggerat ex eo, quod Deus nulla dilectione, nullo obsequio nostro provocatus, imo multis injuriis et sceleribus nostris offensus, prior dilexit nos.” And sent His Son (as) a propitiation for our sins.—This is the proof in fact of αὐτὸςἠγάπησενἡμᾶς. The Aorist ἀπέστειλεν, like ἠγαπήσαμεν, ἠγάπησεν, simply narrates, while the Perfect ἀπέσταλκεν 1 John 4:9 absolutely presentiates Christ’s having been sent (Lόcke). Ἀπέστειλε stands emphatically in ante-position in order to set the act of God in relief; ἱλασμὸνπερὶτῶνἀμαρτιῶνἡμῶν has an explanatory and substantiating reference to ζήσωμενδι’ αὐτοῦ 1 John 4:9. Cf. 1 John 2:2; 1 John 3:16. Insufficient: testatum fecit, se velle condonare (Rosenmόller). Brotherly love inferred. 1 John 4:11. [from, 1 John 4:9-10, and substantiating the exhortation 1 John 4:7.—M.] 1 John 4:11. Beloved—ἀγαπητοί has a peculiar emphasis and distinct meaning, i.e. it designates those who stand in the enjoyment of the experience of the love of God. If God so loved us.—Because εἰ with the Indicative introduces the aforesaid fact, it is described as an indubitable ground for an inference to be built upon it. [Alford calls attention to the difficulty of rendering this εἰ with an Indicative in English, which is neither any expression of uncertainty, nor=since, or seeing that; he describes it as “a certainty put in the shape of a doubt, that the hearer’s mind may grasp the certainty for itself, not take it from the speaker.” If (it be true that).—is perhaps the nearest filling up of the sense.”—M.]. Οὕτως denotes the preceding description of love; it is here=hac ratione, prevenient without any merit on our part, in the sending of His Son for the propitiation of our sins; but it is not=tanta caritate, as in John 3:16 (where οὕτως—ὥστε requires such a construction, as Dόsterdieck rightly observes). There is no warrant for the interpretation; nullo hominum discrimine (Grotius). We also ought to love one another.—In the first place we have to take notice of ἡμεὶς—ἀλλήλους: we, first the object of the glorious love of God (ἡμᾶς) must, now also regard and treat every Christian as an object of Divine love and consequently become the subjects of such experienced Divine love; to this necessitates us the brother whom God loves, and to this compels us the love with which we ourselves are loved. Hence the Apostle uses the word ὀφείλομεν not only because there is extant for it an objectively given commandment and example, but also a subjective preparation for it; as God’s children, born out of Him who is Love, born out of His Love-Being, we must love one another. There is no fellowship with God without brotherly love. 1 John 4:12-13. 1 John 4:12. No one hath ever beheld God.—. Cf. John 1:18 : ἑώρακεν. The Perfects there, like τεθέαται here are on account of πώποτε to be emphatically referred to the past with respect to its separate course and periods, and must not be construed according to a Hebraism, as carrying present force (Estius), or as comprehending the past and the present (Lόcke). The word τεθέαται denotes calm, continued looking at and contemplation of a thing, but it is real seeing [in the literal sense of the word as distinguished from spiritual beholding, inward vision—M.]; this is the view of the Greek Commentators, (Augustine, Spener, Lόcke and al.), as in 1 John 4:14 and=ἑώρακεν also 1 John 4:20. The sense is: God is invisible (1 Timothy 6:16). Passages like Exodus 33:20, and Genesis 12:7; Genesis 17:1 etc., are not contradictory, since where God did appear, it was not His face, but some assumed form that became visible. Consequently the passage must not be interpreted in a spiritual sense, as if it imported spiritual seeing and that God cannot be known and apprehended by man’s own, natural powers (Piscator), or immediately (Rickli), or as He is (Estius), that He is consequently inscrutable (Neander). The explanation of this axiom follows from, If we love one another, God abideth in us and His love is perfected in us.—The proposition: θεὸνοὐδεὶςπώποτετεθέαται, obviously refers not to the proposition ἀγαπᾷνἀλλήλους which contains a presupposition and a condition, but to the leading thought: ὁθεὸςἐνἡμῖνμένει. The Apostle is wholly concerned with the inward life-fellowship, with the inward relation between God and man which is to be carried on to perfection and which manifests itself in brotherly love; hence brotherly love is only the presupposition and condition of the assertion and assumption of such life-fellowship with God, but not of that relation itself (contrary to Frommann). So especially Dόsterdieck, Huther. The invisibility of God surely does not exclude our love to God (1 John 4:20. cf. 1 Peter 1:8); nor is the invisibility of God used here to direct us to brotherly love, as if we should show to the brethren what we cannot show to Him (Lόcke and al.); in that case θεὸνοὐκθεᾶσθαι and not ἀγαπᾷνἀλλήλους would have been introduced with ἐὰν. Ἀγάπηθεοῦ denotes His love, the love of God, even the love peculiar to and inhering in Him, which is in us, if He ἐνἡμῖνμένει. In this life-fellowship with Him we participate in His love, which is τετελειωμένη, has become perfected [i.e. has reached its full completion and maturity.—M.]. This love has its history of growth and completion in us and corresponds pari passu with brotherly love: where the one is, there is also the other; they mutually conditionate each other; it is loving with God, (out) of God, in God, which with Him is in us as His Being; dutiful loving (ὀφείλομεν 1 John 4:11) is natural in believers. Hence the reference is not to God’s love to us (Hunnius, Calov, Spener, Beza, Sander and al.), for the predicate would not suit such a construction; nor to our love to God (Luther, Calvin, Grotius, Lόcke, Neander, Dόsterdieck and others), nor to ea dilectio quam Deus prζscripsit (Socinus), nor to the mutual relation of love between God and us (Ebrard). 1 John 4:13. In this we know that we abide in Him and He in us, that He hath given us of His Spirit.—The mark of recognition of the life-fellowship of God with us, and among ourselves with God, agrees exactly with the description at 1 John 3:24, as does also the reference to the gift of the Spirit (ἐντούτῳ): ὅτιἐκτοῦπνεύματοςαὐτοῦδέδωκενἡμῖν. Neither οὖ 1 John 3:24, nor the preposition ἐκ here, has partitive force; it rather answers to ἀπὸτοῦπνεύματος, Acts 2:17; Joe 3:1 (LXX.), while the Vulgate in conformity to the original text renders spiritum meum effundam, and denotes the origin and source of the Spirit in us, although we, as distinguished from Jesus who has the Spirit οὐκἐκμέτρου (John 3:34), have only part in Him; the coarse notion of a divisibility or dismemberment of the Spirit must be strenuously excluded. The Spirit Himself is given to us; nothing is said here of His gifts; there is no reference to the διαιρέσιςτῶνχαρισμάτων, 1 Corinthians 12:4; 1 Corinthians 12:11—(in opposition to Estius). His Spirit (τὸπνεῦμααὐτοῦ, the Love-Spirit of God) answers to ἀγάπηαὐτοῦ and confirms the explanation of 1 John 4:12, as given above, and supplements the fact that His Spirit mediates in us His love and its perfections. Evidence of this inward life-fellowship as a certain fact. 1 John 4:14-16. 1 John 4:14. And we have beheld and testify.—Antithesis to 1 John 4:12 : No one has ever beheld God, but we have seen the Son of the Father. Ἡμεῖς designates the Apostles and their associates, and this reference is confirmed by τεθεάμεθακαὶμαρτυροῦμεν, which verbs point to an immediate, personal beholding as contrasted with the knowledge mediated by others (1 John 1:1-2; John 1:14), to their eye-and ear-witness (John 1:34). What they have beheld, that they testify also; both verbs have the same object: That the Father hath sent the Son as Saviour of the world.—In Jesus, the Sent One from God, they have beheld δόξαναὐτοῦ, δόξανὡςμονογενοῦςπαρὰπατρὸς, πλήρηςχάριτοςκαὶἀληθείας (John 1:14), and therefore they beheld Him as the Sent One of God. Τοῦκόσμου (cf. 1 John 2:2; John 3:16; John 4:42), implies that He is sent for every man, not only for the electi in omnibus populis (Piscator); the universality of salvation is also confirmed by the sequel: 1 John 4:15. Whosoever confesseth that Jesus is the Son of God.—This ὁμολογεῖν is the consequence of the reception of the μαρτυρεῖν of the Apostles. Cf. 1 John 2:2; 1 John 2:23. The reference here is neither to the confession in the fact of brotherly love (Bede), nor to the testimony of a holy life accompanying the confession with the mouth (Augustine, Grotius); but the faith of the heart, which receives the Apostolical μαρτυρία is taken for granted. Cf. 1 John 4:16. God abideth in Him and He in God.—The confession, therefore, is to be taken as connected with the life-fellowship with God, and an ungodly conversation surely will not belie the confession; God in Christ Jesus will have appropriated salvation to the believer. 1 John 4:16. And we have known and believed.—The beginning καὶἡμεῖς exactly as in 1 John 4:14. But ἐγνώκαμεν and πεπιστεύκαμεν is matter of the disciples of Jesus without any exception whatsoever (Estius, Calov, Spener, Lόcke, de Wette, Dόsterdieck, Ebrard, Huther), not of the Apostles only, as in τεθεάμεθακαὶμαρτυροῦμεν (in opposition to Episcopius, Rickli and al.). Cf. John 6:69 : πεπιστεύκαμενκαὶἐγνώκαμεν; cf. Lange in this Commentary, Vol. 4., p. 166, German edition. “True faith is, according to John, a faith of knowledge and experience: true knowledge of faith” (Lόcke); both are in one another; each conditions and promotes the other. Hence it is really immaterial which of the two is put first; the moral act of faith and the intellectual act of knowing are ultimately not without the working of God in His Spirit on our spirit. For the reception of the word of truth in faith is a receiving from the Lord of the word, just as the shining of this bright word into the heart and the luminous rise of the truth of the word in the heart, come also from Him. The two constitute the foundation of man’s confession. Hence the Perfects which continue to operate in the present confession. The object follows, viz.: The love which God hath in us.—Cf. John 13:35 : ἵναἀγάπηνἔχητεἐνἀλλήλοις. The Present is emphatically placed first after the preceding Perfects; ἐν is used here as in 1 John 4:9. It is, as in John 6:69 (ὅτισὺεἶὁἅγιοςτοῦθεοῦ), something objective, God’s love on us, namely in Christ Jesus, wherefore Bede says: “Quia videlicet cum haberet filium unicum, noluit illum esse unum, sed ut fratres haberet, adoptavit illi, qui cum illo possiderent vitam ζternam.” Hence neither the subjective love of God erga nos (Estius, Luther, Socinus, Grotius, Rickli and al.), nor the love of God indwelling in us (Wilke, Hermeneutik des Neuen Testaments, 11, 64,), nor our love, kindled in us by God’s love (Ebrard).—Now follows the concluding summary, God is love and he that abideth in love, abideth in God and God abideth in him.—A combination of 1 John 4:8; 1 John 4:15. Ἐντῇἀγάπῃ denotes Love absolute, as the element of those who are born of God, and neither brotherly love (Lόcke and al.), nor God’s love to us (Ebrard); it occurs here without any qualifying addition. Μένωυ, however, denotes the love of man in which he abides and which dwells in him. Perfecting of love in fearlessness. 1 John 4:17-18. Ver 17. In this, love is perfected with us.—Ἀγάπη is again absolute as in 1 John 4:16; 1 John 4:18, and must neither be construed as God’s love εἰςἡμᾶς, nor as our love εἰςἀλλήλους (Socinus), nor to God (Lange), but simultaneously as the disposition and activity of love (Huther), as at 1 John 3:18; and μεθ’ ἡμῶν must receive its full force of among, between, with us; see Winer, p. 336 sq.—Were it not parallel with ἐνἡμῖν 1 John 4:12 we might think of fellowship, ecclesiastical fellowship, the Christian Church, within which love has been perfected; the context also points to the individual life and perfection of Christians and not to the life and perfection of the Christian Church as such. Its most natural construction is with the verb τετελείωται (Lόcke, de Wette, Dόsterdieck and al.), not with ἀγάπη, of which it cannot be the object, since it is not= εἰςἡμᾶς, as supposed by Luther, Calvin, Spener, Bengel, Sander, Besser and al. The position of the words is not more decisive for the connection with ἀγάπη here than at 1 John 4:9 (in opposition to Huther); μεθ’ ἡμῶν denotes the place where love was perfected. Hence ἡμῶν must not be resolved into God and we (Rickli) and construed as the mutual love of God and Christians, which would be wholly inadmissible and repugnant to the spirit of the Gospel. Τετελείωται should be construed like τετελειωμένηἐστίν, 1 John 4:12, and τελεία and τετελείωται in 1 John 4:18, this ἀγάπη in and on us is something to be perfected, and this perfection itself is not ready and accomplished at once; it has its stages and degrees. This is inconceivable and unpredicable of the love of God. But wherein is it primarily perfected? ἐντούτῳ ?—ἵναπαῤῥησίανἔχωμεν: That we have confidence in the day of judgment.—On παῤῥησία see Notes, on 1 John 2:28 in Exegetical and Critical. Ἵνα, which follows αὕτη, 1 John 3:11; 1 John 3:23; John 17:3 and also ἐντούτῳ, John 15:8, gives the purpose of God in the perfecting of love with us; we shall have confidence. Ἐντούτῳ therefore must neither be referred to what goes before 1 John 4:16 (Spener), nor, with the assumption of a trajecta anticipatio, connected with ὅτι (Grotius, Beza and al.), nor must ἵνα be construed in the sense of ὥστε (Episcopius, Bengel and al.). The ἡμέρατῆςκρίσεως is ὅτανφανερωθῇ 1 John 2:28. Of course ἐν has its usual sense and must not be explained=εἰς; for the reference here is not to the confidence of expectation, the desire of its drawing near (Augustine, Calvin), where men are liable to deceive themselves. Of course, he that may and will have confidence in the judgment, will also have confidence before it takes place; however, it is to be borne in mind that even believers, notwithstanding their activity of love, will be surprised in the judgment (Matthew 25:31 sqq.); the reference is solely to confidence in the judgment, not to confidence beforehand. It is incorrect to combine the two with Rickli, Huther and al.; nor must τετελείωται be taken as a futurum exactum. [It is doubtful whether Braune’s exegesis will carry conviction to the mind of the reader. It seems to be rather contradictory, for while he condemns the interpretation of Rickli and Huther, he seems to adopt it when he says that “of course he that may and will have confidence in the judgment, will also have confidence before it takes place.” On the whole, Huther’s explanation, which is substantially that of Alford, seems to be the most natural. He says: “The difficulty that something future (our attitude in the day of judgment), is to be valid as a mark of perfect love in the present, vanishes by the assumption that ἐν involves both the παῤῥησία of believers in the day of judgment, and their present παῤῥησία in anticipation of that day; this combination was natural to the Apostle who thought of the day of judgment not as very remote but as already dawning (1 John 2:18). In his love this future παῤῥησία is to him already present.”—M.]. Because as He is, we also are in this world.—Ὅτι annexes the reason of our confidence in the day of judgment. Ἐκεῖνος is Jesus and not God (Augustine, Calvin and al.). The Present ἐστί must not be construed= ἦν (a Lapide, Grotius, Rickli and al.), nor must the words ἐντῷκόσμῳτούτῳ be referred to Christ. The comparison must be gathered from the context: it is very strict, καθὼς—καὶ. The point in hand is the μένεινἐντῇἀγάπῃ, which μένειν perfects love even unto filial confidence in the day of judgment (so Huther who cites Lorinus, “reddit nos caritas Christo similes et conformes imagini filii Dei”). Hence not likeness in suffering (Luther) or temptability (Rickli), not likeness in that, though we are in the world, we are not of the world (Sander); for nothing is said on these points; neither is here any reference to the adoption (Lόcke), nor to δικαιοσύνη (Dόsterdieck). Love is the eternal Being of Christ, cf. 1 John 3:7 (Huther). [The last named author lays stress on ἐστὶν and compares in the passage cited the words: καθὼςἐκεῖνοςδίκαιόςἐστιν.—Alford adopts the explanation of Dόsterdieck, who thus develops his view: St. John does not say that Love is perfected in confidence in us, because we resemble Christ in Love; but he refers to the fundamental truth on which our Love itself rests and says: because we are absolutely like Christ, because we are in Christ Himself, because He lives in us, for without this there cannot be likeness to Him; in a word, because we are, in that communion with Christ which we are assured of by our likeness to Him in righteousness, children of God, therefore our love brings with it also full confidence. Essentially, the reason here rendered for our confidence in the day of judgment is the same as that given, 1 John 3:21 sq., for another kind of confidence, viz., that we keep His commandments. This also betokens the δικαιοσύνη, of which Christ is the essential exemplar and which is a necessary attribute of those who through Christ are children of God.—M.]. Ἐντῷκόστῳτούμῳ applied to ἐσμέν, denotes the place of abode, the earthly sphere of life, whereas Christ is in heaven, and is not an ethical idea, though we should supply with Bengel: amoris experte judicium timente. 1 John 4:18. Fear is not in love.—Antithesis of παῤῥησίαἐντῇἡμέρᾳτῆςκρίσεως. Quite general: In love is not fear; fear is not a part of love, it is something wholly foreign to it, which is only outside of it (Huther). According to the well known phrase: oderint, dum metuant, hatred and fear are congruous, but love and fear are wholly incongruous. There is nothing said of the fear of God which is the beginning of wisdom (Psalms 111:10), nor of love; hence neither our love to God, nor brotherly love (Lόcke), and still less God’s love to us (Calvin, Calov, Spener). But perfect love casteth out fear.—Τελεία is more than sincera, opposita simulationi (Beza), and ἔξω is not out of itself (Lόcke), as if it were in it, but out of the heart. “Love not only does not contain fear, but it also does not suffer it alongside of itself; the love which wholly drives away fear is not love in its first beginning, love as yet weak, but love in its perfection.” (Huther). [Alford says of ἀλλά that it is not here the mere adversative after a negative clause, in which case it would refer to something in which fear is, e.g. φόβοςοὐκἔστινἐντῇἀγάπῃ, ἀλλ’ (ἐστιν) ἐντῷμισεῖ: but it is the stronger adversative, implying, “nay, far otherwise:” “tantum abest ut.… ut;” and renders: Fear existeth not in love, nay, perfect love casteth out fear, etc.—M.].—Where such love fills the heart, there is no room for fear, Because fear hath punishment.—This is the reason why love does not suffer fear alongside itself. Κόλασις often used in the LXX., [Ezekiel 14:3-4; Ezekiel 14:7; Ezekiel 18:30; Ezekiel 44:12, cf. Wis 11:14; Wis 16:2; Wis 16:24; Wis 19:4.—M.], as in Matthew 25:46 in the sense of punishment, pain of punishment (Besser) under the menace of the κρίσις. Bengel: “tormentum habet; nam diffidit, omnia inimica et adversa sibi fingit ac proponit, fugit, odit.” Hence it is not consciousness of punishment (Lόcke), for the punishment has not yet set in; nor condemnation pronounced in the final judgment on him who does not stand in the fellowship of love (Dόsterdieck). Ὁφόβος is neither pro concreto: he that fears (de Wette, Dόsterdieck), nor is ἔχει=receives; and least of all: fear holds fast to, tenet, thinks of punishment, knows nothing of clemency and love (Baumgarten-Crusius).—[“The pain felt in expectation of the punishment of Him who is feared” (Huther); “Fear by anticipating punishment has it even now” (Alford).—M.]. But he that feareth is not perfected in love.—Negative connected with the main proposition: ἡτελείαἀγάπηἔξωβάλλειτὸνφόβον, and application to the beginning: φόβοςοὐκἔστινἐντῇἀγάπῃ. Hence δὲ is by all means to be retained, and neither to be cancelled, nor to be construed=οὖν or καὶ [δὲ is strictly adversative.—M.]. It is accordingly both owing to a want of perfection in the individual and to a want of perfection of love (τετελείωταιἐντῆἀγάπῃ ?—ἡτελείαἀγάπη), if fear is present, fear, as in Romans 8:15 : οὐκἐλάβετεπνεῦμαδουλείαςπάλινεἰςφόβον. Unnecessary [and diluting—M.]. are the conjectures of Grotius, who proposes to read κόλουσιν (mutilationem) instead of κόλασιν (metus amorem mutilat atque infringit, aut prohibet, ne se exserat), and κολουόμενος instead of φοβούμενος (qui mutilatur aut impeditur in dilectione), and of Lamb. Bos who reads κώλυσιν instead of κόλασιν. [Oecumenius says that there are two kinds of godly fear, φόβοςπροκαταρκτικός, which afflicts men with a sense of their evil deeds and dread of God’s anger, and which is not abiding; and φόβοςτελειωτικός, of which it is said, “The fear of the Lord is clean and endureth forever,” Psalms 19, and which δέουςτοιούτουἀπήλλακται.—M.]. The love of God is necessarily united with brotherly love. 1 John 4:19-21. 1 John 4:19. We love God.—Φοβούμενος is contrasted with ἡμεῖςἀγαπῶμενθέον, without an address, like ἀγαπητοί, 1 John 4:7. There is nothing here to indicate the Conjunctive or an exhortation. Ἡμεῖ s,—emphatically placed first, who are born of God, His children,—rather notes the fact, the Indicative (Calvin, Beza, Aretius, Socinus, Spener, S. Schmidt, Bengel, Rickli, Neander, Ebrard, Erdmann, Huther, Hofmann, Schriftbeweis II. 2, 338); it corresponds, like the whole 1 John 4:19, with οὐχὅτιἡμεῖςἠγαπήσαμεντὸνθεόν. Neither the comparison with 1 John 4:7, nor the ground and the further development in 1 John 4:20-21, can warrant the interpretation that we must assume here an imperative Conjunctive (as Dόsterdieck does). For the majority of authorities favour the addition of the object, even the οὖν of A. implies as much. [Alford, who is on the same side, fixes the connection thus: “He that feareth is not perfect in love. Our love (abstract, not specified whether to God or our brother) is brought about by, conditioned by, depends upon His love to us first; it is only a sense of that which can bring about our love: and if so, then from the very nature of things it is void of terror, and full of confidence, as springing out of a sense of His love to us. Nor only so: our being new begotten in love is not only the effect of a sense of His past love, but is the effect of that love itself.”—M.]. In the ground Because He first loved us, πρῶτος is emphatic, and this seems to suggest a primary reference to our love to God, cf. 1 John 4:9-10. From our most natural love to God, grounded on our experience of the love of God, the Apostle now passes on to brotherly love. 1 John 4:20. If any say, I love God, and hate his brother, he is a liar.—Ἐὰντιςεἴτῃ, cf. 1 John 1:6; ὅτι before ἀγαπῶτὸνθεόν frequently introduces direct speech. This progress confirms the assumption of the Indicative in 1 John 4:19. Here the Apostle resolves the communicate form of speech into the singular form as a conclusion and proof. Μισῇ answers to the next following ὁμὴἀγαπῶν. Cf. 1 John 3:14-15. “To hate is the positive form of not to love.” (Huther). Cf. Luke 14:26. Col. Matthew 10:37. Every defect of love makes room to hatred. Hence ψεύστηςἐστὶ, as in 1 John 1:6. The reason: For he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God (or cannot love God) whom he hath not seen?—The main stress lies in the antithesis ὃνἑώρακεν and ὃνοὐχἑώρακεν. The Perfect denotes sight continuing in its effect (de Wette, Dόsterdieck, Huther); Lόcke: ἑωρακέναι=to have before one’s eyes; a Lapide: vidit et assidue videt. Socinus goes too far in emphasizing the Perfect so as to make it also intimate that it is enough to have seen and become acquainted with one, and that it is not necessary to have him still before one’s eyes. The saying of Gregory: oculi sunt in amore duces, and the remark of Oecumenius: ἐφελκυστικὸνὅρασιςποὸςἀγάπην, supply what is understood in the inference. Love to God, the Invisible, is difficult; also 1 Peter 1:8 : ὃνοὐκεἰδότεςἀγαπᾶτε express both joy and amazement. He therefore who performs the more difficult task of loving God whom he does not see, must also perform the easier work of loving his brother whom he does see. The Apostle’s object, consequently, is not to lead us from the love to our brother to the love of God, but only to verify the latter by the former; love to God ever remains the first, the deepest and highest work, which must, however, evidence itself in brotherly love. The interrogative form is as strong and authentic as the simple negation; but the anteposition of the object τὸνθεὸνὃνοὐχἑώρακεν greatly intensifies the thought. Πῶς or οὐδύναταιἀγαπᾷν presupposes ἐάντιςεἴπῃ and denotes the supposition of the assertion of loving God [under the circumstances.—M.] to be impossible, and the assertion itself a lie. The Apostle’s argumentum ad hominem applies only to the liar (Dόsterdieck). Bengel: Sermo modalis; impossibile est, ut talis sit amans Dei, in prζsenti. Hence the reference to the imago Dei, which Augustine [apostolus hic pro confesso sumit, Deus se nobis in hominibus offerre, qui inscriptam gerunt ejus imaginem; Johannes nil aliud voluit, quam fallacem esse jactantiam, si quis Deum se amare dicat, et ejus imaginem, quζ ante oculos est, negligat), Sander, Ebrard (who suggests that it is not easier to love one who is visible before us, but has hurt us) and al., find here is by no means warranted, nor that of Grotius who calls man opus Dei pulcherrimum. De Wette also erroneously maintains that God, the ideal, invisible object could only be loved in reality in our brother, the visible, empirical object of love. 1 John 4:21. And this commandment we have from Him.—Καὶ simply adds a new reason: the reference is to a specific commandment. This is a firmius argumentum (Calvin): for quomodo diligis eum, cujus odisti prζceptum? (Augustine). ̓Απ’ αὐτοῦ refers to God (Lόcke, de Wette, Dόsterdieck and al.), not to Christ (Calvin), Sander, Huther and al.). The fact that δεὸν is used afterwards does not militate against the application of αὐτοῦ to θεὸν, since Jesus in His intercessory prayer John 17:3 mentions His own name instead of saying ἐμέ. The analogy of 1 John 1:5; 1 John 2:25 can not upset the context and 1 John 3:23-24, and only indicate that αὐτὸς also may designate Christ, and that not ἐκεῖνος only does designate Him. The ἐντολή is and remains a commandment, and not=ἀγγελία, doctrine (Carpzov). That he who loveth God, love his brother also.—But this commandment is nowhere found; not even at Matthew 22:39. But the Apostle justly puts in the form of a definite Divine command the essential principle of Christian Ethics, which really and fundamentally carries everything which here (1 John 4:7 sqq. 1 John 3:10; 1 John 3:19. cf. John 13:34, etc.) is told of the inviolable duty of brotherly love to those who are born of God and in filial love united to their Father (Dόsterdieck); ἵνα denotes also here the end and aim and not only the substance of the command, as Huther supposes. AND ETHICAL1. God is Love—a sentence, which “is the summary and most simple expression of what the Scripture, the whole Scripture teaches throughout” (Hofmann, Schriftbeweis I. p. 71), and has an important bearing retrospectively and prospectively. Retrospectively it bears even on the Being of God and on the history of God’s revelation in Christ Jesus. If the Being of God is Love it must also be personal and cannot be substance only in the pantheistic sense. Yea, it points to the Trinity or God’s vitality and fulness of life; Him that loves, who is yet not without Him that is loved, and reciprocal Love, as Augustine tried also this purely ethical construction of the Trinity alongside the psychological analogy (memoria, intelligentia, voluntas) in De Trinitate (VI. 1 John 5 : and therefore there are not more than three: One who loves Him who is of Him, and One who loves Him of whom He is, and Love Itself. If this is nothing, how is God Love? If it is not Substance, how is God Substance? XI. 1 John 2 : If I love something there are three,—I, what I love, and Love itself. For I do not love Love, if I do not love Him that loveth, for love is not where nothing is loved); hence he could, according to Romans 5:5, understand in our passage (1 John 4:7) by ἀγάπη the Holy Ghost, while Didymus explained ἀγάπη of Christ. In the middle ages Augustine was particularly followed by Richard of St. Victor, the mystic scholastic, or the scholastic mystic (cf. Liebner, Hugo von St. Victor p. 82 sqq.), in his work De Trinitate, especially III. 14—and in modern times, first of all, by Sartorius: Die heilige Liebe, Part I. p. 1 sqq., and Liebner: Christologie I (in many places). See also Nitzsch on the Essential Trinity of God in the Studien und Kritiken, 1841, pp. 295–345, especially p. 337 sqq. 2. Retrospectively, traces of this truth may be found in the History of the Revelation of God in Exodus 34:6; Psalms 103:8-13; Psalms 86:5; Psalms 86:15; Deuteronomy 32:6; Is. 73:16; Jeremiah 31:9. But. John treats in the most comprehensive manner, with perfect ease and certainty this most profound thought which would never have occurred to any thinker out of his own strength and reason! The heavens declare the glory and majesty of God only, (Psalms 19.) His word alone declares His grace. In nature we meet His handiwork, His Power and Wisdom, in His word alone do we encounter His Love and Mercy. The axioms “God is a Spirit” (John 4:24), and “God is Love” set forth the most vital truths concerning the Nature and Being of God.—“Spirit is His Nature, Love His Life” (Schφberlein), or Spirit is the Substance and Nature, Love the character of God and not only in His attitude. 3. Prospectively this Johannean saying points to the life of knowledge and of demeanour. Sartorius in his “Heilige Liebe” has based on this saying the whole of his Ethics. Cf. also Kφhler, “Gott der allein Gute” (God the Only Good One) in Studien und Kritiken 1856, p, 426 sqq. “Practicam definitionem Dei proponit 1 John 4:8 : Deus caritas est. Ex caritate omnia Dei opera procedunt, et Spiritus Sanctus a Patre et Filio ab ζterno procedens est substantialis amor Patris et Filii. In tempore Deus ex caritate omnia creavit, ex caritate misit Filium ad opus redemtionis: prζstandum, ex caritate dat Spiritum Sanctum, qui similes motus in cordibus credentium accendit, ex caritate in vita ζterna a facie ad faciem beatis sese intuendum prζstabit.—Omnia in caritate et ex caritate agit (Joh. Gerhard Exeg. 2. p. 71). But we must guard against straightway identifying Love, which is the Nature of God, with the Personality of God which is the logical presupposition of the former (against Liebner, i. 1, 111), and to take care not to combine Love with Truth and Righteousness (as does Nitzsch, System § 63. 1), for communication of self is implied in the nature of Love, but not in the nature of truth and holiness, and what becomes of the difference between παιδεία and κόλασις, of the anti-scriptural conception of ἀποκατάστασιςτῶνπάντων and the wrathless God in Origen and Schleiermacher? Cf. Thomasius, Christi Werk und Person, i. p. 127 sqq.; Philippi, Glaubenslehre, 2. p. 79 sqq. 4. The love of God was revealed in the sending of His only begotten Son. 1 John 4:2; 1 John 4:9-10; 1 John 4:12; 1 John 4:14. Hence He is called μονογενής=μόνοςγεννώμενος (John 1:14; John 1:18; John 3:16; John 3:18), and not πρωτότοκος (Romans 8:29; Colossians 1:15; Colossians 1:18; Hebrews 1:6; Revelation 1:5). The greatness of the Sent One and the object of His Mission are designed to mark the love of Him that sent Him. The reference to the first-born would mark the success of the Mission and the work of the Sent One. There is no other proof of the love of the Father, equal to this: Christ, the Son of God by His appearing and message compensates us for the want of seeing the Invisible God (1 John 4:12. John 14:9). Hofmann, Schriftbeweis, 1:71. 5. To see, know, believe on, confess and testify of Jesus the Son of God on the part of the Apostles, to hear, know, believe and confess on the part of the Church, is indispensable to the life-fellowship of God with us, and of us with God, since, through and through ethical, it can only be acquired and preserved by an ethical process. With the new birth out of God, spiritual regeneration, begins the life-process of sanctification. To remain untouched, unmoved in the presence of Jesus, or only to be turned to Him outwardly, or even to turn away from Him, to deny Him in doubt or decided unbelief, is immorality. 6. The nature of this life-fellowship, begun with our regeneration, is mutuality in continuous reciprocity of action; He to and in us, we in Him, believingly knowing and confessing Him, living and loving, we full of confidence, He in His ever prevenient grace and work of grace to and in us. 7. The degrees of development are given by Bengel thus: “Sine timore et amore, cum timore sine amore, cum timore et amore, sine timore cum amore.” And Augustine: “Timor quasi locum prζparat caritati. Si autem nullus timor, non est, qua intret caritas. Timor Dei sic vulnerat, quo medici ferramentum. Timor medicamentum, caritas sanitas. Timor servus est caritatis. Timor est custos et pζdagogus legis, donec veniat caritas.” Though man in his sin begin with servile fear before God, in the presence of God’s Nature of Love and attitude of Love he will progress in filial fear even unto fearlessness and confidence in all humility. 8. Brotherly love is and remains the measure of our life from God, from whom comes all love; he that abides in God, cannot be without love, and he that is without love cannot be in God, nor can God abide in him. He, who is Love, has thus ordained it Himself; it is His Will, His explicit commandment, even as it is in conformity with His Nature. 9. [Wordsworth on 1 John 4:10 : “A statement of the doctrine of the Atonement, and a statement the more remarkable, because it anticipates the objections that have been made to it in later times.—These objections have taken the following form. God, it is said, is Love (1 John 4:8). He loves us, and He loves His only-begotten Son. We are sinners; and as long as we are sinners, and without pardon from God, we have no hope of heaven. As sinners we owe an infinite debt to God, which we can never pay. But God is infinite in Love; He willeth not that any should perish (2 Peter 3:9), but that all should be saved (1 Timothy 2:4). He can forgive us the debt. He can do this freely. To suppose that He cannot do so, is to set limits to His Omnipotence. To imagine that He will not do so, is to disparage His Love. To allege, that He will require an equivalent for the debt, is to represent the God of mercy as a rigorous exactor, and to believe that He required such a price for our pardon, as the blood of His own beloved Son, and that He exposed Him who is perfectly innocent, to the death of the cross for our sakes, at the hands of wicked men, is to charge God with cruelty, injustice and weakness; and to suppose Him to be angry with us, at the same time that we say that “He loved us,” and gave His only Son to die for us (1 John 3:16; 1 John 4:10), is, it is alleged, to involve ourselves in inconsistency, and to misrepresent God, as if He were affected by human passions. And lastly, to say that Christ shed His blood as a ransom to deliver us from the captivity of Satan, is, it is argued, to make the Son of God tributary to the Evil One. Such are the objections made by Socinians and others, to the doctrine of the Atonement.—These objections rest on fallacious grounds. They proceed on the supposition that as sinners we are only debtors to God. But in His relation to us, God is not only a Creditor, but He is our Lawgiver and Judge, our King and Lord; and He is perfectly just and holy. Besides, as St. John teaches (1 John 3:4), the, essence of sin is, that it is a violation of God’s Law, and all are sinners (1 John 1:10). And God represents Himself in Scripture as a Moral Governor, infinite in justice, and when we contemplate Him as He is represented by Himself in His own Word, and when we regard sin as it is in His sight, and as it is described in the Holy Scriptures, we must conclude that He is grievously offended by sin; and He has declared in His word that He is angry with it and will punish it. The wrath of God is revealed against all ungodliness (Romans 1:18). The wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23).—But this proposition is not at variance, as has been alleged, with St. John’s declaration, that God loved us, and sent His own Son, the only begotten, that we might live through Him; and that herein consists Love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us, and sent His Son a propitiation for our sins. That which God loved in us was not our sin, but our nature. It was that nature which God Himself had made in His own likeness, and which we had marred, and which He desired to repair. And because He hates sin, and knows its consequences, even death eternal, and because He loved our nature which was exposed by it to everlasting perdition; and because being infinitely just, He must punish sin, which He, who is infinitely pure, must hate, and which He who is infinitely true, has declared that He will punish; and because the sins of the whole world are so heinous, and because they demand a satisfaction infinite in value, and because without shedding of blood there is no remission (Hebrews 9:22); therefore, in His immense love for our nature, which He had made and which we had marred by sin, He sent His own Son, God of God, to take that Nature, the Nature of us all, in order to be the substitute of all, and Saviour of all, and to become our Emmanuel, God with us (Matthew 1:23), God manifest in the flesh (1 Timothy 3:16), partaking of our flesh and blood and to be the Lord our Righteousness (Jeremiah 23:6; Jeremiah 33:16), and to suffer death, the wages of sin, in our nature, as our Proxy and Representative, and to appease God’s wrath by an adequate propitiation, and to take away our guilt, and to redeem us from bondage and death by the priceless ransom of His own blood, and to deliver us by His death from him who had the power of it, even the devil, and to reconcile us to God, and to restore us to His favour, and to effect our atonement with Him, and to purchase for us the heavenly inheritance of everlasting life. See Hebrews 2:14; Hebrews 2:17.—As Origen says (in Matthew 16.): “Homo quidem non potest dare aliquam commutationem pro anima sua (Psalms 49:9; Matthew 16:26); Deus autem pro animabus omnium dedit commutationem, pretiosum sanguinem Filii sui (1 Peter 1:18).” “Si non fuisset peccatum, non necesse fuerat Filium Dei Agnum fieri; nec opus fuerat Eum in carne positum jugulari; sed mansisset hoc, quod in principio erat, Deus Verbum. Verum, quoniam introiit peccatum in hunc mundum, peccatiautem necessitas propitiationem requirit, et propitiatio non fit nisi per hostiam, necessarium fuit pro-videri hostiam pro peccato.” (ibid. hom. 4 in Num.) If it be said that according to this statement the just suffer for the unjust, and that the beloved Son of God was delivered to death for the offences of those who did hot love Him, but were at enmity with Him, this is perfectly true; it is the assertion of God Himself in Holy Scripture, see 1 Peter 3:18; 2 Corinthians 5:21; 1 Peter 1:19.—The Just suffered for the unjust. Yes, suffered for a time. But this is not at variance with daily experience. Parents suffer for children; brethren for brethren; friends for friends; subjects for sovereigns, and sovereigns for subjects. And if we are to reject the doctrine of the Atonement on the plea that vicarious sufferings are not reconcilable with justice, we cannot stop short of Deism or even of Atheism. Cf. Bp. Butler’s Analogy of Religion. Part II. 1 John 5. If any victim was to take away sin, that victim must be innocent. In order to take away infinite guilt, it must be infinitely innocent. The price paid for Infinite Justice must be infinite in value. In order to suffer for men the victim must be human; and in order to satisfy God, it must be Divine. Be it remembered also that the Son of God suffered willingly. He gave Himself a ransom for all (1 Timothy 2:6). The Good Shepherd giveth His life for the sheep (John 10:11). Cf. Matthew 20:28; Galatians 1:4; Galatians 2:20; Ephesians 5:2; Titus 2:14; Hebrews 9:14.—They also for whom He gave Himself are His own flesh and blood. He is their Head, they His members. They are one with Him.—Still further.—By His meritorious sufferings in that human nature, which He has taken, and joined forever in His own Person to the Nature of God, He has delivered that nature from sin and death, and has exalted it to the right hand of God. Therefore He suffered joyfully. To do evil is indeed evil; and to suffer evil in eternity, is dreadful; but to suffer evil in time, in order that others by our means may be happy in eternity, is not evil, but glorious. Earthly conquerors die with joy in the hour of victory. Much more Christ. He knew that suffering was His path to glory. He knew that because he was obedient to death, even to the death of the cross, therefore God would highly exalt Him, and give Him a Name above every name (Philippians 2:8-9). He saw of the travail of His soul and was satisfied (Isaiah 53:11). Doubtless, in His human flesh He shrank from the cup of agony and from the anguish of the cross. But even in the glorious hour of His transfiguration He had talked with Moses and Elias of His death (Luke 9:31). His Divine eye pierced through the clouds of suffering, and saw the visions of glory to which it would lead, a victory over Satan, a world rescued from his grasp, God’s justice satisfied, His wrath appeased, His love glorified; and so the cross became a triumphal chariot, in which the Conqueror rode in victory (Colossians 2:14), and mounted to heaven, and bore mankind with Him through the gates of the heavenly palace of the everlasting capital and was greeted by the song of the angels; “Lift up your heads,” etc. Psalms 24:7. It has been alleged that if by sin we were prisoners to Satan, therefore the price of Christ’s blood which He paid upon the cross for our liberation from Satan was paid to Satan. But this we deny. See Greg. Nazianzen, Orat. 45, p. 862, ed. Paris, 1778. It might as well be said that the ransom paid for the delivery of prisoners from a king’s prison, is paid to the gaoler in whose custody they are. We, by our sins, had made ourselves slaves of Satan: and as a just punishment for our sins, we were made prisoners of Satan. Satan was God’s executioner against us. He was our gaoler. Tophet is ordained of old (Isaiah 30:33), as one of God’s instruments of death (Psalms 7:14). But Christ, by dying for us, delivered us from death. He rescued us from the hands of Satan, and paid the price of our ransom, not to Satan, but to God. He delivered us from Satan by offering Himself to God. (Cf. Romans 3:23-26). They who contravene the doctrine of the Atonement often claim the credit of exercising their Reason, and deny that unbelief of the doctrine of the Atonement rests on the foundation of reason. But a right use of reason leads to a firm belief in the doctrine of the Atonement; and a denial of it proceeds from an abuse of reason.— The doctrine of the Atonement cannot be discovered by reason. No; but we can prove by reason that the Holy Scriptures are from God, and that the doctrine of the Atonement is clearly revealed in the Holy Scriptures. And thus this doctrine rests on the foundation of reason. Being a portion of supernatural truth revealed by God in Scripture to the world, it is not to be discovered by reason, or fully comprehended by reason, but it is to be heartily embraced and surely held fast by faith, which implies a right use of reason. And reason teaches us, that it would be very unreasonable to expect, that what is contained in a revelation from such a Being as God to so frail a creature as man, in his present state on earth, should be fully comprehended by reason; and that, if reason could understand everything, there would be no use in revelation, and no place for faith. Right reason itself teaches us that to deny the Lord who bought us (2 Peter 2:1), because we cannot understand, why God allowed sin to prevail, which required the sacrifice of the death of His own ever-blessed Son, would be to renew the indignities of the crucifixion, and to smite our Redeemer with a reed, the reed of our unregenerate reason, when we ought to fall down and worship in faith. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ 1 John 5:1-121 Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that 2loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him. By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments. 3For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments 4are not grievous. For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith. 5Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God? 6This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. 7For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. 9If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son. 10He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son. 11And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 12He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. NOTE ON VERSES 7 AND 8 After ὅτιτρεῖςεἰσὶνοἱμαρτυροῦντες in 1 John 5:7, follows: ἐντῷοὐρανῷ, ὁπατήρ, ὁλόγοςκαὶτὸἅγιονπνεῦμα. καὶοὖτοιοἱτρεῖςἕνεἰσιν 1 John 5:8, καὶτρεῖςεἰσὶνοἱμαρτυροῦντεςἐντῇγῇ.—Thus Cod. 173, not however in the original Cod. of the 11th century, but only in a copy of it made in the 16th century; Codd. 34 and 162, belonging to the same period, viz. the 15th and 16th centuries, omit the words καὶοἱτρεῖςτὸἕνεἰσιν, and the Articles before πατὴρ, λόγος and ἅγιονπνεῦμα, which shows the mechanical translation from the Vulgate. Said words are wanting in all the Greek Codices, also in the Codex Sinaiticus, in almost all the ancient versions, including the Latin, as late as the 8th century, and since that time they are found in three variations. Notwithstanding the trinitarian controversies, they are not referred to by a single Greek Father, or by any of the older Latin Church Fathers. For the allusions of Tertullian (adv. Prax. 25. connexus Patris in filio et filii in Paracleto, tres efficit cohζrentes alterum ex altero; qui tres unum sunt), and of Cyprian (ep. ad Jubaianum: cum tres unum sunt) are to John 10:30; John 16:5; and if the latter says in De Unitate Ecclesiζ p. 79. “Dicit Dominus: ego et Pater unum sumus; et iterum de Patre et Filio et Spiritu Sancto Scriptum est: et hi tres unum sunt, the reference in iterum is clearly to this place, but to 1 John 5:8, to wit, according to the symbolical interpretation [of the words τὸπνεῦμα, τὸὕδωρ and τὸαἶμα of the Trinity, as given in the Schol. by Matthζi: οἱτρεῖςδὲεἶπενἀρσενικῶς, ὅτισύμβολαταῦτατῆςτριάδος, and in the Schol.: τουτέστιτὸπνεῦματὸἅγιονκαὶὁπατὴρκαὶαὐτὸςἑαυτοῦ, and on ἕνεἰσιν: τουτέστιμίαθεότης, εἶςθεός], as Facundus of Hermiane in the 6th century understood Cyprian, in Pro defens. trium capitum 1, 3 [tres sunt qui testimonium dant (in terra?). Spiritus, aqua et sanguis, hi tres unum sunt. … quod Joannis apostoli testimonium Cyprianus. … de Patre, Filio et Spiritu Sancto intelligit.—M.], who was not unacquainted with and free from mystical interpretations (the seamless coat, a type of Church unity, etc.). The aforecited Greek scholia contain unmistakable traces of the allegorical interpretation. The reading may gradually have originated in them and the passages from Cyprian, whose interpretation of the Persons of the Trinity was placed in juxtaposition with the text on which it was based. These words were mentioned first in a work which is to be ascribed to Vigilius of Thapsus, at the close of the 5th century; they occur more frequently afterwards and are found in most Latin translations [also in several German translations made from the Vulgate—M.]. After a Greek translation of the transactions of the Lateran Council of 1215 they were first inserted in Greek in the Complutensian edition (of 1502 to 1514). Erasmus, who did not insert them in his editions of the Greek New Testament of 1516 and 1518, received them in the version of 1521, and the third edition of 1522, yielding to the pressure of the Church (pium est, nostrum sensum semper ecclesiζ judicio submittere), and with reference to the Codex Britannicus (=codex 34), in order to justify himself before the learned. [Erasmus had committed himself to their insertion if they were found in any Greek Manuscript. Learning that they were found in said Codex Britannicus, he inserted them in the 3rd edition of 1522 and added the note: “Ex hoc igitur Codice Britannico reposuimus, quod in nostris dicebatur deesse: ne cui sit ansa calumniandi. Tametsi suspicor codicem illum ad nostros esse correctum.”—M.]. Then Robert Stephanus received them 1546–1569, Beza 1565–1576 and the Text. Recept. sanctioned the citizenship of this reading. Luther never translated these words, but commented upon them in his second commentary on this Epistle, although he had pronounced them spurious in his first commentary. They are omitted in all German Wittenberg Bibles from 1522–1545; they are first inserted in Lehmann’s Quarto Wittenberg edition of 1596, although they are still wanting in later editions and in the Quarto edition of 1620. They appear first in the Zόrich edition of 1529; the next edition of 1531 has this passage in smaller type, the later editions insert it in brackets, which were not abandoned until 1597. The Basle edition of 1552 gives it already without brackets. Of the Frankfort editions, the Quarto of 1582 was the first in which this passage is inserted, although it is omitted in the Octavo edition of the same year. It was of no avail that Luther considered these words as a clumsy addition directed against the Arians which was wanting in the Greek Bibles, and that Bugenhagen, on the appearance in 1549, of a lectionary, containing these words, at Wittenberg, gave this warning: “Obsecro chalcographos et eruditos viros, ut illam additionem omittant et restituant grζca suζ priori integritati et puritati propter veritatem.”—The genuineness of this passage was still attempted to be defended in the 17th century. Lastly Bengel still upheld it [but with the arbitrary assumption, that the text read originally thus: “ὅτιτρεῖςεἰσινοἱμαρτυροῦντεςἐντῇγῇ. Τὸπνεῦμακ. τ. λ. εἰςτὸἕνεἰσιν. 1 John 5:8. Καὶτρεῖςεἰσινοἱμαρτυροῦντεςἐντῷοὐρανῷ, ὁπατὴρ, ὁλόγοςκαὶτὸἅγιονπνεῦμακαὶοὖτοιοἱτρεῖςἕνεἰσιν. Apparat. Crit.—M.], who was followed by v. Meyer, Sander, Besser and Mayer.—Compare Griesbach’s diatribe ad h. l. in ed. a. 1806; Rickli on this passage; Tischendorf editio major 1859, tom. 2. p. 225–228.—This critical, external evidence is fully sustained by internal evidence, viz. the exegetical reasons against these words. The idea of a witness ἐντῷοὺρανῷ cannot be carried out. Hence certain commentators, e.g. a Lapide, change the testari in c�lo into a testari de c�lo, or find in it a description of the nature of the testimony (S. Schmidt, Spener), or of the witnesses (Bengel). Moreover the collocation of the words ὁπατήρ and ὁλόγος is altogether contrary to John’s diction, which gives only ὁθεὸς and ὁλόγος or ὁπατήρ and ὁυἱός in juxtaposition (John 1:1 sqq.; John 5:21 sqq.; John 14:9 sqq.) Again τὸἕν can only be interpreted of unity of essence and the context affords no ground for such an interpretation. The advocates of the passage have also recourse to arbitrary expedients, e.g. Bengel who places 1 John 5:8 before 1 John 5:7 [see above—M.]. Lastly we cannot consider them to have been inserted by orthodox Christians against the Arians (as Luther thinks), the reference being to a testimony on earth. The fact is that they cannot be used without arbitrariness grammatically, dialectically or logically. Cf. Huther 2d edition, p. 228 sq.—[Huther: Luther remarks on this passage: “It seems that this verse was inserted by the orthodox with reference to the Arians, which insertion however was not congruous, because he does not discourse of the witnesses in heaven, but of the witnesses on earth, here and there.” This is the opinion of most modern expositors, excepting Besser and Sander. If we look at the contents of the whole Epistle, it is indeed not difficult to harmonize the thought of the three witnesses in heaven with scattered sayings in this Epistle; but it does not follow from this that it is appropriate or even necessary at the place where it occurs. On the contrary this is manifestly not the case, since neither the verses immediately following or preceding, with which 1 John 5:7 is intimately connected by ὅτι, contain any reference whatsoever to such a trinitarian testimony in heaven. The specification of the three witnesses: πνεῦμα, ὕδωρ, αἶμα, is clearly and plainly substantiated by what precedes, but this is not the case with respect to that of the three witnesses: ὁπατήρ, ὁλόγος, τὸπνεῦμαἅγιον; this trinity is introduced abruptly, without any preparation; but the sequel also militates against it, especially since it is altogether uncertain which testimony is meant by the μαρτυρίατουθεοῦ, 1 John 5:9, that of the three in heaven, or that of the three on earth.—To this must be added that these two different testimonies are placed in juxtaposition without being connected together; it is said, indeed, that the two three witnesses agree together, but nothing is said of the relation of the two threes to one another.—The thought per se, moreover, lacks clearness; for what are we to understand by a testimony in heaven? Bengel (with whom Sander agrees) says indeed: “Non fertur testimonium in cζlo, sed in terra: qui autem testantur, sunt in terra, sunt in cζlo; i.e. illi sunt naturζ terrestris et humanζ, hi autem naturζ divinζ et gloriosζ.” But the untenableness of this proposition is evident, on the one hand, from the circumstance that ἐντῷοὐρανῷ does not belong to εἰσιν, but to μαρτυροῦντες, that consequently the text absolutely says nothing of a being in heaven, but asserts a testifying in heaven, and on the other, from the consideration that the πνεῦμα which is afterwards connected with ὕδωρ and αἶμα is to be conceived as something earthly and human.—Add to this the non-johannean character of the diction, for though in John we meet the collocations ὁθεός and ὁλόγος, and ὁπατήρ and ὁυἱός, we never encounter that of ὁπατήρ and ὁλόγος; Sander, to be sure, has recourse to the rather easy expedient of assuming here an ἅπαξλεγόμενον, but that assumption cannot be admitted here, because those words are of constant occurrence in John—and the collocation is not accidental, but founded on the nature of the case. The interpolator evidently wrote λόγος because he thought that term to be purely Johannean, not reflecting however that its connection with πατήρ was un-johannean. Lastly, καὶοὖτοιοἱτρεῖςἕνεἰσι, is also surprising. Bengel explains: Unum sunt essentia, notitia, voluntate, atque adeo consensu testimonii; and properly begins with the unity of essence, for that is indicated by said words—but this unity of essence is irrelevant here, where the reference is rather to the unity of the testimony.—I subjoin here also Sir Isaac Newton’s Paraphrastic Exposition: “Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God, that Son spoken of in the Psalms, where He saith, ‘Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.’ This is He that, after the Jews had long expected Him, came, first in a mortal body, by baptism of water, and then in an immortal one by shedding His blood upon the cross, and rising again from the dead; not by water only, but by water and blood, being the Son of God, as well as by His supernatural birth of the Virgin (Luke 1:35). And it is the Spirit also, that together with the water and the blood, beareth witness of the truth of His coming; because the Spirit is truth, and so a fit and unexceptionable witness. For there are three that bear record of His coming; the Spirit, which He promised to send, and which was since sent forth upon us in the form of cloven tongues, and of various gifts; the baptism of water, wherein God testified, ‘this is my beloved Son;’ and the shedding of His blood, accompanied with the resurrection, whereby He became the most faithful martyr or witness of the truth. And these three, the Spirit, the baptism, and passion of Christ, agree in witnessing one and the same thing (namely, that the Son of God is come); and therefore their evidence is strong: for the Law requires but two consenting witnesses, and here we have three, and if we receive the witness of men, the threefold witness of God, which He bare of His Son, by declaring at His baptism ‘This is my beloved Son,’ by raising Him from the dead, and by pouring out His Spirit upon us, is greater; and therefore ought to be more readily received.“—“This,” Sir Isaac Newton observes, “is the sense plain and natural, and the argument full and strong; but if you insert the testimony of the three in heaven, you interrupt and spoil it; for the whole design of the Apostle being here to prove to men by witness the truth of Christ’s coming, I would ask how the testimony of the ‘three in heaven’ makes to this purpose? If their testimony be not given to men, how does it prove to them the truth of Christ’s coming? If it be (given), how is the testimony in heaven distinguished from that on earth? It is the same Spirit which witnesses in heaven and in earth. If in both cases it witnesses to us men, wherein lies the difference between its witnessing in heaven and its witnessing in earth? If in the first case it does not witness to them to whom does it witness? And to what purpose? And how does its witnessing make to the design of St. John’s discourse? Let them make good sense of it who are able. For my part, I can make none. If it be said, that we are not to determine what is Scripture, and what not, by our private judgments, I confess it in places not controverted, but in disputable places, I love to take what I can best understand.”—M.]. AND Connection. That which in the preceding verses had been repeatedly noticed as a proof of the love of God, the appearing of Jesus Christ (1 John 5:9-10; 1 John 5:14; 1 John 5:19), and as the immediate consequence of it, had been indicated as the exhibition of our life-fellowship with God,—faith, knowledge and confession—(1 John 5:15-16), the Apostle places with emphatic prominence at the end of this section with a primary reference to brotherly love (1 John 5:1), then with respect to the love of God and obedience to His commandment (1 John 5:2-3), with reference to the victory over the world (1 John 5:4), viz. faith in Jesus the Christ (v. la), the Son of God (1 John 5:5), who is confirmed as such by God Himself (1 John 5:6-9), and in His work or gift, eternal life (1 John 5:10-12). Bengel: “Concinne Apostolus in hac tractationis parte mentionem amoris ita collocat ut fides tanquam prora et puppis totius tractationis, in extremo spectetur.”Efficacy of faith in Christ. 1 John 5:1-5. 1 John 5:1. Every one that believeth that Jesus is Christ, is born of God.—The only limitation of the universality (πᾶς) is believing (πιστεύων) and the object of faith (ὅτιἸησοῦςἐστινὁχριστὸς); the faith may be weak and imperfect, provided that it be sincere (subjective) and right (objective), and consequently true. This believing involves knowledge, inclination, yielding and trust and genders susceptibility for receiving. It is clear from 1 John 5:5 that ὁχριστὸς refers to the inward nature of Him that has been manifested,=ὁυἱὸςτοῦθεοῦ, although these ideas are not identical and may occur in juxtaposition (1 John 3:23): the Divine Sonship makes the Man Jesus the Christ=Saviour. Cf. 1 John 4:15; 1 John 2:22. The tenses, the Present πιστεύων and the Perfect γεγέννηται denote the regeneration, the birth out of God as the ground, and faith, which is a Divine work (Ephesians 2:8), as the consequence; only a child of God believes in Jesus the Son of God. And every one that loveth Him that begot him, loveth also him that is begotten of Him.—Πᾶςὁἀγαπῶν is a parallel of πᾶςὁπιστεύων, and gives prominence to what was given along with and received in faith. Hence there is no need of an ellipsis to be filled up, like that specified by Huther: “he that is born of God loveth God.” The object (γεννήσαντα) is evidently God, and hence ἐξαὐτοῦ ?=θεοῦ, and τὸνγεγεννημένονἐξαὐτοῦ denotes the believer (1 John 5:2 : τἀτέκνατοῦθεοῦ). Argumentum ex communi naturζ ordine sumtum (Calvin), or a propensione naturali, quζ cernitur in hominibus (Estius). Cf. Ephesians 5:28-30. The reference therefore is not to Christ as maintained by Augustine, Hilary and others. The Present ἀγαπᾷ by the side of ὁἀγαπῶν denotes the interconnection of brotherly love and the love of God [i.e. our love of our brother and of God—M.], the simultaneousness and duration of the relation of both. The Apostle lays it down as a fact, not as something which he requires; he shall love. 1 John 5:2. In this we know, that we love the children of God, when we love God and keep His commandments.—It is clear that the reference here is to something which every one may and must know from his own experience and not from that of others. Again it is clear that this something is brotherly love, even the love to our brethren, who are τέκναθεοῦ. Lastly it is clear that the token and sign of it is our love to God and our keeping His commandments. For ὅταν followed by the Indicative ἀγαπῶμεν (Winer, p. 325), is a conditional particle, although it is qualified by the idea of time, =whensoever; there may be fluctuations, disturbances, pauses, or ebbs in our love to God; but when it is in us, brotherly love surely is also in us. Hence John annexes to ἀγαπῶμεντὸνθεόν, τὰςἐντολὰςαὐτοῦτηρῶμεν in order to designate the living love to God by an obedience rooted in the love of God, so that brotherly love should be considered as one of the commandments of God, and, at the same time, as the necessary consequence of our love to God, as of the necessary ground. [Huther: He that loves God, has in this his love a testimony that he also loves his brethren, even as τέκνατοῦθεοῦ ?—because brotherly love is the necessary consequence of the love of God; but the converse is also true, that he who loves the brethren, has in this his love a testimony that he also loves God, because his love to God is the necessary ground of his love to the brethren. Alford: And indeed so inseparable are the two, that as before 1 John 4:20, our love to our brethren was made a sign and necessary condition of our love to God, so conversely, our love to God, ascertained by our keeping His commandments, is itself the measure of our love to the children of God. Either of the two being found to be present, the presence of the other follows.—M.]. While John elsewhere (1 John 2:3; 1 John 4:20-21) makes the knowledge of God and love to God to be ascertained from our keeping His commandments and loving our brethren, i.e. the ground from the consequence, so he conversely makes us ascertain the consequence from the ground, which, considering the unity of the Divine life, is the less surprising, since the former references point to the truth and purity of our disposition, while here the concluding reference is to the consolation which we need in the discharge of an important and difficult duty. Hence it is wrong and unnecessary, to assume here, with Grotius following Oecumenius, a trajection, or to construe, with de Wette, the sentence τὸνθεὸνἀγαπῶμεν as simply accompanying the sentence immediately following, so that obedience is to be considered only as emanating from the love to God, or still worse, to alter the text, as some of the ancient versions (the Ethiopic and Arabic), and several unimportant expositors, have dared to do. [Calvin also gives a wrong turn to the thought in the remark: “Nunc docet, recte et ordine amari homines, quum Deus priores obtinet; vult sic mutuam coli inter nos caritatem, ut Deus, praeferatur.”—M.]. 1 John 5:3. For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments.—The connection of our love to God with our keeping His commandments doubtless occasioned this saying, in order to take in its unity that which had been treated as simply coφrdinate [viz. the ideas expressed in the two preceding clauses.—M.]. Huther.—Αὕτη—ἵνα, as in 1 John 1:9; 1 John 4:17, denotes the requirement and tendency of love; ἐστιν describes its nature, not=it implies, it includes the effort (de Wette). The context (1 John 5:2) shows that the love of God here is our love to God. And His commandments are not grievous; this clause is added by John “encouragingly in the full and joyous consciousness of his Divine sonship,” (Dόsterdieck). Cf. Matthew 11:30 : φορτίονἐλαφρόν; Luke 11:46; φορτίαδυσβάστακτα. The connection requires us to apply this only to regenerate Christians, to whom is given the ability to keep the commandments of God. So most Commentators. Cf. Doctrinal and Ethical on this section below. [Oxford Catena: εἴτιςπροσελθὼναὐταῖςμὴὃνδεῖτρόπονλέγειαὐτὰςβαρείας, τὴνἑαυτοῦἀσθένειανᾐτιάσατο. Φίλονγὰρτοῖςἄγανἀποβάλλουσινἰσχὺνβαρέανομίζεσθαικαὶτὰπανύἐλαφρὰκαὶκοῦφα.—Spener: “The reference is to the difficulty of a burden so oppressive as to be insupportable and painful.”—Calov: “Dicit ea non esse gravia, quia non aggravant, aut instar molis onerosζ premunt renatum.”—Huther: “The commandments of God as the requirements of man created after His Image, cannot be difficult to man; but if they are, the reason is, that man has left his original relation to God; they are not difficult to the believer, because, as the child of God, he has returned to the original relation of love to God.”—Alford: “This declaration, that His commandments are not grievous, has, as did 1 John 3:9, furnished some of the Roman Catholic Commentators with an opportunity of characterizing very severely the Protestant position that none can keep God’s commandments. But here as there the reply is obvious and easy. The course of the Apostle’s argument here, as introduced in the next verse by ὅτι, substantiates this βαρεῖαιοὐκεἰσίν by showing that all who are born of God are standing in and upon the victory which their faith has obtained over the world. In this victorious state, and in as far as they have advanced into it, in other words in proportion as the Divine life is developed and dominant in them, do they find those commandments not grievous. If this state, in its ideality, were realized in them, there would be no difficulty for them in God’s commandments; it is because, and in so far as sin is still reigning in their mortal bodies and their wills are unsubdued to God’s will, that any βάρος remains in keeping those commandments.” The reader is also reminded of Augustine’s saying, “Da quod jubes et jube quod vis” (Confess. 10, 29), and referred to Ausonius (ad. Theodos. 13), “Juvat-qui Jubet,” and Bp. Sanderson, Serm 3. p. 316.—M.]. 1 John 5:4. Because all that is born of God overcometh the world.—Now follows (ὅτι) the reason why the commandments of God are not grievous. Hence πᾶντὸγεγεννημένον as in John 3:6; John 17:2 (πᾶν—αὐτοῖς, like here πᾶν—ἡμῶν), denotes universality. See notes on 1 John 1:1, Winer, p. 191, 5=πάντεςοἱγεγεννημένοι. The reference is to persons, not to disposition, virtutes and charismata (Oecumenius, Paulus), or to the dignity of the Divine sonship (Baumgarten-Crusius).—Κόσμος is here taken collectively, as the opposite of the kingdom of God, as whatever opposes its progress, estranged from and hostile to God and the Divine, within and without men (Calvin [quicquid adversum est Dei spiritui. Ita naturζ nostrζ pravitas pars mundi est, omnes concupiscentiζ, omnes Satanζ actus, quicquid denique nos a Deo abstrahit.—M.], Beza, Spener, Lόcke, Dόsterdieck, Huther, and al.); hence not merely inwardly the love of the world and of self (de Wette), or outwardly homines virtute et pietate adversantes, their machinationes, even to the persecutiones (Grotius), nor merely ecclesia judaica et judaismus (Schφttgen). [Alford: “The argument then is this: The commandments of God are not grievous: for, although in keeping them there is ever a conflict, yet that conflict issues in universal victory: the whole mass of the born of God conquer the world: therefore none of us need contemplate failure, or faint under his struggle as a hard one.”—M.].—The Present νικᾷ denotes the constant victory in the conflict to be endured; “the children of God fight with the world only as conquerors” (Dόsterdieck), cf. 1 John 2:13-14; 1 John 4:4. But νικᾷν must not be diluted into “keeping oneself, unseduced” (Baumgarten-Crusius). And this is the victory which hath overcome the world: our faith.—Αὕτηνίκη refers to πίστις, ἡμῶν is not explained here but in the next verse. Νίκη, being further qualified by νικήσασα, does not denote the action which conquers the world (Ebrard), but victoria parta, the fact of the victory, the faith, not the cause of, but the participation in the victory and the reception of the power of continuing, maintaining and consummating the victory. Lorinus: “Victoria proprie non vincit, sed comparatur vincendo, sed energiam continet ea formula, denotans in quo sita sit vincendi ratio, unde victoria parta.” Huther: “Faith is here intended to be extolled not as the result of a conflict, but as the combatant who has gained the victory.” Hence faith itself is not yet the victory (Baumgarten-Crusius, Neander), nor must the Aorist be explained to former, departed Christians (Socinus). Cf. 1 John 2:13-14; 1 John 2:23; 1 John 4:4; 1 John 5:12. 1 John 5:5. But who is it that overcometh the world, if not he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God.—While 1 John 5:4 brought in ἡμῶνπίστις, this verse gives emphatic prominence to the contents of the faith qualified by ἡμῶν in a triumphant question well suited to this section of the victory over the world. Bengel: Credens omnis et solus vincit. Episcopius: Lustrate universum mundum et ostendite mihi vel unum, de quo vere affirmari possit, quod mundum vincat, qui christianus et fide hac prζditus non sit. The Apostle, in this question, appeals to the experience of his Church. The Present ὁνικῶν, which, with respect to the fact: ἡνίκηνικήσασα (1 John 5:4), denotes the person conquering in the conflict, indicates the existing and present attitude and relation of the believer. But by the variation: ὅτι—ὁυἱὸςτοῦθεοῦ instead of ὁχριστός 1 John 5:1, the Apostle refers to the essential glory of Jesus, and also to the fact that believers, as partakers of His glory and. as the children of God, of course conquer with. Him and participate in His victory. The believer, who is Christ’s and whose is Christ the Son of God, is a conqueror in his character of being a child of God. If only faith is true, and, the believer born again, born of God, which may be ascertained from love to the brethren and love to God and a hearty obedience to the commandments of God,—the victory over the world also is indubitable. And with this the Apostle is here particularly concerned. Jesus is really confirmed as the Son of God. 1 John 5:6-9. 1 John 5:6. This is He that came by water and blood, Jesus Christ.—Οὖτος refers to the Person Jesus, whose dignity is proved and confirmed. Ὁἐλθών must be taken substantively as at 1 John 1:5; John 1:15; John 1:33; John 3:13; John 3:31; the Article requires this and forbids the connection of the Participle with the preceding ἐστιν, as if it were=this one came; for we read not ἐστινἐλθὼν, but ἐστινὁἐλθών. But we must here hold fast the usual form of the Partic. Aoristi, which simply narrates that which has happened, and does not denote present events or past events continuing in the present; this would require ἐρχόμενος or ἐληλυθώς (1 John 4:2). How He came is stated in the words δι’ ὕδατοςκαὶαἵματος, viz. by means of, by water and blood; διὰ denotes the medium; immediately afterwards we have ἐνὕδατι, which indicates surrounding or accompaniment. There must therefore be facts, and facts at once historical and external, by which He came, and which are important and efficacious to demonstrate Him, who He is. Moreover the connection of the two requires us to understand acts equal in kind and relation. Hence we must explain δι’ ὕδατοςκαὶαἵματος of the baptism, which He received of John in Jordan and which by its immersion pointed to death, while the voice of the Father uttered over Him pointed out His filial dignity, and of His death upon the cross with its atoning sacrificial virtue; in both facts He proved His obedience to the will of the Father, while His obedience proved Him to be the Son of God, the Holy and Innocent One.—Now the apposition Ἰησοῦς=οὗτος, χριστὸς=ὁελθώνδι’ ὕδατοςκαὶαἵματος, comprises what is here said into one whole as the result. A similar turn may be seen in Romans 1:3-4. Consequently we must not, contrary to the grammar and the dialectics of the text, refer οὗτος to the Predicate ὁυἱὸςτοῦθεοῦ 1 John 5:5 (with Knapp, Huther 1st ed.), but to the Subject (Lόcke), or to the Subject qualified by the Predicate (Huther 2d ed.); we must and cannot explain contrary to grammatical usage (Matthew 11:3; Luke 7:19 sq.; John 11:27), ὁἐλθών of the Messiah, like ὁἐρχόμενος, and connect ἐστιν with δι’ ὕδατοςκαὶαἵματος (Hofmann, Schriftbeweis ii. 1, p. 469), or take ἐστινἐλθὼν as a circumlocution of the verbum finitum the Article notwithstanding, and thus overlooking the force of the Aorist, explain it as a Present: He comes (Luther and al.), or as a Perfect: He has come and comes (de Wette, Sander and al.). There is no reference here to the water and blood which flowed from His side pierced on the cross (John 19:34, Augustine and al.), because the passage in John has αἶμα before ὕδωρ, and because that does not constitute a phase of His life, but is something which, after death had set in, took place in His body, so that concerning it we cannot predicate ὁἐλθὼνδιά. The symbolical reference of this passage to the two Sacraments, Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, is inadmissible (Luther I, S. Schmid, Bengel, Sander, Besser and al.), since the term ἐληλυθὼς is not used here, and αἰμα is not used to describe the Lord’s Supper; but since the two ideas are parallel, ὕδωρ cannot be referred to the Sacrament of Baptism (ὕδωρ moreover cannot be made to designate Baptism John 1:26; John 1:33), as instituted by Christ, nor αἶμα to the death He suffered (de Wette, Rickli, Dόsterdieck, Ebrard and al.), nor both together to Baptism only (Luther I), since Baptism was administered into the death of Christ; the double reference is, by all means, to be held fast. It is either historically or grammatically unwarranted to explain ὕδωρ of vita purissima (Grotius), doctrina pura (Socinus), regeneratio et fides (Clemens Alex.), of tears, and αἷμα of the blood shed at the circumcision, expiatio (Cameron), redemptio (Bullinger), cognitio (Clemens Alex.). Compare particularly Huther on this passage. [Huther, who has changed his view expressed in the first ed. of his commentary, says in the 2d ed. p. 221. “There are two points in the life of Jesus which answer to the terms ὕδωρ and αἷμα, to wit, His Baptism at the beginning of His Messianic career, and His bloody death at the end of the same; by Baptism Jesus entered upon His office, which is the office of reconciliation; it constitutes the initiatio (Erdmann, Myrberg) of it; this initiation, however, did not take place only by that which occurred during His Baptism, but by the act of the Baptism itself, since thereby Christ consecrated Himself to death, which was symbolized by the act of immersion; by His death He effected reconciliation in cancelling with His Blood the debt of the world of sinners, for χωρὶςαἱματεκχυσίαςοὐγίνεταιἄφεσις (Hebrews 9:22). The Apostle therefore rightly designates Christ as the Reconciler, as Him that came δι’ ὕδατοςκαὶαἷματος. The view that ὕδωρ and αἷμα are to be explained of the Sacraments instituted by Christ is confuted not only by the circumstance that they are only the means of appropriating the reconciliation effected by Him, whereas we are here concerned with the accomplishment of the reconciliation itself, but also by the use of the Aorist ἐλθών, instead of which in the former case we ought to have the Present, and by the fact that the term αἷμα, used alone, is in the New Testament not once applied to the Lord’s Supper; in 1 Corinthians 12:13 also ἐποτίσθησαν does not allude to the Lord’s Supper, but to the communication of the Spirit in Baptism.—The opinion that though αἷμα denotes the death which Christ suffered, ὕδωρ does not signify the Baptism He received is opposed by the following considerations: 1. The close connection of the two words (διά not being repeated before αἶματος) is only fitting if the ideas correspond the one to the other, which they do not if δι’ ὕδατος is referred to an institution of Christ, and αἵματος to the blood shed by Christ. 2. The simple term ὕδωρ is ill-suited to designate Christian baptism (for Christian Baptism is distinguished from John’s Baptism in that the former is essentially not ὕδωρ like the latter; even as John the Baptist distinguishing himself from Christ said: ἐγὼβαπτίζωἐνὕδατι John 1:26, while Jesus had been indicated to him as ὁβαπτίζωνἐνπνεύματιἁγίῳ, John 1:33. 3. Since the institution of Baptism took place after the death of Christ and necessarily presupposed that death, John, had he understood by ὕδωρ Christian Baptism, would surely have put ὕδατος not before but after αἵματος. Hilgenfeld and Neander have justly maintained that if ἔρχεσθαιδι’ αἵματος denotes something relating to the Messiah personally, ἔρχεσθαιδι’ ὕδατος must do so likewise. The relation must be the same in both terms. If αἷμα signifies the death to which Christ submitted, ὕδωρ also can only signify the Baptism to which He in like manner submitted.”—Passing to that class of commentators who substantially admit the views expressed by Huther, but superadd a secondary or implied sacramental reference, we give the language of Alford who says that “ὕδωρ represents the Baptism of water which the Lord Himself underwent and instituted for His followers, αἷμα, the Baptism of blood which He Himself underwent and instituted for His followers. It is equally impossible to sever.… from these words the historical accompaniments and associations which arise on their mention. The Lord’s Baptism, of itself, was indeed rather a result than a proof of His Messiahship: but in it, taking St. John’s account only, a testimony to His Divine Sonship is given, by which the Baptist knew Him to be the Son of God: ἐγὼἐώρακακ. μεμαρτύρηκαὅτιοὗτοςἐστινὁυἱὸςτοῦθεοῦ, are his words, John 1:34; and when that blood was poured from His “riven side,” he that saw it again uses the same formula ὁἑωρακὼςμεμαρτύρηκε. It cannot be that the word μαρτυρία being thus referred to two definite points of our Lord’s life, should not apply to these two, connected as they are with ὕδωρ and αἷμα here mentioned, and associated by St. John Himself with the remarkable preterite μεμαρτύρηκεν, of an abiding μαρτυρία in both cases. But these past facts in the Lord’s life are this abiding testimony to us, by virtue of the permanent application to us of their cleansing and atoning power.”—Wordsworth, as usual, adopts the Patristic and symbolical interpretation, and as the views of other classes of commentators have been given at considerable length, we add as a curiosum his exposition of this passage in a condensed form. “Jesus Christ”, came, as the Messiah and Son of God, in various ways. 1. ‘He came in all the purifications that were made by water and blood under the Old Law, which was dedicated with blood and water. Hebrews 9:22; because all those purifications were typical of, and preparatory to, His sacrifice on the Cross, and derived all their efficacy from it.…… 2. ‘He came by water in His Baptism; and by blood in His circumcision, and especially in His agony and bloody sweat in Gethsemane, and by the blood shed in His scourging before His passion, and in the crown of thorns, and the piercing of His hands at the crucifixion.…. 3. ‘He came both by water and blood at once, in a special manner, on Calvary after His death. … ‘Thus St. John in his Gospel prepares us to understand the words of this Epistle; and in his Epistle also he elucidates what had been recorded in his Gospel. His words therefore may be thus paraphrased: ‘This is He who came—that is, proved Himself to be what He was pre-announced to be by the types and prophecies of the Old Testament, and what He proclaimed Himself to be in the New—the “Coming One,” “The Comer” (ὁἐρχόμενος), the Messiah, the true Paschal Lamb, and Very Man, a true Sacrifice for Sin; and yet Very God, the Everlasting Jehovah, of whom the prophet Zechariah spoke (Zechariah 12:10), when he prophesied of His being pierced at His death. ‘He came by blood and water. He proved thereby the reality of His humanity and of His death; and thus He has given a practical refutation—which St. John saw with his own eyes—to the heretical notions of those in the Apostolical age, such as Simon Magus and the Docetae, who alleged that Christ had not a real human body, but was merely a spectral phantasm, crucified in show; and therefore Irenζus in the next age after St. John, infers this fact of the piercing of the side and the flowing out of the blood and water, recorded by St. John, as conclusive against their heresy. … ‘In the words, “not by water only,” there seems also to be a reference to another heresy of the Apostolic age, that of Cerinthus, who said that Christ came in the water of baptism, and descended into the Man Jesus; and afterwards departed from Him, when He shed His blood on the cross. In opposition to this notion St. John says, “This is He who came by water and blood; not by water only, but by water and blood.” 4. ‘Further it is to be observed that in this passage of his Epistle St. John is speaking of Christ’s generation, and of our regeneration.—Every one who believeth that Jesus is the Christ, hath been born, and is born, of God; i.e., is regenerate; and every one who loveth Him that begat, loveth Him also that is begotten of Him; i.e., whosoever loveth God the Father, loveth Him who by generation is the only-begotten Son of God; and every thing that is born of God (i.e., is regenerate) overcometh the world; and who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus—the Very Man Jesus—is also the Son of God?‘St. John then proceeds to describe the means by which our regeneration, or New Birth, is communicated to us from God, through His Son Christ Jesus, Very Man and Very God, and how the new life, so communicated, is sustained in us. He does this by saying, This is He who came—came to us—by water and blood, Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. ‘The natural life which was imparted to Eve—the Mother of all living, the type of the Church, the Spouse of the Second Adam, Jesus Christ—was derived from the first Adam’s side, opened when he was asleep in Paradise. In like manner, the spiritual life is given to the spiritual Eve, the Church, and to all her faithful members, from the side of the second Adam, Jesus Christ, sleeping in death on the cross; and it is communicated through His death by means of the water and blood of the two sacraments, which derive their quickening, cleansing and invigorating virtue from the Divinity, Incarnation and Death of our crucified Lord and Saviour, and by which the benefit of that death is applied to our regeneration and revivification; and which were visibly exhibited in the water and blood flowing from His precious side, pierced on the cross. … [See Augustine, Serm. V.—M.]. ‘He came by water, which is our λουτρὸν, and by blood, which is our λύτρον. His Baptism of blood is our λύτρον, or ransom from death; and His Baptism by water is our λουτρὸν, or laver of birth. And the water of the λουτρὸν derives its efficacy from the blood of the λυτρόν, shed on the cross, which works in and by the water of baptism. He has washed us from our sins in His own blood (Revelation 1:15). His blood cleanseth us from all sin (1 John 1:7). In baptism we pass through the Red Sea of His blood, and are delivered from our enemies thereby.”—For further particulars connected with the symbolical interpretation, the reader is referred to Wordsworth himself, and for a good account of all the interpretations, to Huther’s Commentary, 2d edition, pp. 217–219.—M.]. Not in the water only, but in the water and in the blood.—The preposition ἐν should be connected with ἐλθὼν, and, as compared with διὰ, signifying the medium through which, introduces a new shade of thought, viz., the surrounding, accompaniment and sphere [or “element in which”—M.]; a similar change occurs at Hebrews 9:12; Hebrews 9:25 (Delitzsch, pp. 390, 434). Articulus habet vim relativam (Bengel) to what has just been specified, which must be taken in the same sense as before. Μόνον after ὑδατι renders the latter very emphatic, and is not followed by ἀλλὰκαὶ because it is not connected with οὐ. Consequently not only in the Baptism received at the hands of John the Baptist has Jesus been proved to be the Christ, the Son of God, but in both. This refutes the opinion of those heretics who alleged that the Son of God was with Jesus at His Baptism, but not at His death upon the cross, that He left Him before His death (Huther [i.e., the heresy of Cerinthus.—M.]). The distinction of Jesus from the Baptist, who baptized with water only, is out of the question, the reference being not to Jesus’ baptizing, but to His being baptized (against Lόcke, Dόsterdieck, Ebrard and others). And it is the Spirit that testifieth.—Καὶ superadds a further and third particular, an additional witness (ἐστιντὸμαρτυροῦν cf. ὁἐλθὼν). The Article before the Participle compels us to understand τὸπνεῦμα as the absolute, objective Spirit, as the Holy Spirit, and the Present denotes the continuance of the office of witnessing (John 15:26) wherein He leads into all truth, mediates fellowship with Christ, and secures eternal life. Τὸπνεῦμα must not be explained of the spirit of believers, of the spiritual life wrought in believers by the Holy Spirit (Episcopius, Sander and others); this is forbidden by the context, and the grammatical usage of the New Testament disallows such a construction without any further qualification Nor is it=ὁπνευματικός, i.e., the Apostle John himself (Ziegler, Stroth), nor a third sacrament of absolution Augustine), nor the word, the ministry of the word (Luther, Piscator, al.). [In order to complete the catalogue of curious and fantastic views begun in the text, we mention those of Oecumenius and Knapp, who regard τὸπνευμᾶ ?=ὁθεός—διὰδὲτοῦπνεύματος, ὅτεὡςθεὸςἀνέστηἐκνεκρῶν· θεοῦγὰρτοῦτομόνουλοιπόν, τὸἀνιστᾰ ?ͅνἑαυτόν. τῇδὲτοῦπνεύματοςφωνῇσημαίνεταιὁθεος: thus making the threefold witness to the υἱοθεσία of Jesus, τὸβάπτισμα, ὁσταυρός, ἡἀνάστασις; of Socinus, Schlichting, Grotius, Whitby and al. who understand the Divine power by which Christ wrought His miracles: ‘id est,’ says Grotius, ‘per μετωνυμίαν, admiranda ejus opera, a virtute divina manifeste procedentia,’ of Bede, who understands the Spirit which descended on the Lord at His Baptism, and of Wetstein, who considers τὸπνεῦμα to signify the psychical element which, along with ὕδωρ and αἷμα the physical elements, constituted the human nature of Christ.—The interpretation given by Braune is that of Scholiast I., Estius, Corn. a-Lapide, Tirinus, Calvin, Calov, Lόcke, Rickli, de Wette, Huther, Neander, Dόsterdieck, Alford and Wordsworth. It is the Holy Spirit, whom Christ in fulfilment of His promise, sent to His Church on the Day of Pentecost, and who is a permanent witness of the Divine Sonship of Jesus.—M.]. Because the Spirit is the truth.—This clause does not contain the substance of the testimony, which is determined by the context (viz., that Jesus, the Son of God, is the Christ), but the reason of the testimony, as being a reliable one; ὅτι is=because, not=that (Luther, Besser, al.). Ἡἀλήθεια designates the Truth revealed in the word of God, and received in faith, in its perfect fulness, which Truth is the nature of the Spirit who is the Spirit of the Truth into which He leadeth (John 14:17; John 15:26; John 16:13). Christ, who has the Spirit without measure (John 3:34 sq.), and who with the Father sends Him (John 15:26; John 16:7), is of course in the same sense the Truth according to His nature (John 4:6). We must not construe ἡἀλήθεια=ἀληθές, as Grotius does. [Estius: “Testimonium ejus haudquaquam rejici potest, quoniam Spiritus est veritas, quam sit Deus, ideoque nec falli potest, nec fallere.”—M.]. 1 John 5:7-8. For three are the witnesses, Spirit, water and blood.—[Grotius: “Johannes hic causam reddit, cur locutus fuerit non de Spiritu tantum, cujus prζcipua in hoc negotio est auctoritas, verum etiam de aqua et sanguine, quia in illis etiam non exigua est testimonii fides, et ternarius numerus in testibus est perfectissimus.”—M.]. This formula is precisely like that of the preceding verse (1 John 5:6). Οἱμαρτυροῦντες of course must be construed substantively and in the same sense as 1 John 5:6, nor must be supplied another object of the testimony; in like manner to τὸπνεῦμακαὶτὸὕδωρκαὶτὸαἷμα bear exactly the same meaning here as in 1 John 5:6. The historical facts, previously specified merely as evidencing the Divine Sonship of Jesus, are now introduced in the Masculine Gender, in order to designate them as concrete witnesses, like persons (Lόcke and al.); but of course so, that they are subordinated to the Spirit, who is the principal, and alone absolute Witness, employing and making use of the facts in the life of Jesus. The verb denotes the activity of the testifying, with reference to the condition of being μάρτυρ, and the Present signifies the permanent character of that activity, wherefore it is not necessary to think here of objects at present existing, e.g., the sacraments, but we have only to hold fast that these facts in the history of the life of Jesus, like that history itself, are fixed in the Gospels, and that these facts, even without such written fixedness, continue to be permanently operative during the years of salvation [i.e., the dispensation of grace.—M.] with world-historical import [i.e., exerting a permanent influence on the world’s history during the dispensation of grace.—M.].—Τρεῖς, with reference to Deuteronomy 17:6; Deuteronomy 19:15; Matthew 18:16; 2 Corinthians 13:1; Hebrews 10:28-29, denotes the assurance of the perfectness of the testimony. This sentence is annexed with ὅτι=for, in order to represent now in a compressed form the testimony, particularized in 1 John 5:6, as a weighty confirmation and substantiation of the truth, that Jesus, the Son of God, is the Christ. And the three are one.—The Article οἱτρεῖς denotes here, as also previously, the witnesses already designated and well known, and likewise in εἰςτὸ ?̣ἕν the one Truth in question, the object of the testimony (1 John 5:1; 1 John 5:5). Εἰς, like εἰςἕν in John 11:52; John 17:23, denotes in unum consentire.—Hence we need neither assume with de Wette, ah ellipsis between 1 John 5:6-8, nor take ὅτι in the sense of jam vero (Grotius), consequently, therefore (Baumgarten-Crusius, Meyer), nor understand τρεῖςοἱμαρτυροῦντες, with Bengel, of three different classes of men (prophetas, baptistas, apostolos), or of symbols of the Trinity. Lastly we must not interpret the being one, with Luther, as a being together, a being joined together. [Alford renders “and the three concur in one” and explains, that they contribute to one and the same result: viz., the truth that Jesus is the Christ, and that we have life in Him. Wordsworth explains the passage of the Trinity and the sacraments and paraphrases: these three (Persons) who are bearing witness are joined into one (ἕν one substance, neuter). He collects, as usual, many Patristic and Anglican notices and gives in his exegesis the following:—‘The Spirit, who begins the work of regeneration by applying all quickening grace to man.—The Water: the symbol and instrument of the new birth derived from God the Father, who is the original Well-spring and Fountain of all life and grace to man. The natural heavens and the earth were formed out of the Water. There was their origin (2 Peter 3:5). This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ IV. THE 1 John 5:13-2113 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God. 14And this is the confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us: 15And if we know that he hear us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we desired of him. 16If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it. 17All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death. 18We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten 19of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not. And we know 20that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness. And we know that the Son of God is come and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true; and we are in him that is true17, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life. 21Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen. AND The Conclusion. 1 John 5:13. These things wrote I.—Ταῦταἔγραψα, like ταῦταἔγραψα 1 John 2:26, might be referred to the verses immediately preceding, if the words annexed permitted such a construction: That ye may know, that ye have eternal life, ye that believe in the name of the Son of God.—Quite similar to the closing verse of the Gospel, John 20:31. The purpose of the writing ἵναεἰδῆτεὅτιζωὴνἔχετεαἰώνιον corresponds with the χαρά at the beginning of the Epistle, which χαρά was to be filled by the testimony of the eye and ear-witnesses of the λόγοςτῆςζωῆς; hence ταῦταἔγραψα answers to ταῦταγράφομεν 1 John 1:4 (Bengel), the certainty of the possession of eternal life being the ground and strength of the joy, which John has, and to which he adverts. The words τοῖςπιστεύουσινεἰςτὸὄνοματοῡυἱοῦτοῦθεοῦ, annexed to ὑμῖν, primarily refer back to 1 John 3:23. but find their last resting-place in the κοινωνίαἡἡμετέραμετὰτοῦπατρὸςκαὶμετὰτοῦυἱοῦαὐτοῦ, 1 John 1:3. Hence ταῦτα must be referred neither to 1 John 5:8-12 (Huther), nor to 1 John 5:1-12 (S. Schmid), but to the whole Epistle (Luther, Bengel, Lόcke, Dόsterdieck and al.), though the inducement to the choice of this expression lies in verses immediately preceding, and preparing the concluding portion of the Epistle, and there still follow several verses which constitute that concluding portion. Noteworthy is the difference between the closing verse of the Gospel, John 20:31, which adverts to the future believing and obtaining eternal life of the readers, while our passage asserts their present belief and possession of eternal life. [Alford sees here with Dόsterdieck something like an anticipatory close of the Epistle. Huther maintains, that this verse still belongs to the second main part of the Epistle beginning with 1 John 3:23, on the ground that ζωὴναἰώνιον goes back to the verses immediately preceding, and that πιστεύεινεἰςτὸὄνοματοῦυἱοῦτοῦθεοῦ, refers back to 3:28.—M.]. The confidence that prayer is heard. 1 John 5:14-15. 1 John 5:14. And this is the confidence which we have towards Him.—Καὶ connects with what goes before, i.e., it connects παῤῥησίαἣνἔχομεν with ζωὴνἔχετεαἰώνιον. This confidence consists in this:— That if we ask any thing according to His will, He heareth us.—It is consequently the confidence in God, which has the intercourse of prayer with Him; this confidence rests on the ζωὴαἰώνιος, springs from it, points back to it, and reacts also on it, strengthening and confirming it. Cf. 1 John 3:21-22.—Πρὸςαὐτὸν and to τὸθέλημααὐτοῦ must be referred to God the Father, because the idea of possessing the ζωὴαἰώνιος involves the idea of the Divine Sonship, and the παῤῥησία is connected with both. While ἐὰντι leaves the object of the prayer quite general and indefinite, κατὰτὸθέλημα limits it, so that it is a conditio ζquissima, latissime patens (Bengel), as we may see from the fourth and seventh petitions of the Lord’s Prayer, in connection with the others. (Cf. Doctrinal and Ethical No. 1.)—Ἀκούειἡμῶν denotes an attentive, sympathetic hearing, while ἡμᾶς would signify a mere hearing.—This is an undoubted fact: 1 John 5:15. And if we know that He heareth us whatsoever we may ask.—Hence ἐὰν with the Indicative οἶδαμεν. Winer, p. 310, sq.—Ὅἐὰναἰτώμεθα denotes the general character of the object of prayer. It follows that: We know that we have the petitions which we have asked from Him.—” Ἔχομεν, emphatic, placed first. By the side of ἀκούειἡμῶν, we must distinguish ̓ ?́χομεντἀαἰτήματα (Lorinus: res petitζ), although the two belong together; God hearing our prayers and our having go hand-in-hand. The additional clause: ἃᾐτήκαμενἀπ’ αὐτοῦ indicates that the having is the consequence of prayer preceding it, so that the having in point of time does not coincide with the prayer, as does the believer’s prayer with God’s hearing; but our having is secured; ἔχομεν is not=λαμβάνομεν (Lachmann and al.), nor must it be construed like a Future (Grotius: statim exaudit, at non statim dat).—Ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ, as in Matthew 20:20, belongs to ᾐτήκαμεν, not to ἔχομεν; παρ’ αὐτοῦ, as in Acts 3:2, (see Appar. Crit., No. 7,), could not, at any rate, denote prayers as deposits made with God, as Ebrard maintains. Intercession for a brother sinning not unto death. 1 John 5:16-17. 1 John 5:16. If any one see his brother commit a sin, not unto death.—Here is supposed a specific case, in which the confident petition becomes an intercession for the purpose of keeping an erring brother,—after the example of Christ (1 John 2:1; cf. Luke 22:31-32; John 17:9; Hebrews 7:25),—with his Saviour and salvation, in fellowship with the Redeemer and in the participation of eternal life. Additur casus omnium maximus; ut possis orare etiam pro altero in re gravissima (Bengel). Ἐάντιςἴδῃ supposes an objective possibility; it is not said that some one does see, but it may be, the event will show it; consequently: If any one should see it. Winer, p. 306, sq. The reference is to an event which may be seen, to a fact susceptible of observation, as in 1 John 3:17.—Τὸνἀδελφὸναὐτοῦ, denotes a member of the Christian Church, and τις requires to be taken in the same sense. The reference is consequently to intimate converse, and to what happens and becomes manifest there. This the Apostle brings out emphatically in the participial form: ἁμαρτάτονταἁμαρτίαν: the sinning brother stands, as it were, before our eyes. Here we have μὴπρὸςθάνατον, not as in 1 John 5:17 : οὐπρὸςθάνατον, because the reference is to the subjective judgment of the observer, not to an objectively valid principle, not to the establishment of a dogmatically real idea. Winer, p. 496.—Ἀδελφὸς is therefore not=proximus quicunque (Calov); non-christians are excluded (against Ebrard), although the reference may not be exactly to “a regenerate person” (Dόsterdieck). He shall ask and give him life.—The Future αἰτήσει denotes that the intercession may be confidently expected, since καὶδώσει neither warrants us to construe the Future, in the decisive language of the legislation of the Old and New Testament (Matthew 5:21; Matthew 5:27, etc.,) as an Imperative, nor gives an occasion to assume a purely ethical possibility, as Luke 22:49 : κύριε, εἰπατάξομεν; Romans 10:14 : πῶςοὖνἐπικαλέσονται; shall we smite? how shall they, how can they call? See Winer, pp. 294, 295, 331. Hence it is not=licebit petere (S. Schmidt). The subject is the intercession, τις, not the Church (Neander), or the saints (Meyer). The same subject, αἰτῶν, belongs also to δώσει; it is neither=dabitur (variation of the Vulgate, approved by Bede and others), nor to be derived from the idea of prayer, αἰτούμενος, rogatus Deus (Beza, Bengel, Lόcke, Winer, p. 553, and al.). [The Ζthiopic version brings out the right meaning: rogans vivificabit; i.e. the asker shall be instrumental in bestowing life on the erring brother for whom he intercedes.—M.]. The grammatical requirements of our passage are fully borne out by the cycle of thoughts current in the New Testament (Acts 3:6; James 5:15; James 5:20). John here simply contemplates the result as a fact, without adverting to the instrumentality, its ways and stages within the brother’s heart, which was the object of intercession; repentance and faith, moreover, are not excluded, and the interceding brother is not viewed as the Saviour, or the representative of the Redcemer. Neither may we think of an admonitio et correptio fraterna (Matthew 18:15; S. Schmid), nor of the proper demeanour of the asker towards his erring brother, as the result of his intercessory prayer (Rickli). The final effect of intercession is ζωὴ (αἰώνιος), which is weakened and disturbed by every sin [Alford; This bestowal of life by intercessory prayer, is not to be minutely inquired into, whether it is to be accompanied with “correptio fraterna,”—whether it consists in the giving to the sinner a repentant heart (Grotius, al.), but taken, as put by the Apostle, in all its simplicity and breadth. Life, viz.: the restoration of that Divine life from which by any act of sin he was indeed in peril, and indeed in process of falling, but this sin was not an actual fall.—M.]. To them that sin not unto death.—The Plural τοῖςἁμαρτάνουσι belongs to αὐτῷ, which generaliter positum est (Erasmus); the Plural takes the supposed case from the sphere of singularity; τις has collective force. See Winer, p. 553. It is forced and ungrammatical to refer αὐτῷ to him that asks, understanding θεὸς as the subject, and taking τοῖςἁμαρτάνουσι as Dativ. commodi: “God will give him life for the persons sinning,” as Bornemann (Biblische Studien der Sδchs. Geistlichen I. p. 71,) does.—Μὴπρὸςθάνατον qualifies ἀμαρτάνεινἁμαρτίαν, or ἁμαρτάνειν, and has consequently adverbial force. θάνατος, only, if taken in the sense of spiritual death, corresponds with the context, viz., with the παῤῥησία of prayer being heard on the ground of our possession of the ζωὴαἰώνιος, for ζωή in the intercession on behalf of the erring brother, and the preposition πρὸς, as denoting the aim towards which something is directed (Winer, p. 423), require us to think of a sinning, which in the conviction of the person interceding, must not terminate in θάνατος, the emptying of all ζωὴαἰώνιος, and accordingly must not absolutely annul fellowship with Christ, faith in Him. This is brought out more clearly in the next clause. There is a sin unto death.—Thus the Apostle circumscribes the domain of sinning not unto death: it is not infinite. This is directed against any possible laxity in the judgment of the Church on the sins of believers. Πρὸςθάνατον has the same meaning here, as in the preceding clause. The reference is accordingly to a specific sin, to a simple act perceptible (ἴδῃ) in the brother, within the limits of Christian fellowship (τὸνἀδελφοναὐτοῦ), not to a particular, outwardly marked category of sins, but to a sinning, and committing of sin, which renders it clear to the careful observer, that the fellowship of faith with Christ, the fountain of eternal life, has been cut off, that consequently the ethical life-form appears to be inwardly decayed and dying, that the moral status of that brother shows itself to be in a state of hopeless dissolution, so that it is of no avail to pray for such an one, and that therefore intercession is not proper. Hence it is wrong to transfer to this passage the Old Testament idea of ηֵ ?θְ ?ΰμָ ?ξεּ ?ϊ, ἁμαρτίαθανατηφόρος (Numbers 18:22), and to refer to capital crimes, e.g. idolatry, adultery, murder, incest, which are punishable with death under the secular or Mosaic law (Morus, al.), or to the sins ecclesiastically punishable with excommunication, as if intercession had to conform to the secular code of punishment; nor is the reference to sinning unto the end of man’s earthly existence (Bede and al.), in which connection de Lyra rightly observes: “Qui sit peccator non ad mortem, sciri non potest nisi per divinam revelationem;” πρὸςθάνατον cannot be rendered “usque ad mortem.” Nor is the reference to the physically sick, James 5:14 (Steinhofer); nor to definite, gross crimes, peccatum gravissimum, quod vix remittitur (Ambrose), moechia port baptismum commissa (Tertullian), peccatum invidentiζ (Bede). Nor is here any description of a condition, “Talis animζ status, in quo fides et amor et spes, in summa, vita nova exstincta est; si quis sciens volensque mortem amplectitur, non ex illecebris carnis, sed ex amore peccati, sub ratione peccati; repudium gratiζ proζreticum.” (Bengel). Augustine thought first of invidentiζ faces post agnitionem Dei, and added afterwards: si in hac perversitate finierit vitam, and then: fidem deserere usque ad mortem. Lastly the reference is neither to a purely inward act, like obduracy (Ebrard), apostasy (de Wette, Lόcke), nor to sin, perceptible in the walk of men, like the anti-christian denial expressed in words (Dόsterdieck), nor to the sin against the Holy Ghost (Calvin, Sander and al.). The reference is simply to sinning, from which it may be perceived either, that no inward absolute severance from the faith and denial of Christ may or can be assumed, or that the latter is either recognizable of highly probable. To the latter case apply the words: Concerning that I do not say that he shall pray.—The simple negation is, that the the Apostle says (οὐ ?—λέγω), that prayer should be made for him who sins unto death. He only makes prominent the circumstance that he confines himself to saying that intercession should be made for the person not sinning unto death. Hence those commentators are right, who do not see here a prohibition (Socinus, Grotius, Neander, Lόcke, Huther and al.). But it is certainly not said that we ought, or only are permitted, to pray for him (Neander). It is important to note the difference of the words employed by the Apostle, for whereas before he made use of the word αἰτήσει, he now uses ἐρωτήσῃ: ἐρωτᾷν is=rogare, and implies equality on the part of the asker with him from whom the favour is sought; Jesus designates His praying by that term (John 14:16; John 16:26; John 17:9; John 17:15; John 17:20); on the other hand αἰτεῖν is=petere, and implies inferiority (Dόsterdieck), while Bengel regards αἰτεῖν as species humilior under the genus ἐρωτᾷν. This word ἐρωτᾷν denotes the confident petition of the child, praying inquiringly and expecting the gift. Hence, due regard being had to the force of the term employed, we may discover here the sanction of intercession for a brother sinning unto death, yet without any assurance of success or that the intercession will prevail. But since the Apostle advocates this very παῤῥησία and Deus non vult, ut pii frustra orent (Bengel), it is probably locutio morata et attica for a prohibition. Deuteronomy 3:26. This is also suggested by ἵ ?va; in the present instance he does not wish to excite and promote the purpose of praying. (Cf. Doctrinal and Ethical No. 4). 1 John 5:17. All unrighteousness is sin.—The subject πᾶσαἀδικία reminds us of the predicate ἡἀνομία 1 John 3:4. Ἀνομία is in contradiction with the objectively given law of God, ἀδικία is the contradiction and negation of the δικαιοσύνη and is concerned with the subjective disposition, though it be wrought from above and subject to the law. And this harmonizes with the fact that we are concerned with the moral status of the sinner in this sinning unto death, and sinning not unto death. John manifestly desires to guard against any ἀδικία being too lightly dealt with, being not considered as ἁμαρτία, though it be μὴπρὸςτὸνθάνατον. The Roman Catholics, therefore, have no warrant for determining from the sin itself, whether it is peccatum mortale or veniale.And there is a sin not unto death.—Καὶ simply connects the sequel; it is not=et quidem, and the sense: quodlibet nefas est peccatum non ad mortem (Bengel); Bengel’s clause: ‘sed ne quisquam id levius interpretetur, prζmittit: est peccatum’ is only a moral reaction against the perversion of the Johannean thought: all unrighteousness is sin. The sequel, because of the intercession recommended, is added by way of emphasis. Οὐπρὸςθάνατον implies the objectively real fact, the actual occurrence of such sin; it defines ἁμαρτία, not ἔστιν, as Luther supposes. [There are one or two questions, in connection with this section, which require to be treated somewhat more fully. First, 1 John 5:17, involves a prohibition, or what is equivalent to it. But this has been denied by many commentators. “Ora si velis, sed sub dubio impetrandi” (Corn, a Lapide); Neander supposes that the offering of prayer is permitted, though the obtaining of it will be difficult, and arbitrarily imagines the prayer in question to be the collective prayer of the Church, and that one who sins πρὸςθάνατον should not be included in the common prayer of the Church, lest he might be confirmed in his sin; Huther finds in οὐλέγω not more than a denial of the Apostle that the case of one sinning unto death came within the purview of his command. Lyra qualifies the prohibition, though “non est orandum pro damnatis,” yet we may pray, “ut minus peccaret, et per consequens minus damnaretur in inferno.”—Calvin recognizes the prohibition, but limits it to extreme cases, adding: “Sed quia rarissime hoc accidit, et Deus, immensas gratiζ suζ divitias commendans, nos suo exemplo misericordes esse jubet: non temere in quemquam ferendum est mortis ζternζ judicium, potius nos caritas ad bene sperandum fleetat. Quod si desperata quorundam impietas non secus nobis apparet, ac sic Dominus eam digito monstraret; non est quod certemus cum justo Dei judicio, vel clementiores eo esse appetamus.”—Alford sums up: “Certainly this seems, reserving the question as to the nature of the sin, the right view of the οὐλέγω. By an express command in the other case, and then as express an exclusion of this case from that command, nothing short of an implied prohibition can be conveyed.”— Secondly, the question: What is the sin unto death?—The canons of interpretation for its solution, and some of the principal divergences, chiefly from Dόsterdieck, collected by Alford, are here produced. “The First canon of interpretation of the ἁμαρτίαπρὸςθάνατον and οὐπρὸςθάνατον is this: that the θάνατος and ζωή of the passage must correspond. The former cannot be bodily death, while the latter is eternal and spiritual life. This clears away at once all those commentators who understand the sin unto death to be one for which bodily death is the punishment, either by human law generally, as Morus and G. Lange, or by the Mosaic law (Schφttgen),—or by sickness inflicted by God, as Whitby and Benson; or of which there will be no end till the death of the sinner (thought possible by Bede, and adopted by Lyra). This last is evidently absurd, for how is a man to know, whether this will be so or not? “The Second canon will be, that this sin unto death being thus a sin leading to eternal death, being no further explained to the readers here, must be presumed as meant to be understood by what the Evangelist has elsewhere laid down, concerning the possession of life and death. Now we have from him a definition immediately preceding this, in 1 John 5:12, ὁἔχωντὸνυἱὸνἔχειτὴνζωήνὁμὴἔχωντὸνυἱὸντοῦθεοῦτὴνζωὴνοὐκἔχει. And we may safely say that the words πρὸςθάνατον here are to be understood as meaning, “involving the loss of this life which men have only by the union with the Son of God.” And this meaning they must have, not by implication only, which would be the case, if any obstinate and determined sin were meant, which would be a sign of the fact of severance from the life which is in Christ (see 1 John 3:14-15, where the inference is of this kind), but directly and essentially, i.e. in respect of that very sin which is pointed at by them. Now against this canon are all those interpretations, far too numerous to mention, which make any atrocious and obstinate sin to be that intended. It is obvious that our limits are thus confined to abnegation of Christ, not as inferred by its fruits otherwise shown, but as the act of sin itself. And so, with various shades of difference, as to the putting forth in detail, most of the best commentators, both ancient and modern: e.g., Aretius, Luther, Calvin, Beza, Piscator, Corn. a Lapide, Tirinus, Baumgarten-Crusius, Lόcke, Huther, Dόsterdieck. “The Third canon will help us to decide, within the above limits, what especial sin is intended. And it is, that by the very analogy of the context, it must be not a state of sin, but an appreciable act of sin, seeing that which is opposed to it in the same kind, as being not unto death, is described by ἐὰντιςἴδῃἁμαρτάνοντα. So that all interpretations which make it to be a state of apostacy, all such as, e.g., Bengel’s (see above), do not reach the matter of detail which is before the Apostle’s mind. “In enquiring what this is, we must be guided by the analogy of what St. John says elsewhere. Our state being that of life in Jesus Christ, there are those who have gone out from us, not being of us, 1 John 2:19, who are called ἀντίχριστοι, who not only “have not” Christ, but are Christ’s enemies, denying the Father and the Son (1 John 2:22), whom we are not even to receive into our houses nor to greet (2 John 1:10-11). These seem to be the persons pointed at here, and this is the sin: viz. the denial that Jesus is the Christ, the incarnate Son of God. This alone of all sins bears upon it the stamp of severance from Him who is the Life itself. As the confession of Christ, with the mouth and in the heart, is salvation unto life (Romans 10:9), so the denial of Christ, with the mouth and in the heart, is sin unto death. This alone of all the proposed solutions seems to satisfy all the canons above laid down. For in it the life cast away and the death incurred strictly correspond: it strictly corresponds to what St. John has elsewhere said concerning life and death, and derives its explanation from those other passages, especially from the foregoing 1 John 5:12 : and it is an appreciable act of sin, one against which the readers have been before repeatedly cautioned (1 John 2:18 sqq.; 1 John 4:1. sqq.; 1 John 5:5; 1 John 5:11-12). And further, it is in exact accordance with other passages of Scripture which seem to point at a sin similarly distinguished above others: Matthew 12:31 sqq., and so far as the circumstances there dealt with allow common ground, with the more ethical passages, Hebrews 6:4 sqq., Hebrews 10:25 sqq. In the former case, the Scribes and Pharisees were resisting the Holy Ghost (Acts 7:51), who was manifesting God in the flesh in the person and work of Christ. For them the Lord Himself does not pray (Luke 23:34): they knew what they did: they went out from God’s people and were not of them: receiving and repudiating the testimony of the Holy Ghost to the Messiahship of Jesus.”—M.]. Assurance of redemption. 1 John 5:18; 1 John 5:20. 1 John 5:18. We know that every one who is born (out) of God, sinneth not.—Each of these three concluding verses begins with οἴδαμεν; Bengel: anaphora. The Evangelist refers to εἰδῆτε 1 John 5:13, and thus describes the proper consciousness of the Christian in his attitude to sin (1 John 5:18), the world (1 John 5:19), and the Redeemer (1 John 5:20). Πᾶςγεγεννημένοςἐκτοῦθεοῦ signifies every one who is, and abides, born of God; the power of regeneration, of the life given and received in regeneration, operates from the past into the present; as such οὐχἁμαρτάνει, as such sin is foreign to him, Romans 7:20; cf. 1 John 3:9.—It is unnecessary to supply πρὸςθάνατον (Bede, Beza and al.), and arbitrary to understand an abiding in sin, or a falling from grace (Calvin), or the not frequent occurrence of the sin unto death and sin in general (de Wette). But he that hath been born of God, keepeth himself, and the wicked one doth not touch him.—The opposite (ἀλλὰ), refers not only to the predicate, but, since the subject is particularly specified, to the whole clause, and the two clauses (οἴδαμενὅτι—and ὅγεννηθεὶςκ. τ. λ.) are independently coφrdinated. The Aorist indicates the historical fact; that hath been born again (in opposition to Sander who discovers this in the Perfect, and Bengel, “prζteritum grandius quiddam sonat, quam aoristus; non modo qui magnum in regeneratione gradum assecutus, sed quilibet, qui regenitus est, servat se.”) Τηρεῖαὑτὸν indicates moral effort and self-exertion; οὐφύσειεἰςἀναμαρτησίανπροβαίνει (Oecumenius); sin occurs, approaches, but he sustains the conflict, guarding himself in his peculiar nature and the Divine gift of eternal life, which hinders, spoils and drives away sin. Thus sin destroys man himself; it is in virtue of his self-guarding that the σπέρματοῦθεοῦ abides in him (1 John 3:9); we must neither supply ἁγνόν (1 Timothy 5:22), nor ἄσπιλον (James 1:27. Carpzov, Lόcke, al.), nor take τηρεῖσθαι in the sense of being on one’s guard (Ebrard). Cf. 1 John 3:3. [Alford justly objects to this and similar expositions, and retaining the reading αὑτόν A. B. Vulg. Jer., renders “it keepeth him,” viz. the Divine birth, adding, “it is this, and not the fact of his own watchfulness, which preserves him from the touch of the wicked one, as in 1 John 3:9, where the same is imported by ὅτιτὸσπέρμααὐτοῦἐναὐτῷμένει, καὶοὐδύναταιἁμαρτάνειν, ὅτιἐκτοῦθεοῦγεγέννηται. The rationalistic commentators insist on τηρεῖἑσυτόν, as showing, as Socinus, “aliquid prζstare eum atque efficere, qui per Christum regeneratus fuerit;” and the orthodox commentators have but a lame apology to offer. Dόsterdieck compares ἁγνίζειἑαυτόν, 1 John 3:3. But the reference there is wholly different—viz. to a gradual and earnest striving after an ideal model; whereas here the πηρεῖσθαι must be, by the very nature of the case, so far complete that the wicked one cannot approach: and whose self-guarding can ensure this even for a day? Cf. John 17:15, ἵνατηρήσῃςαὐτοὺςἐκτοῦπονηροῦ, which is decisive.”—M.]. The clause annexed by καὶ notes the difficult but successful conflict. The enemy, ὁπονηρὸς, 1 John 3:12, is Satan, οὐχἅπτεταιαὐτοῦ, though he would fain do it, hostile attacks, Satanic assaults, temptations are not wanting (1 Peter 5:8); but the point of complication between Satan and the regenerate is not reached, the wrestling is wanting; the regenerate keeps Satan at a distance, wards him off; Bengel: malignus appropinquat, ut musca ad lychnum, sed non nocet, ne tangit quidem. “In the πανοπλία he is guarded against all the μεθοδεῖαιτοῦδιαβόλου Ephesians 6:11 sqq.” (Huther). Luther and Calvin also refer to the armour of God, so that, as in John 17:11-12; John 17:15; Revelation 3:10, God is the Preserver [Calvin: “Utut malignus renatum ad peccatum solicitet, tela tamen illius irrita cadunt, quoniam renatus scuto fidei munitus ea repellit et diabolo per fidem resistit.”—M.]. But here the Apostle contemplates only the result, and not the way to it. Additions such as letaliter (Calvin), finaliter (E. Schmid), are unnecessary. But ὁπονηρὸςοὐχἅπτεπαιαὐτοῦ depends of course on the careful τηρεῖνἑαυτὸν (Dόsterdieck, Huther). [Alford: “As the Prince of this world had nothing in our blessed Lord, even so on His faithful ones who live by His life, the Tempter has no point d’ appui, by virtue of that their γέννησις by which they are as He is.”—M.]. 1 John 5:19. We know that we are (out) of God.—The second οἴδαμεν repeats by way of introduction and in pregnant abbreviation (ἐκτοῦθεοῦἐσμέν), and with application to himself and his church, the believer’s consciousness of his Divine sonship. There is no occasion whatever to understand here the peculiar revelation vouchsafed to the Apostles, or to explain εἶναιἐκτοῦθεοῦ ?=a Deo pendere illique adhζrere (Socinus). The principal sentence is the independent clause, annexed like 1 John 5:18; 1 John 5:20, by καὶ, viz.: And the whole world lieth in the wicked one.—For the world is the territory and domain of Satan, on which account, and because ὁπονηρὸς occurs in 1 John 5:18, and we have here an antithesis to ὁθεὸς, τῷπονηρῷ is masculine, and not neuter (Lyra, Socinus, Grotius, who however allows an allusion to Satan, Spener, Rickli and al.). Ἐντῷπονηρῷκεῖται denotes like ἐντῇσυγκλήτῳκεῖται (Polyb. VI. 14, 6), both the competency of Satan and dependence on him as the controlling power; in (ἐν) him lies the world, [it is circumscribed by him and in his power—M.]; κεῖται denotes the passiveness of the state, of the situation; he ἅπτεταιτοῦκόσμου continually in the most powerful and destructive manner The ethical medium of sin is not expressed here, only the result is indicated. Referring here, with Spener and Steinhofer, to Isaiah 46:3, and explaining it in analogy with regeneration, as if the world were lying in the wicked one like a child in its mother’s womb, is false per se and not warranted by that passage wrongly rendered by Luther.—Ὁκόσμοςὅλος refers to all the unregenerate; God’s children do not belong to the world, though ἐντῷκόσμῳ, yet are they not ἐκτοῦκόσμου (John 17:11; John 17:16), not ἐκτοῦδιαβόλου (1 John 3:8). Bengel well observes: “Totus mundus, isque universus, eruditos, honestos, aliosve complectens omnes, exceptis duntaxat, qui Deo se et Christo vindicarunt, non modo non tangitur, sed plane jacet (remains lying), per idololatriam, cζcitatem, fraudem, vim, lasciviam, impietatem, malitiam omnem, in malo, expers et vitζ ex Deo et διανοίας (1 Corinthians 5:10; 1 Corinthians 11:32). Brevi hac summa vividissime denotatur horribilis status mundi. Commentarii loco est ipse mundus et mundanorum hominum actiones, sermones, contractus, lites, sodalitia.” Hence our passage does not contradict 1 John 2:2; 1 John 4:14. God aims at the redemption of the whole world through Christ and He is enough for the whole world; but Satan also, as the antagonist of God, aims at the whole world. The world is to be taken as the territory which embraces all, not as the sum-total produced by the adding together of all individuals. [Alford: “Had not Christ become a propitiation for the sins of the whole world, were He not the Saviour of the whole world, none could ever come out of the world and believe on Him; but as it is, they who believe on Him, come out and are separated from the world; so that our proposition here remains strictly true: the κόσμος is the negation of faith in Him, and as such lies in the wicked one, His adversary.”—M.]. 1 John 5:20. But we know, that the Son of God is come.—The third οἴδαμεν whose object: ὄτιὁυἱὸςτοῦθεοῦἥκει, i.e., has come; he conditions the εἶναιἐκτοῦθεοῦ which continues in εἶναιἐντῷθεῷ; had He not come, we should still lie like ὁκόσμοςἐντῷπονηρῷ. Hence it is=ἐφανερώθη 1 John 3:8 and not adest (Bengel referring to Mark 8:3).—[“δὲ closes off and sums up all: cf. 1 Thessalonians 5:23; 2 Thessalonians 3:16; Hebrews 13:22 al. This not being seen, it has been altered to καί, as there appeared to be no contrast with the preceding.” Alford.—M.]. And hath given us a sense that we know the true One.—The subject of δέδωκεν is ὁυἱὸςτοῦθεοῦ, not as Bengel Deus, as the Sender, ordaining the coming of Jesus. For Jesus is also the Mediator of the truth and of knowledge [i.e., He bestows to us the truth and this knowledge—M.], (Dόsterdieck). Διάνοια is the faculty or sense of knowing, not insight or knowledge (Lόcke, de Wette), nor the activity of thinking out all the points in contrast with a faith void of thought (Paulus), 2 Peter 3:1; Ephesians 4:18; Ephesians 1:18 (ὀφθαλμοὶτῆςκαρδίας or τῆςδιανοίας), or mind (Matthew 22:37; Luke 1:51; Ephesians 2:3; Colossians 1:21; 1 Peter 1:13; Hebrews 8:10; Hebrews 10:16), sensus cognoscendi (Lyra), sensus et gustus rerum divinarum (a Lapide), the spiritual sense (1 Corinthians 2:12; 1 Corinthians 2:14), whose aim (ἵνα), but not whose substance is γινώσκειντὸνἀληθινόν. Cf. 1 John 2:3-4; John 17:3. The object of this cognition is evidently God, qui re vera Deus est, ut eum ab idolis omnibus discernat (Calvin), in contrast with every Deus fictitius. Bengel refers to the Son without any warrant for doing so. And we are in the true One, in His Son Jesus Christ.—Another independent proposition annexed by καὶ, as in 1 John 5:19. Ἐσμὲνἐντῷἀληθινῷ, designates, as before, God, which is also evident from the pronoun in ἐντῷυἱῷαὐτοῦ. This is the extreme antithesis of κεῖταιἐντῷπονηρῷ, the climax of εἶναιἐκτοῦθεοῦ. The words ἐντῷυἱῳυἱῷαὐτοῦἸησοῦΧριστῷ fully denotes the Mediator, the ground and stay both of the knowledge and of the position of the believing child of God, and it denotes this by ἐν, not by διά, in, not per, in order to mark the permanent character of this life-fellowship; inserimur in Christum et unum efficimur cum Deo. Cf. 1 John 2:3-6; 1 John 3:2. It is therefore no opposition, as seems to be assumed by the Vulgate (which connects by et simus with the clause beginning with ἵνα), Lyra, Erasmus and al. This is the true God and eternal life.—Οὖτος like ἐκεῖνος, does not refer, as it were, in a merely mechanical manner, to the literally or locally nearest or more remote noun, but also to the noun, psychologically nearer or more remote. Winer, p. 175. Thus in 1 John 5:16, ἐκείνη did not refer to the grammatically and locally distant ἁμαρτίαμὴπρὸςθάνατον, but to the immediately preceding ἁμαρτίαπρὸςτὸνθάνατον. So here the mediating Son is not in point of sense the nearest, but ὁἀληθινός. Under the influence of the christological conflicts it may have been natural, with reference to the Arian heresy which was joined by the more modern antitrinitarians, to refer οὖτος to the Son; but the discipline of grammar and language requires us to refer it to the Father (this has been done by most commentators, also by Hofmann, Schriftbeweis I. 146, down to Sander, Ebrard, Besser, Stier [ad John 17:3. Vol. 5, p. 392] of our time), though the arrangement, the reference taken locally, might induce us to think of Christ, yet this is not the case, if the internal structure of the thought,—in which God the Father is the chief, and the Son simply the Mediator,—is attentively considered. But what does οὖτος refer to? To ἐντῷἀληθινῷ. That would make: οὖτος (ὁἀληθινός)=ὁἀληθινόςθεός, but that would be weak and shallow. But if we take οὖτος, δεικτικῶς, of Christ, it is a terse and strong conclusion of the Epistle, and a powerful motive for the concluding exhortation.—The words: καὶζωὴαἰώνιος belong to οὖτος. Grammatically it is not singular (Winer, p. 144), still less in point of thought: for God is essentially ζωή, and so is Christ (John 14:6), even ζωὴαἰώνιος. In like manner He is called φῶς (1 John 1:5), ἀλάπη (1 John 4:8; 1 John 4:16), πνεῦμα (John 4:24). Bengel, on vita ζterna, has the subtle note: “initium epistolζ et fines conveniunt.” It is therefore wrong to contend, that οὖτοςἐστινὁἀληθινὸςθεὸςκαὶζωὴαἰώνιος ought to be referred to the Son, as if His Divinity rested on this passage, and at the same time to overlook, that ἐντῷἀληθινῷ denotes primarily God the Father, nor is it right to overlook here the tautology (this One, the true One, is the true God), and to apprehend an identification of the Father and the Son, which would be un-johannean, if the clause were referred to the Son. Now John distinguishes between the Father and the Son, but not between God and not-God. In the Son from the Father we have the Father, eternal life, and all that which is the Father’s, and only in Him; hence this turn to the Son and the warning against all idols; the Son is the living Image, the Christian is in no point idolatrous! [Alford: “The grounds on which the application to Christ is rested are mainly the following: 1. that οὖτος, most naturally refers to the last mentioned substantive: 2. that ζωὴαἰώνιος, as a predicate, more naturally belongs to the Son than to the Father: 3. that the sentence, if understood of God the Father, would be aimless, and tautological. But to these it has been well and decisively answered by Lόcke and Dόsterdieck: 1. that οὖτος more than once in St. John belongs not to the nearest substantive, but to the principal one in the foregoing sentence, e.g., in 1 John 2:22 and in 2 John 1:7 : and that the subject of the whole here has been the Father, who is the ὁἀληθινός of the last verse, and the Son is referred back to Him as ὁυἱὸςαὐ ?̇τοῦ, thereby keeping Him, as the primary subject, before the mind; 2. that as little can ζωὴαἰώνιος be an actual predicate of Christ, as of the Father. He is indeed ἡζωή 1 John 1:2, but not ἡζωὴαἰώνιος. Such an expression, used predicatively, leads us to look for some expression of our Lord’s, or for some meaning which does not appear on the surface to guide us. And such an expression leading to such a meaning we have in John 17:3, αὔτηδὲἐστινἡαἰώνιοςζωή, ἵναγινώσκωσινσὲτὸνμόνονἀληθινὸνθεόν, καὶὃνἀπέστειλαςἸησοῡνΧριστόν. He is eternal life in Himself, as being the fount and origin of it: He is it to us, seeing that to know Him is to possess it. I own I cannot see, after this saying of our Lord with σετὸνμόνονἀληθινὸνθεόν, how any one can imagine that the same Apostle can have had in these words any other reference than that which is given in those; 3. this charge is altogether inaccurate. As referred to the Father, there is in it no tautology and no aimlessness. It seems to identify the ὁἀληθινός mentioned before, in a solemn manner, and leads on to the concluding warning against false gods. As in another place the Apostle intensifies the non-possession of the Son by including in it the alienation from the Father also, so here at the close of all, the ἀληθινὸςθεός, the fount of ζωὴαἰώνιος, is put before us as the ultimate aim and end, to be approached ἐντῷυἱῷαὐτοῦ, but Himself the One Father both of Him and of us who live through Him.”—M.]. Final request. 1 John 5:21 : Little children, keep yourselves from idols.—Τεκνία indicates the affectionate warmth and depth of the Apostle. The exhortation φυλάξετεἑαυτούς reminds them of great danger, against which they must be courageously on the alert; they themselves are exposed to great corruption. Bengel: “Elegantia activi verbi cum pronomine reciproco plus dicit, quam: custodimini. Custodite vos ipsos, me absente,—neque solum ab eorum cultu, sed etiam ab omni eorum communione et communionis specie.” Ἀποτῶνεἰδώλων denotes, that believers must withdraw from the idols, surrounding and in immediate proximity to them, in order to be guarded against them. The εἴδωλα are figures of imaginary deities, and as contrasted with the true God, who is Eternal Life, denote the manufacture of the creature; the decisive point, or the thing decided here is not whether they are made with hands for the grossest forms of heathenism, or in imagination and thought for its more subtle forms; the real point is that they are self-made, untrue, unliving, and strictly speaking, nothing. 1 Thessalonians 1:9; 1 Corinthians 10:19; 1 Corinthians 12:2. Dόsterdieck, therefore, is wrong in following here an Etymologicum ineditum in Biel, sub voce (τὸμὲνεἴδωλονοὐδεμίανὑπόστασινἔχει, τὸδὲὁμοίωματινῶνἐστινἔνδαλμα), and making εἴδωλον tritons or centaurs, and ὁμοίωμα, constellations, men and beasts; the Diana of the Ephesians, forsooth, was also an εἴδωλον. Cf. Romans 1:23; Romans 1:25.—We are fully warranted to refer here, with Tertullian, Oecumenius, Dόsterdieck and others, to idols proper, but equally warranted to refer also (with Bede, Rickli, Sander and others) to the self-made representations and ideas of the false teachers and their dupes, which, like the truth, they require to be received and submitted to. We may even see, with Ebrard, a reference to images of God or gods or saints in reality, or in imagination, for whom heathenish worship is required. The εἴδωλα are so dangerous because they are the objects of εἰδωλολατρεία. As this applied then to the church-frontier in contact with heathenism, so it applies at this time to the Mariolatry in the Church of Christ, and to the worship of genius, to Schiller-worship, etc., in His Church. [The literal and figurative reference in this closing charge, seems to be required by the context, and, in fact, by the whole tenor of the Epistle; the reference being both to literal idols, and to spiritual idolatry.—M.]. AND ETHICAL1. The assurance that our prayers will be heard rests upon the life-fellowship with God the Father through faith in Christ, and forbids its being circumscribed, as to the substance of our prayers, within limits narrower than those given by the Lord Himself (Matthew 6:9-13), but neither pursues any other course than that indicated in Matthew 6:33, sq., viz., it expresses in the way of ethical effort what life really stands in need of. So St. Paul in Romans 8:14-17. Absolutely exaudible is the prayer for the Holy Spirit and spiritual gifts (Luke 11:13), relatively exaudible are our prayers for temporal gifts quantum non est impedimento ad salutem (Matthew 26:39). 2. Intercession is very potent (1 John 5:16); it is a work of love, an act of kindness. 3. Every sin is, properly speaking, unto death, which is the wages of sin; there is no sin, which is not per se unto death, unto condemnation. In this respect, the maxim of the Stoics and Jovianus holds good, that omnia peccata paria, no matter how different they may be; and there is only one way towards the forgiveness and cancelling of sin, viz., Christ and His high-priestly work, and the fellowship of faith with the Sinless One. Consequently it is not the species or greatness of sin, per se, which constitutes it a sin unto death, but rather the effect of sin on the sinner’s relation to the Redeemer, or the nature of the disturbance of this relation, as evidenced by sin. The sin which indicates a permanent falling away from Christ, is sin unto death. The Romish distinction of peccatum mortale and peccatum veniale and the restriction of the former to seven, is wrong; for there is always the danger that the sin assumed to be peccatum veniale, and received in excuse of it, may turn into peccatum mortale, and that that which from a lower standpoint appears as peccatum, veniale, is afterwards in its further progress peccatum mortale. 4. Intercession for those who sin unto death is improper, because such intercession is inexaudible, because such sin cannot be forgiven. Cf. Riehm, Lehrbegriff des Hebrδerbriefs, II., pp. 763–775. The words ἀδύνατον—πάλινἀνακαινίζεινεἰςμετάνοι—αν (Hebrews 6:4-6), as well as οὐκἀφεθήσεταιαὐτῷοὔτεἐντούτῳτῷαἰῶνιοὔτεἐντῷμέλλοντι (Matthew 12:32) distinctly indicate the reason why the Apostle neither requires, nor advises us to make intercession for those sinning unto death. Cf. Hofmann, Schriftbeweis, II., p. 340, sqq. Intercession for suicides must, at all events, be judged from this stand-point.—[Jeremy Taylor: “Every Christian is in some degree in the state of grace, so long as he is invited to repentance, and so long as he is capable of the prayers of the Church. This we learn from those words of St. John: ‘All unrighteousness is sin, and there is a sin not unto death,’ that is, some sorts of sin are so incident to the condition of men, and their state of imperfection, that the man who hath committed them is still within the method of pardon, and hath not forfeited his title to the promises and covenant of repentance; but ‘there is a sin unto death;’ that is, some men proceed beyond the measures and economy of the Gospel, and the usual methods and probabilities of repentance, by obstinacy, and preserving a sin, by a wilful, spiteful resisting, or despising the offers of grace and the means of pardon; for such a man St. John does not encourage us to pray; if he be such a person as St. John described, our prayers will do him no good; but because no man can tell the last minute or period of pardon, nor just when a man is gone beyond the limit, and because the limit itself can be enlarged, and God’s mercies stay for some longer than for others, therefore St. John left us under the indefinite restraint and caution; which was derogatory enough to represent that sad state of things in which the refractory and impenitent have immerged themselves, and yet so indefinite and cautious, that we may not be too forward in applying it to particulars, nor in prescribing measures to the Divine mercy, nor in passing final sentences upon our brother, before we have heard our Judge Himself speak. ‘Sinning a sin not unto death’, is an expression fully signifying that there are some sins which though they be committed and displeased God, and must be repented of, and need many and mighty prayers for their pardon, yet the man is in the state of grace and pardon, that is, he is within the covenant of mercy; he may be admitted, if he will return to his duty: so that being in a state of grace is having a title to God’s loving-kindness, a not being rejected of God, but a being beloved of Him to certain purposes of mercy, and that hath these measures and degrees.”—M.]. 5. The regenerate, as such, according to the spirit, does not sin, though the flesh ever and anon causes him to fall. 6. The sins of the regenerate are not unto death, because forgiveness and atonement are sought and found in Christ. 7. None but believing Christians, born of God, are not subject to the world-power of Satan; those who are subject to it, are least sensible of it; the Christian, who has become free, perceives and feels it in its hostility to him and his resistance to it. 8. Vital piety finds rest only in God, from whom it comes. 9. Although the absolute and immoveably fixed assurance (certitudo) of salvation, such as the Methodists and Baptists suppose to possess, is neither possible nor biblically established, yet we may attain unto a sure confidence (fiducia), and maintain it in opposition to the Romish decrees, which not only reject the impossibility of final apostasy, but also deny this confidence of the Christian (Conc. Trid. Sess. 6:9, 15, sq.). 10. The Reformed are fully justified in their rejection of altars, images and similar instrumenta superstitionum with respect to the abuses of the Roman Catholics, and even down to the present time with their extreme Mariolatry, but they err in confounding the abuse of the several objects with the objects themselves and in changing the one into the other, in lodging complaints against the natural sphere of art instead of pressing it into the higher service [of religion—.]. The liberty of the Lutheran Church cannot be over-estimated.—Images of God will always remain hazardous, not only in the Zwinglian or Puritan sense.— AND Care for thy friends, that they may be and remain assured of the possession of eternal life, despite the temptations and troubles on earth.—Thou hast confidence in the purity of mind of some loved man, how much more shouldest thou confide in the true God?—If distrust is disgraceful and fraught with much unhappiness in our intercourse with men, how much more disgraceful and productive of unhappiness is distrust of the glorious God?—Seeing the light of the world in regeneration is no warrant that this Sun will always smile in His brightest light, unclouded and without stormy days, on the firmament of the soul; but we know, without the gift of prophecy, as the children of God, as Christians, that it is day.—Pray for everything, but be urgent unto intercession for thy erring brother. Prefer to speak of an erring brother to God than to other men.—Dismal is the high-mindedness which fancies that it can never fail with God, but equally dismal is the pusillanimity, which afraid that all is to no purpose, conducts to despair.—As a Christian be not a minor, but volunteer also to act as guardian.—Sin violates not only the Divine command before us, and the Majesty of God above us, but also the Image of God in us!—Every sin may become a sin unto death, as long as it remains unforgiven.—Every sin checks and disturbs the eternal life in thee; the greatest danger, however, is not the commission of, but consenting unto sin, and this is the more dangerous, as your sensibility has become more acute and your will more resolute under the growth of sanctification.—Beware of genius-worship!— Luther:—Thou must learn to cry and not sit down by thyself, or lie on a bench, with drooping head, or shaking it, and lacerate or consume thyself with thy anxious thoughts, caring and fretting how to get free, and regarding nothing except thy own misery and ill-fortune, and wretchedness. But come, idler that thou art, fall down on thy knees, lift up thy hands and eyes to heaven, sing a psalm or say the Lord’s prayer, and lay thy trouble before God, and with streaming eyes pour forth thy supplications and make known thy wants.—Prayer, the opening of our grief, the lifting up of our hands, are the sacrifices which are most acceptable to God.—He Himself desires thee to acquaint Him with thy distress, instead of burdening and oppressing, of torturing and lacerating thyself with it, and thus multiplying one calamity into ten or a hundred. He wants thee to be too weak to carry and overcome such a load, that thou mayest learn to grow strong in Him, and that He may be glorified in thee through His strength. Behold the opposite course makes people who are called Christians, but nothing else than vain babblers and praters, who see much of faith and the Spirit, but know not what it is, or what they see. Starke:—Holy Scripture is our Epistle of God to us, in which He reveals to us His gracious will, as it were, in His own handwriting, and His purpose to give us eternal life.—Faith is never too strong, it may and must grow stronger. Where is confidence of faith, there is joyfulness. The more faith gets filled with the riches of God, the more jubilant is its rejoicing in the abundance of its satisfaction: it is heaven on earth!—The prayer of the lip must be joined to the desire of the heart.—Wouldest thou pray so that thy prayers shall be heard, thou must be full of faith, holy, and a child of God, otherwise thou art abominable.—Prayer is not only a Christian duty, but a glorious benefit. Simplicity is not ignorance. The former befits the Christian, but not the latter. Christians must know. Ignorant Christians are unchristian.—Learned but ungodly men are unlearned; the regenerate are truly learned, as those who through the knowledge of Christ have been made apt for the kingdom of heaven and eternal salvation.—Subtle idolatry is not better than gross idolatry. Bengel:—The lamentable state of the world is most aptly described in the brief summary: “The whole world lieth in the wicked one,” and the world itself, the doings and workings of the children of the world, their sayings, their dealings, their society, etc., are the best exposition of this passage. It is not so much matter of surprise that they are so wicked, as that they are not more wicked.— Heubner:—A sin is not excusable, because it is not yet a sin unto death. A pardonable sin may become a sin unto death; therefore we should abhor every sin.—The wicked one will not touch him: 1. The power of Satan is not irresistible; 2. The Christian, while he continues in a state of regeneration, is proof against all the assaults of Satan.—Fine threads are often more dangerous than coarse chains.—Faith in the Son of God. I. A holy, blissful, assured faith: a. as to its substance: in the Image of God, in the Saviour of love; b. as to its ground: in the testimony of God; c. as to its effects: eternal life. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/