ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥΑ — — — — — — Chap. 1:1-4. Introduction: the personal authority of the Writer, and objects of the Epistle. This Epistle does not begin with an address, properly so called. But there is in this sentence the latent form of an address: the ὑμῖν of ver. 3, and the ἵναἡχαρὰ .… πεπληρωμένη , answering to the more usual χαίρειν , seem to shew that what follows is an Epistle, not a treatise. The construction of these verses is difficult, and has been variously given. The simplest view, and that generally adopted (Syr., Vulg., Œ c., Bullinger, Calv., Beza, Socinus, Grot., Calov., Fritzsche, Lü cke, De Wette, Huther, &c.) is, that in ver. 1 a sentence is begun, which is broken off by the parenthetical ver. 2 inserted to explain ver. 1, and carried on again in ver. 3, some words being, for the sake of perspicuity, recited again from ver. 1. This construction was doubted by Winer in the earlier editions of his Grammar, but has now in the 6th edit. been adopted (§ 63, i. 1, note). The smaller clauses, ὃἦν , ὃἀκηκόαμεν , &c., are co-ordinate with each other, not to be arranged as subject and predicate, as Capellus, “ quod erat ab initio, hoc ipsum est, quod audivimus, &c.” or, as Paulus, who begins his predicatory apodosis at καὶαἱχεῖρες , “ that which, &c., &c., our hands also have handled.” So that there is no need to adopt Calvin’ s solution of “ abrupta et confusa oratio:” the sentence and construction flow smoothly and regularly. That which was from the beginning (ἀπ ʼ ἀρχῆς is not synonymous with ἐνἀρχῇ , though in the depth of its meaning it is virtually the same. It sets before us the terminus a quo, but without meaning strictly to define it as such exclusively. So μέχρι , ἄχρι , and words of this kind are not unfrequently used: see Fritzsche on Matt. p. 53 f.: and cf. Acts 20:6, Romans 8:22, 2 Corinthians 3:14. The interpretation, “ Since the beginning of the Gospel,” is connected with the misunderstanding of the whole passage by the Socinian interpreters, and cannot stand for a moment when we consider the context with ver. 2, and the use of ἀπ ʼ ἀρχῆς by St. John when applied to Christ or to supernatural beings: see reff. Wherever he uses it of the preaching of the Gospel, it is definitely marked as bearing that meaning: cf. ch. 2:7, 24, 3:11. On the meaning of this clause, see below), that which we have heard (the perfect extends the reference of the verb from the beginning, and that which the Apostle might have heard concerning Christ, e. g. from John the Baptist, down to the time when he was writing; regards his hearing as a finished and abiding possession. This verb, ἀκηκόαμεν , rules the form of the sentence: hence περί below: see more there), that which we have seen with our eyes (the same is true again. The seeing as well as the hearing is a finished and abiding possession. The clauses rise in climax: seeing is more than hearing: τοῖςὀφθ . ἡμῶν emphasizes the fact of eye-witness), that which we looked upon (now, the tense is altered: because the Evangelist comes from speaking of the closed testimony which abode with him as a whole, to that of the senses actually exercised at the time when Christ was on earth. Notice the climax again: θεᾶσθαι , ‘ intueri,’ to look upon: ὁρᾷν , merely ‘ videre,’ to see: so Beza here: “ quod ego his oculis vidi, idque non semel nec obiter, sed quod ego vere et penitus sum contemplatus.” See more below), and our hands handled (“ attulerunt viri docti John 20:20, John 20:27: Luke 24:39. Sed nihil hujusmodi opus est. An probandum, Johannem, amatissimum et ἐπιστήθιον Christi discipulum, Dominum suum manibus contrectasse?” Fritzsche, Opusc. p. 295. These words are not for a moment to be washed out with a ‘ veluti’ or ‘ quasi:’ they are literal matter of fact, and form one of the strongest proofs that what is said, is said of no other than the personal incarnate Son of God) concerning the Word of life (the construction seems to be this: the περί depends strictly upon ἀκηκόαμεν , loosely upon the other clauses. The exegesis turns wholly upon the sense which we assign to the words τοῦλόγουτῆςζωῆς : and here there has been great diversity among Commentators. This diversity may be gathered under two heads: those who make λόγου the personal hypostatic Logos, who is ζωή , and those who make it the account, or preaching, or doctrine, concerning ζωή . Of this latter number, are for the most part, Socinus and his school (see an exception below), and some few other expositors, e. g., Grotius, Semler, Rosenmü ller. Of recent writers, the most distinguished is De Wette. The former, including Œ c., Thl., (“ forte de verbo vitæ sic quisque accipiat quasi locutionem quandam de Christo, non ipsum corpus Christi quod manibus tractatum est. Videte quid sequatur: et ipsa vita manifestata est. Christus ergo verbum vitæ .” In Ep. Joh. Tract. i. 1, vol. iii. p. 1978), , Calvin (gives both), Beza, Luther, Schlichting , Episcopius , Calov., Bengel, Wolf, Lü cke, Fritzsche, Baumg.-Crus., Sander, Huther, al., have been most worthily represented among modern Commentators by O. F. Fritzsche, in his Commentatio I. de Epistolarum Johannearum locis difficilioribus, in the Fritzschiorum Opuscula, pp. 276 ff. And with his interpretation, in the main, I agree, diverging from him in some points of more or less importance. And as this περὶτοῦλόγουτῆςζωῆς is the keystone of the sentence, it will be well to set out the interpretation once for all. I regard then ὁλόγοςτῆςζωῆς as the designation of our Lord Himself. He is the λόγος , and is the λόγοςτῆςζωῆς , this gen. being one of apposition, as He describes Himself as being the ζωή , John 11:25, John 14:6,— the ἄρτοςτῆςζωῆς , 6:35, 48: the φῶςτῆςζωῆς , 8:12: cf. also 1:4. This being so, the ὃ — , ὃ — , ὃ — , ὃ — , are all matters concerning, belonging to, regarding, Himself, the Lord of Life: all zeugmatically predicated of Him by the περί , which more properly belongs to the one verb ἀκηκόαμεν (notice that in ver. 5, where the nature of the ἀγγελία is stated, ἀκηκόαμεν alone, of all these verbs, is repeated). The ὃἦνἀπ ʼ ἀρχῆς is His eternal præ -existence and inherent Life and Glory with the Father: this is what, in a sense slightly, though but slightly differing from the common one, may be said to have been ἀπ ʼ ἀρχῆςπερὶτοῦλόγουτῆςζωῆς : that which was inherent indeed in Him, but by being announced to you, takes the form of being περί Him; His well-known character and attribute. The ὃἀκηκόαμεν , ὃἑωράκαμεντοῖςὀφθαλμ . ἡμῶν , hold a middle place between the eternal and præ -existent and the cosmical and human things περὶτοῦλόγουτῆςζωῆς : the hearing of the ear embracing all the teaching of the Lord respecting ὃἦνἀπ ʼ ἀρχῆς , and the seeing of the eye taking in both His glory, as on the Mount of Transfiguration, and the human Body which He assumed, with all its actions and sufferings: cf. John 19:35. Then, still lingering on the combined testimony to his præ -existent glory and His human presence in the flesh, he adds, ὃἐθεασάμεθα , which ‘ contemplari,’ as he himself tells us, saw through the human into the divine, John 1:14 , besides its earnest and diligent observation of His human life (‘ mit allem Fleiss und genau beschauet und betrachtet,’ Luther. But when Œ c. and Thl. say θεᾶσθαιἐστὶτὸμετὰθαύματοςκ . θάμβουςὁρᾷν , it is more than is in the word or in the context). Finally, he comes down to that which though the most direct and palpable proof for human testimony, is yet the lowest, as being only material and sensuous, the αἱχεῖρεςἡμῶνἐψηλάφησαν . All this concerning Him, who is ὁλόγοςτῆςζωῆς , as recapitulated again in ver. 3 under its two great heads, ὃἑωράκαμενκ . ἀκηκόαμεν , we ἀπαγγέλλομενκαὶὑμῖν . I would refer the reader who wishes to see the various other interpretations discussed, to the dissertation of Fritzsche before named: to Huther’ s Commentary: to Brü ckner’ s ed. of De Wette’ s Handbuch, where the other view from that taken here is ably defended: and to the Commentary of Dü sterdieck, who has gone at great length into the history of the exegesis. Lü cke, in loc., has very fairly stated, and refuted, the Socinian view which makes ὅ to be the teaching of Jesus from the beginning of His official life onwards, and (cf. Socinus in loc.) ὁλόγοςτῆςζωῆς , as in ch. 2:7, ὁλόγοςὃνἠκούσατε : rightly stating the fatal and crucial obstacle to this view to consist in αἱχεῖρεςἡμῶνἐψηλάφησαν , which none of its advocates can in any way get over: from Œ c. and Thl. who interpret it μετὰπολλὴνψηλάφησιν (τουτέστισυζήτησιν , adds Œ c.) ἐρευνῶντεςτὰςπερὶαὐτοῦμαρτυρούσαςγραφάς , to Grot., who supplies “ panes multiplicatos, Lazarum,” &c., and De Wette, who explains it to mean “ die Bestatigung des Gesehenen zur vollen Realitat mit demjenigen Sinne, welcher keine Tauschung zulä sst,” evading the direct application of the words to the human body of Jesus). And the life (i. e. the Lord Himself who is the Life,— ἡαὐτοζωή , ἡπηγάζουσατὸζῇν , as Matthai’ s Catena: cf. John 1:4, ἐναὐτῷζωὴἦν . This verse is parenthetical, taking up the last clause, and indeed the whole sense, of ver. 1, and shewing how the testimony there predicated became possible) was manifested (from being invisible, became visible: see reff.), and we have seen (it), and bear witness (of it), and declare (the verb ἀπαγγέλλομεν does not, either here or below, refer to the declaration in this present Epistle: it is the general declaration, in word and writing, of which the γράφομεν below, ver. 4, is the special portion at present employed) to you that life which is eternal (it is better thus, with Fritzsche, to supply an object for ἑωράκαμεν and μαρτυροῦμεν from ἡζωή above, than, with Lü cke, to carry on the sense from them to τὴνζωὴντ . αἰώνιον below: for if this latter be done, 1) the sentence drags, by the verbal portion of its last clause being overdone; 2) the middle term between the manifestation and the announcement, viz. the sight and testimony of the announcer, would be wanting: 3) it is not the ζωὴαἰώνιος , but the ζωή in Christ, which the Evangelist saw and of which he witnessed, and the predicative epithet ἡαἰώνιος first comes in with the verb ἀπαγγέλλομεν ), the which was with the Father , and was manifested to us (here the parenthesis ends, and the construction of ver. 1 is resumed. But on account of the distance at which that verse now stands, the leading particulars of its sense are recapitulated. Huther objects to the parenthetical view, that ὃἑωρ . κ . ἀκηκ . is not a full resumption, ὃἦνἀπ ʼ ἀρχῆς not appearing in it. But it is included in the hearing, as the other sensuous clause in the seeing): that which we have heard and seen, we declare to you also (the καί of the old mss. here seems to give to the Epistle the character of being addressed to some special circle of Christian readers, beyond those addressed at the conclusion of the Gospel, ch. 20:31, or we may, with Socinus (in Huther), take the καί as indicating “ vos, qui nimirum non audistis, nec vidistis, nec manibus vestris contrectastis verbum vitæ .” But the other is more likely: a supposition which is confirmed when we look further into it: see the Prolegomena. It is quite beyond all probability that the καί should have been inserted to suit καὶὑμεῖς which follows, as De Wette imagines: far more probable that the very occurrence of those words so near made it seem superfluous, or even that it was erased to give the Epistle a more general character, as ἐνἘφέσῳ , ἐνῬώμῃ , at the opening of those Epistles), in order that ye also (see above) may have communion with us , Episcopius , Bengel ,— the same communion which we have, viz. that presently mentioned: but in the sense of κοιν . μετά immediately following, and in vv. 6, 7, communion with us, the Apostle and eye-witnesses : τὸγενέσθαιἡμῶνκοινωνοί , as Schol. in Cramer’ s Catena; being bound in faith and love to them, as they were to Christ. ἔχειν must not be taken, with Corn.-a-lap., for “ pergere et in ea proficere et confirmari,” nor with Fritzsche, for “ to obtain,” “ assequi,” but in its simple meaning, to have, to possess. It may be very true, as Fr. insists, that here the Evangelist is speaking of his general work in the world, and below, ver. 4, the special object of writing this Epistle comes in: but even thus, the end proposed is simply that they might κοινωνίανἔχειν in the ordinary sense, of course by acquiring it; but this is not of necessity in the word ἔχειν ): and indeed (see reff. for καὶδέ . Here its use is to bring up something connected with what went before by καί , but contrasted with it by the δέ : the contrast here lying in the immeasurably more solemn and glorious character of the second κοινωνία , as compared with the first, which is the inlet to it: q. d. “ and this κοινωνίαμεθ ʼ ἡμῶν will not stop here: for we are but your admitters into &c.” See this same coupled contrast in reff.) our communion is (“ pessime vulg. Grot., al. sit.” Fritz. Even Augustine, Bede, Erasm. (paraphr., not in notes), Luth., Calv., take this: against which the δέ is decisive) with the Father and with (observe the repeated μετά , distinguishing the Personality, while the very fact of the κοινωνία with Both unites the Two in the Godhead. It is not, communion with God and us, but with us, whose communion is with God, the Father and the Son) His Son Jesus Christ , but because, the blessed spirit being God dwelling in man, though we may be said to have τὴνκοινωνίαντοῦἁγίουπνεύματος , 2 Corinthians 13:13,— we would hardly be said to have κοινωνίανμετὰτοῦἁγίουπνεύματος ). And these things (i. e. this whole Epistle: not, as Sander, the foregoing, nor as De Wette (altern.), and Dü st., the immediately following) we write (the reading ἡμεῖς finds no favour with most of the modern critical editors, as neither does ἡμῶν below. It is objected to the former, that thus an irrelevant emphasis will be introduced into the clause. But it has not been observed, that it is in St. John’ s manner thus to use ἡμεῖς with a verb, perhaps without any especial emphasis being conveyed: e. g. John 8:48, οὐκαλῶςλέγομενἡμεῖς … , where as here the pron. follows the verb: ib. 6:42, 9:24, 29 (1 John 3:14), al. Besides which, the ἡμεῖς is by no means otiose here, whether we read ὑμῶν or ἡμῶν below. If the former, the contrast would be plain: if the latter, we must take this ἡμεῖς to be the apostolic first person— “ I, as one of the eye and ear witnesses:” and the ᾑμῶν following in a wider sense, “ our joy” — “ the joy of us and you:” — or, it may be, our joy in accomplishing the end and bringing you into communion with us and through us with the Father and the Son: so Thl.: ἡμῶνγὰρὑμῖνκοινωνούντωνπλεῖστονἔχομεντὴνχαρὰνἡμῶν , ἣντοῖςθερισταῖςὁχαίρωνσπορεὺςἐντῇτοῦμισθοῦἀντιλήψειβραβεύσειχαιρόντωνκαὶτούτωνὅτιτῶνπόνωναὐτῶνἀπολαύουσι . Similarly Œ c.: Schol. in catena, ἐπειδὰνδὲταύτηνἔχητεκοινωνίαν , χαρᾶςἐσόμεθαμεστοί , ὅτιτῷθεῷἐκολλήθημεν : Bede, “ gaudium Doctorum sit plenum, cum multos præ dicando ad sanctæ Ecclesiæ societatem, atque ad ejus per quem Ecclesia roboratur et crescit, Dei Patris et Filii ejus Jesu Christi, societatem perducunt:” referring to Philippians 2:2, πληρώσατέμουτὴνχαράν , κ .τ .λ . As regards possibility of change of reading, it is far more probable that the not very obvious ἡμεῖς and ἡμῶν should have been altered to the very obvious ὑμῖν and ὑμῶν , so exactly correspondent to John 15:11, John 16:24), that our (see above) joy may be full (this rendering better represents the perfect than “ may be filled up,” which would indicate the process rather than the completion. The joy spoken of is the whole complex of the Christian life here and hereafter; its whole sum is, joy. As Dü sterdieck beautifully says, “ 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.” He quotes Augustine, Confess. x. 22 (32), vol. i. p. 793: “ Est enim gaudium quod non datur impiis, sed eis 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.” It has been noticed before, sub initio, that this verse fills the place of the χαίρειν so common in the opening of Epistles, and gives an epistolary character to what follows). 5-2:28. First Part of the Epistle: the message, that, if we would have communion with Him who is Light, we must walk in light, keeping His commandments. See the discussion on the division of the Epistle, in the Prolegomena. 5. In each of these divisions, the first verse contains the ground-tone of the whole. And so here— God is Light. And (καί is not a sequence on what goes before (igitur, Beza) any further than it refers back by the words ἀγγελίαἣνἀκηκόαμεν to ὃἀκηκόαμενἀπαγγέλλομεν above. It serves to introduce the new subject) the message (De Wette supposes ἀγγελία to be a correction from the more difficult ἐπαγγελία . But as Dü sterdieck has well argued, the great manuscript authority for ἀγγ ., combined with the fact that in ch. 3:11 ἐπαγγ . is also read, and with this also, that ἐπαγγ . is a very common word in the N. T., whereas ἀγγ , occurs only in these two places, precludes De W.’ s supposition. The correction from ἀγγ to ἐπαγγ . was very obvious from ch. 2:25, which also suggested transposing ἔστιναὕτη to αὕτ . ἐστ .) which we have heard from Him (viz. from Christ), and announce to you ; whereas ἐπαγγελία , which means in the N. T. nothing but “ promise” (neither in 2 Timothy 1:1, nor in Acts 23:21 has it any other sense; see note on the latter place), seems to carry no meaning here, and has, as above, evidently crept in from ch. 2:25), is this (αὕτη predicate, as always in such sentences): that God is light (not, as Luther, “ a light:” φῶς is purely predicative, indicating the essence of God: just as when it is said in ch. 4:8, ὁθεὸςἀγάπηἐστίν . There it is true the predicative is purely ethical, and thus literal, when used of God who is a Spirit, whereas here, φῶς being a material, not an ethical object, some amount of figurative meaning must be conceded. But 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 light 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 of the light, and walk in the light), and there is not in Him any darkness at all (it is according to the manner of St. John, to strengthen an affirmation by the emphatic negation of its opposite; cf. ver. 8: ch. 2:4, 10, 27, &c. Of the ethical darkness here denied, the Schol. says, οὔτεγὰρἄγνοια , οὔτεπλάνη , οὔτεἁμαρτία , οὔτεθάνατος . The οὐδεμία strengthens the negative— “ no, not even one speck.” The Greek expositors ask the question respecting this message, καὶποῦτοῦτοἤκουσε ;— and answer it, ἀπ ʼ αὐτοῦτοῦχριστοῦ , ἐγώεἰμιτὸφῶςτοῦκόσμουλέγοντος . Their reply is right, but their reference to those words of our Lord is wrong. It was ἀπ ʼ αὐτοῦτοῦχριστοῦ : viz. from the whole revelation, in doings and sufferings and sayings, of Him who was the ἀπαύγασματῆςδόξης of the Father. With that revelation those His words admirably and exactly coincided: but they were not the source of the message, referring as they did specially to Himself, and not directly to the Father. In His whole life on earth, and in the testimony of His Spirit, ἐκεῖνοςἐξηγήσατοαὐτόν . So that this message is the result of the whole complex of ver. 1). 6. None can have communion with Him who walk in darkness. If we say (the hypothesis is not assumed,— “ If we say, as we do:” — but is purely hypothetical, “ say who will and when he will.” This ἐάν with the subj. is repeated in every verse as far as ch. 2:1. The 1st pers. plur. gives to the sayings a more general form, precluding any from escaping from the inference: at the same time that by including himself in the hypothesis, the Apostle descends to the level of his readers, thus giving to his exhortations the “ come,” and not “ go,” which ever wins men’ s hearts the most) that we have communion with Him (see on ver. 3. “ Communion with God is the very innermost essence of all true Christian life.” Huther), and walk in the darkness (περιπατῶμεν , as so often in N. T., of the whole being and moving and turning in the world: as Bengel, “ actione interna et externa, quoquo nos vertimus:” see reff. τῷσκότει , τῷφωτί , mark off the two more distinctly than could be done without the art., as two existing separate ethical regions, the God and no-God regions of spiritual being), we lie (ψευδόμεθα is used with reference to εἴπωμεν : our assertion is a false one), and do not the truth (this clause is not a mere repetition, in a negative form, of the preceding ψευδόμεθα , as e. g. Episcopius, “ hoc dicentes non facimus quod rectum est:” but is an independent proposition, answering to ἐντῷσκότειπεριπατῶμεν , and asserting that all such walking in darkness is a not-doing of the truth. Christ is “ the Truth:” and all doing the Truth is of Him, and of those who are in union with Him. So that ἡἀλήθεια is objective, not as ἀλήθεια alone might be, subjective, and imports “ God’ s truth,” καθώςἐστινἀλήθειαἐντῷἸησοῦ , Ephesians 4:21. We may observe how closely the teaching here as to φῶς and ἀλήθεια resembles that in Ephesians 4:5. See also John 3:21) 7. (is not merely the contrasted hypothesis to ver. 6, but together with that contains a further unfolding of the subject): but if (see on ἐάν with the subj. above) we walk in the light (this walking in the light is explained by what follows, ὡςαὐτόςἐστινἐντῷφωτί , and by the apodosis, which gives the result of so walking,— viz. communion, &c. See Ephesians 5:8 ff. for the ethical details), as He (God) is in the light (because the Christian is made θείαςκοινωνὸςφύσεως , 2 Peter 1:4. ἔστινἐντῷφωτί is parallel with φῶςἐστίν above, ver. 5. ἔστιν , as of Him who is eternal and fixed; περιπατῶμεν , as of us who are of time, moving onward: so Bede, “ notanda distinctio verborum, quia Deum esse in luce dicit, nos autem in luce ambulare debere. Ambulant enim justi in luce, cum virtutum operibus servientes ad meliora proficiunt:” see note on ch. 2:6: τὸφῶς is the element in which God dwelleth: cf. 1 Timothy 6:16. Notice that this walking in the light, as He is in the light, is no mere imitation of God, as Episcopius, al., but is an identity in the essential element of our daily walk with the essential element of God’ s eternal being: not imitation, but coincidence and identity of the very atmosphere of life), we have communion with one another (these words, κοινωνίανἔχομενμετ ʼ ἀλλήλων , are to be taken in their plain literal sense, and refer, not to our communion with God, which is assumed in our walking in the light as He is in the light, but to our mutual communion with one another by all having the same ground-element of life, viz. the light of the Lord, Isaiah 2:5. This has been very commonly misunderstood: e. g. by Œ c. (ὥστετῆςκοινωνίαςἐχόμενοιτῆςἀλλήλων , δῆλονδὲὅτιτῆςἡμῶντεκαὶτοῦφωτός , so Thl. also), Schol. in Oxf. Cat., Aug. , Beza , Calv., Socinus, al.: even De Wette interprets “ Gemeinschaft unter einander, namlich mit Gott” and Bengel wavers between the two. The words are taken rightly by Bede (who however regards them as putting forward mutual love as the necessary result of walking in the light), Erasmus, Lyra, Luther, Grot., Estius, (Bengel,) Lü cke, Baumg.-Crus., Neander, Sander, Dü sterd., al. The words are evidently an allusion to ver. 3, and as there communion with God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ is expressed, so here it lies in the background, but need not be supplied. De Wette’ s remark is most true; Christian communion is then only real, when it is communion with God), and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanseth us from all sin of the former one, that “ if we walk, &c., we have communion, &c.,” but follows as a co-ordinate result with κοιν . ἔχ . κ .τ .λ . Secondly, καθαρίζει is the present tense, and must be kept to its present meaning. This consideration precludes all such meanings as the former of the two given by Jerome (“ quod scriptum est ‘ et sanguis Jesu filii ejus mundat nos ab omni peccato’ tam in confessione baptismatis, quam in clementia pœ nitudinis accipiendum est,” adv. Pelag. ii. 8, vol. ii. p. 750), and Bede dominicæ passionis et præ terita nobis omnia in baptismo pariter peccata laxavit (notice the past tense), et quidquid quotidiana fragilitate post baptisma commisimus ejusdem Redemtoris nostri gratia dimittit” ): and as that of Calvin , Calovius, Episcopius, al. Thirdly, the sense of καθαρίζει must be accurately ascertained and strictly kept to. In ver. 9, ἵνακαθαρίσῃἡμᾶςἀπὸπάσηςἀδικίας is plainly distinguished from ἵναἀφῇἡμῖντὰςἁμαρτίας : distinguished, as a further process; as, in a word, sanctification, distinct from justification. This meaning then, however much it may be supposed, that justification is implied or presupposed, must be held fast here. Fourthly, the sense of τὸαἷμαἸησοῦ must be also clearly defined. The expression is an objective one, not a subjective: is spoken of that which is the objective cause ab extra, of our being cleansed from all sin. And this is the material Blood of Jesus the personal Redeemer, shed on the cross as a propitiatory sacrifice for the sin of the world. So we have the same Blood said in Colossians 1:20 to be the great medium of pacification between God and the world: so in Ephesians 1:7, to be the means of our ἀπολύτρωσις : so in Hebrews 9:14, which approaches very nearly to our passage, to cleanse (καθαρίζειν as here) our conscience from dead works to serve the living God. In all these places, and similar ones, whatever application to ourselves by faith or otherwise may lie in the background, it is not that which is spoken of, but the Blood of Christ itself, as the actual objective cause, once for all, of our reconciliation and sanctification. These considerations remove much of the difficulty and possible misunderstanding of the sentence. Thus understood, it will mean, much as in the second clause of Bede’ s interpretation, that this our walking in light, itself necessarily grounded in communion with the Father and the Son, will bring about, that whatever sins we may still be betrayed into by the infirmity of our nature and the malice of the devil, from them the Blood of Jesus purifies us day by day. Observe, not, the application of that Blood: for we are speaking of a state of faith and holiness, in which that blood is continually applied: the περιπατεῖνἐντῷφωτί is, in fact, the application: is that, which, as a subjective conditional element, makes that Blood of Christ’ s cross to be to us a means of purifying from all sin. The whole doctrine of this verse is fully and admirably set forth in Dü sterdieck. The sum of what he says may be thus stated. 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 here is treating. Cf. next verse). 8-2:2. Unfolding of the idea of purification from sin by the blood of Christ, in connexion with our walking in light. This last is adduced in one of its plainest and simplest consequences, viz. the recognition of all that is yet darkness in us, in the confession of our sins. “ 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 cœ pisti, quia inest confessio peccatorum.” Aug. The light that is in us convicts the darkness, and we, no longer loving nor desiring to sin, have, by means of the propitiatory and sanctifying blood of Christ, both full forgiveness of and sure purification from all our sins. But the true test of this state of communion with and knowledge of God is, the keeping of His commandments (2:3-6), the walking as Christ walked: and this test is concentrated and summed up in its one crucial application, viz. to the law of love (2:7-11). 8. If we say (see on ἐάν with subj. above, ver. 6) that we have not sin (i. e. in the course and abiding of our walking in light: if we maintain that we are pure and free from all stain of sin. St. John is writing to persons whose sins have been forgiven them (ch. 2:12), and therefore necessarily the present tense ἔχομεν refers not to any previous state of sinful life before conversion, but to their now existing state and the sins to which they are liable in that state. And in thus referring, it takes up the conclusion of the last verse, in which the onward cleansing power of the sanctifying blood of Christ was asserted: q. d. this state of needing cleansing from all present sin is veritably that of all of us: and our recognition and confession of it is the very first essential of walking in light. The Socinian interpreters, Socinus, Schlichting, and following them Grotius, go in omnia alia, and understand the passage of sins before conversion, or of the general imputation of sin. And our own Hammond has been entirely led away from the sense of the passage by the unfortunate notion of Gnostics being every where aimed at in this Epistle: imagining that their profession of perfection while living impure lives was here intended. See these erroneous interpretations refuted at length in Lü cke and Dü sterdieck), we are deceiving ourselves (causing ourselves to err from the straight and true way), and the truth (God’ s truth, objective) is not in us (has no subjective place in us. That truth respecting God’ s holiness and our own sinfulness, which is the very first spark of light within, has no place in us at all. It would be mere wasting of room and of patience, at every turn to be stating and impugning the inadequate interpretations of the Socinian Commentators and of their followers, Grotius, Semler, &c. It may be sufficient here just to notice Grotius’ s “ non est in nobis studium veri,” and Semler’ s “ castior cognitio.” Even Lü cke has gone wrong here; “ die Selbsttä uschung verubet auf Mangel an innerem Wahrheitssinn und ist dieser Mangel selbst.” ἑαυτούς = ἡμᾶςαὐτούς , see Winer): if we confess our sins , but the union of the two, an external spoken confession springing from genuine inward contrition. As evident is it, that the confession here spoken of is not confined to confession to God, but embraces all our utterances on the subject, to one another as well as to Him; cf. James 5:16: and see more below), He (God, the Father; not, Christ, though this may at first sight seem probable from ver. 7 and ch. 2:1; nor, the Father and Christ combined, as Lange and Sander hold. God is the chief subject through the whole passage: cf. ὁθεός , ver. 5: μετ ʼ αὐτοῦ , ver. 6: αὐτός , and τοῦυἱοῦαὐτοῦ , in ver. 7. It is ever God’ s truth (1 Corinthians 1:9, 1 Corinthians 1:10, 1 Corinthians 1:13; 2 Corinthians 1:18; 1 Thessalonians 5:24) and righteousness (John 17:25; Romans 3:25; Revelation 16:5) that are concerned in, and vindicated by, our redemption) is faithful and just (His being faithful and just does not depend on our confessing our sins: He had both these attributes before, and will ever continue to have them: but by confessing our sins, we cast ourselves on, we approach and put to the proof for ourselves, and shall find operative in our case, in the ἀφῇ and καθαρίσῃ , &c., those His attributes of faithfulness and justice. On the former of these adjectives, πιστός , almost all Commentators agree. It is, faithful to His plighted word and promise: see reff. and citations above. Œ c. and Thl. alone have given a singular and not very clear interpretation: πιστὸνδὲτὸνθεὸνἀντὶτοῦἀληθῆεἴρηκε . πιστὸςγὰροὐμόνονἐπὶτοῦπεπιστευμένου , ἀλλὰκαὶἐπὶτοῦπιστωτικοῦεἴρηται , ὃςἀπὸτοῦἑαυτοῦἀληθοῦςτρόπουἔχεικαὶτὸτοῖςἄλλοιςτούτουμεταδιδόναι . The latter, δίκαιος , has not been so unanimously interpreted. The idea of God’ s justice seeming strange here, where the remission of and purification from sin is in question, some Commentators have endeavoured to give δίκαιος the sense of good, merciful: so Grot., Rosenm.; or, which amounts to the same, fair, favourably disposed: so Semler, Lange, Carpzov Bretschn. Lex. But Lü cke has shewn, that in none of the O. T. passages which are cited to substantiate these meanings, have they really place; but in all, righteousness, justice, is the fundamental idea, and the context only makes it mean, justice in this or in that direction. See note on Matthew 1:19. The meaning then being just, we have still to decide between several different views as to what particular phase of the divine justice is meant. Some, as Calov., Wolf, al., understand that God’ s justice has been satisfied in Christ, and thus the application of that satisfaction to us if we confess our sins, is an act of divine justice: is due to us in Christ. But this is plainly too much to be extracted from our verse. In Romans 3:26, where this is asserted, the reason is given, and all is fully explained: whereas here the ellipsis would be most harsh and unprecedented, and thus to fill it up would amount to an introduction into the context of an idea which is altogether foreign to it. (The notion that δίκαιος = δικαιῶν need only be mentioned to refute itself: Romans 3:26 is decisive against it.) The correct view seems to be, that δίκαιος as well as πιστός here is an attribute strictly to be kept to that which is predicated of it under the circumstances, without entering upon reasons external to the context. God is faithful, to His promise: is just, in His dealing: and both attributes operate in the forgiveness of sins to the penitent, now and hereafter; and in cleansing them from all unrighteousness. The laws of His spiritual kingdom require this: by those laws He acts in holy and infinite justice. His promises announced it, and to those promises he is faithful: but then those promises were themselves made only in accordance with his nature, who is holy, just, and true. In the background lie all the details of redemption, but they are not here in this verse: only the simple fact of God’ s justice is adduced) to forgive us our sins (ἵνα here is not = ὥστε : it is not “ so as to forgive, &c.,” but “ that He may forgive, &c.” His doing so is in accordance with, and therefore as with Him all facts are purposed, is in pursuance of, furthers the object of, His faithfulness and justice. “ So that He is faithful and just, in order that He may, &c.” See John 4:34 note: reff. here: and Winer, § 44. 8 c. With regard to the particular here mentioned, ἵναἀφῇἡμῖντὰςἁμαρτίας is the continued remission of the guilt of each committed sin, which is the special promise and just act of God under the Gospel covenant: see Hebrews 10:14, Hebrews 10:18), and cleanse us from all unrighteousness is of its nature and essence an ἀδικία , an unrighteousness, as contrary to that δικαιοσύνη . Observe, the two verbs are aorists, because the purpose of the faithfulness and justice of God is to do each as one great complex act— to justify and to sanctify wholly and entirely. 10. Not a mere repetition, but a confirmation and intensification of ver. 8. Huther well remarks, that this verse is related to ver. 9 as ver. 8 to ver. 7). If we say that we have not sinned (if we deny, that is, the fact of our commission of sins in our Christian state. The perf., so far from removing the time to that before conversion, brings it down to the present: had it been ἡμαρτήσαμεν , it might have had that signification. ἡμαρτήκαμεν answers in time to ἁμαρτίανοὐκἔχομεν : the one representing the state as existing, the other the sum of sinful acts which have gone to make it up), we make Him (God, see above) a liar (this is the climax, gradually reached through ψευδόμεθα ver. 6, and ἑαυτοὺςπλανῶμεν ver. 8. And it is justified, by the uniform assertion of God both in the O. T. and N. T. that all men are sinners, which we thus falsify as far as in us lies), and His word in not is us (cf. John 5:38. ὁλόγοςαὐτοῦ may be interpreted generally,— “ that which He saith.” “ Deus dixit ‘ peccasti:’ id negare nefandum est. Verbum nos vere accusat, et contradicendo arcetur a corde.” Bengel. οὐκἔστινἐνἡμῖν , as in John l. c., has no abiding place in, within, us: is something heard by the ear, and external to us, but not finding place among the thoughts and maxims of our heart and life. God declares that to be true which we assume to be untrue. It is evident that with Œ c., Grot., De Wette, to understand the O. T. by ὁλόγοςαὐτοῦ is to miss the connexion, seeing that it is of the sins of Christians that St. John is treating, to whom ὁλόγοςαὐτοῦ has become a far higher revelation of His will, viz. that given by Christ, and brought home to the heart by His indwelling Spirit. This final revelation of God includes the O. and N. T., and all other manifestations of His will to us: and it is this as a whole, which we reject and thrust from us, if we say at any time that we have not sinned, for its united testimony proclaims the contrary). Chap. 2:1. The connexion is thus given by Augustine: “ Et ne forte impunitatem videretur dedisse peccatis (but see below) 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, sollicitus esto: fidelis enim est et justus ut dimittat nobis delicta nostra, et semper tibi displiceas, et muteris donec perficiaris. Ideo quid sequitur? Filioli, &c. Sed forte surrepit de vita humana peccatum. Quid ergo fiet? Jam desperatio erit? Audi. Si quis, inquit, peccaverit, &c.” See more below. So also , Calvin, Luther, Calov. But there is more in the connexion 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 ch. 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 vv. 3-11. 1. My little children (see reff.: the diminutive expresses tender affection: perhaps also is used in reference to his age and long standing as a father in Christ. Compare the beautiful legend in Eus. H. E. iii. 23, where St. John calls back the young man to him with the words τίμεφεύγεις , τέκνον , τὸνσαυτοῦπατέρα ;) these things I write unto you, that ye may sin not (at all) (this exclusive meaning is given by the aor. implying the absence not only of the habit, but of any single acts, of sin. ταῦταγράφω , not as Bengel, that which follows; nor, as Grot., both the preceding and the following: but as most Commentators, the preceding only, viz. the concluding verses 8-10 of the former chapter, not in their details merely, but as Dü sterd., “ in seiner lebendigen Harmonie.” The object of writing that passage was, to bring about in them the forsaking of sin. The very announcement there made, that if we confess our sins He in His faithfulness and righteousness will cleanse us from all sin, sufficiently substantiates what the Apostle here says, without, with , al. (see above), bringing out too strongly the contemplation of a supposed misunderstanding on the part of the readers. To do this is to miss the deeper connexion in which these words stand to the great whole in its harmony, and to give instead only an apparent and superficial one. The reference of this exhortation to the unconverted among them, and rendering of ἵναμὴἁμάρτητε , “ ne maneatis in peccato,” maintained by Socinus and his followers, need only be mentioned to be refuted. The aor. alone, ἁμάρτητε , may serve to shew its utter untenableness). And if any man have sinned (aor., have committed an act of sin: still speaking of those spots of sin which owing to the infirmity of the flesh remain even in those who are walking in the light. By this ἐάντιςἁμ ., there is not, as Benson objects to this interpretation, any doubt expressed that all do occasionally sin, but the hypothesis is made, as ever by this formula, purely and generally. The resumption of the first person immediately, makes it evident that the hypothesis is in fact realized in us all), we have an Advocate with (here the sense of πρός , as a prep. of reference, is more brought out than when it is joined with a merely essential verb, as in John 1:1, and our ch. 1:2) the Father, Jesus Christ (the principal word requiring elucidation here is παράκλητον . There are two classes of interpretations of it, which, as already remarked (on John 14:16), by no means exclude one another. Of these, that one which may be summed up under the meaning “ Comforter,” has already been treated, on John, l. c. With the other we have now to deal. Advocate, advocatus, παράκλητος , ‘ causæ patronus,’ is the commoner sense of the word, answering as it does more closely to its etymology. It is found in Demosth. (p. 343. 10) and the orators: and occurs frequently in Philo in the same peculiar reference as here: e. g. in Flacc. 3, vol. ii. p. 519, where Macro is called the παράκλητος of Caius with Tiberius: de Jos. 40, p. 75: and most notably for our present place, de vita Mos. iii. 14, p. 155, ἀναγκαῖονγὰρἦντὸνἱερώμενοντῷτοῦκόσμουπατρί , παρακλήτῳχρῆσθαιτελειοτάτῳτὴνἀρετὴνυἱῷπρόςτεἀμνηστίανἁμαρτημάτωνκαὶχορηγίανἀφθονωτάτωνἀγαθῶν . In patristic literature, Dü sterd. cites the Epistle of the Churches of Lyons and Vienne (Eus. H. E. v. 1), where a young Christian, named Vettius Epagathus, ἠξίουκαὶαὐτὸςἀκουσθῆναιἀπολογούμενοςὑπὲρτῶνἀδελφῶν , … ἀνελήφθηκαὶαὐτὸςεἰςτὸνκλῆροντῶνμαρτύρων , παράκλητοςχριστιανῶνχρηματίσας , ἔχωνδὲτὸνπαράκλητονἐνἑαυτῷ : where Ruffinus’ s version, “ habens in se advocatum pro nobis Jesum,” is certainly not right; τὸνπαράκλητον meaning the Holy Spirit. Cyril Alex. in the Acts of the Council of Ephesus, p. 164 (Suicer), says, παράκλητοςκαὶἱλαστήριονὁυἱὸςὠνόμασται · καθίστησιγὰρτοῖςἐπὶγῆςεὐμενῆτὸνπατέρα , καὶπαντὸςἡμῖνεὑρίσκεταιπρόξενοςἀγαθοῦ . Augustine gives the sense thus, in words following those above cited: “ Ille est ergo advocatus: da operam tu ne pecces: si de infirmitate vitæ subrepserit peccatum, continuo vide, continuo displiceat, continuo damna; et cum damnaveris, securus ad judicem venies. Ibi habes advocatum: noli timere ne perdas caussam confessionis tuæ . Si enim aliquando in hac vita committit se homo disertæ linguæ et non perit: committis te verbo, et periturus es?” There is no discrepancy between this passage, where the Son is our παράκλητος , and John 14:16, where the Holy Spirit is called by the same name: rather is there the closest accordance, seeing that there our Lord says He will pray the Father and He will send us ἄλλονπαράκλητον : Himself, the Son of God, being thus asserted to hold this office in the first place, and the Holy Spirit to be His Substitute in His absence. See on the definite idea of the detail of the advocacy of the Son of God, Huther’ s important note here) (being) righteous (the adj. δίκαιον , without the art., carries a ratiocinative force; “ in that He is righteous,” as a contrast to ἐάντιςἀμάρτῃ . In a strict rendering, this force of the anarthrous adj. should be kept, and pointed out in exegesis: in an English version, it is hardly possible to render it otherwise than our translators have done, “ the righteous,” though it is not τὸνδίκαιον . The definite art. in English calls attention at once to the predicate, as does the omission of the definite art. in Greek: and thus the purpose of the writer is answered. And this is often the case: a vernacular version, in order to bring out in English the same idea which is expressed by the Greek, is constrained to adopt a phrase which is not in the Greek, and which sometimes looks as if the translators had made a blunder in grammar. It would be well if this were always carefully kept in mind by those who would revise our authorized version. No supposed by-sense of δίκαιος , bonus, lenis (Grot.), or = δικαιῶν (see Wolf), must (see above on ch. 1:9) be for a moment thought of. “ The righteousness of Christ stands on our side: for God’ s righteousness is, in Jesus Christ, ours.” Luther):— 2. and He (“ idemque ille,” as Lü cke. καί is merely the copula, not = quia, as Corn.-a-lap.; nor γάρ , as Syr. (not in Etheridge), Beza; it serves to bind the fundamental general proposition which follows, to the resulting particular one which has preceded) is a propitiation (“ the abstract verbal substantive in -μος betokens the intransitive reference of the verb,” see Kü hner’ s Gr. Gr. vol. i. § 378. So that ἱλασμός is not, as Grot., in his notes, = ἱλαστής , but is abstract, as ἁγιασμός applied to Christ 1 Corinthians 1:30, ἁμαρτία 2 Corinthians 5:21. Dü sterdieck here has given a long and able exposition of the word and idea, in refutation of Socinus, and of Grotius’ s notes. Grot. himself, being suspected of Socinianism, wrote his “ Defensio fidei catholicæ de satisfactione Christi adversus Faustum Socinum,” in which, ch. 7-10, he gives a full and satisfactory explanation “ de placatione et reconciliatione, de redemptione, de expiatione nostra per Christi mortem facta.” Socinus had maintained that ἱλάσκεσθαι does not mean “ ex irato mitem reddere,” but merely “ declarare quod pertinet ad pœ nas peccatorum, ejus animum cujus est eas sumere atque repetere, mitem atque pacatum: declarare, fore ut peccata meritas pœ nas non luant.” But against this Grot. shews that ἱλάσκεσθαι , as εἰρηνοποιεῖν and καταλλάσσειν , imports ‘ placare,’ i. e. ‘ iram avertere;’ and Christ has, as our ἱλασμός or ἱλαστήριον , i. e. as a sin-offering, reconciled God and us by nothing else but by His voluntary death as a sacrifice: has by this averted God’ s wrath from us. According to the constant usage of Scripture, God is in so far ἵλεως in regard to the sins of men, as He suffers His ἔλεος to prevail instead of His ὀργή . See LXX in 2 Chronicles 6:25, 2 Chronicles 6:27, Jer_38 (31) 34, 43 (36) 3, Numbers 14:18 ff. And the Greek usage entirely agrees; see Hom. Il α . 147, ὄφρ ʼ ἡμῖνἑκάεργονἱλάσσεαι , and Alberti’ s note on Hesych. s. v. ἱλάσκεσθαι . Hesych. gives the sense of ἱλάσκεσθαι , ἐξιλεοῦσθαι , and of ἱλασμός , εὐμένεια , συγχώρησις , διαλλαγή , πραότης ) for (περί , as so often in similar connexions, cf. Hebrews 10:6, Hebrews 10:8, and reff., concerning, i. e. in behalf of; not so strong as ὑπέρ , which fixes the latter meaning, excluding the wider one) our sins: yet not for ours only, but also for the whole world (in the latter clause there is an ellipsis very common in ordinary speech in every language: “ for the whole world” = “ for the sins of the whole world.” See besides reff., Revelation 13:11, 2 Peter 1:1; and Winer, edn. 6, § 66. 2 f. “ Quam late patet peccatum, tam late propitiatio,” Bengel. But this has been misunderstood or evaded by many interpreters. Cyril and Œ c. (alt.) explain ἡμετέρων to refer to the Jews, ολουτοῦκόσμου to the Gentiles. And many others, taking the former in its true sense, yet limit the latter, not being able to take in the true doctrine of universal redemption. So Bede, “ non pro illis solum propitiatio est Christus quibus tunc in carne viventibus scribebat Joannes, sed etiam pro omni Ecclesia quæ per totam mundi latitudinem diffusa est, (a) primo nimirum electo usque ad ultimum qui in fine mundi nasciturus est porrecta … Pro totius ergo mundi peccatis interpellat Dominus, quia per totum mundum est Ecclesia, quam suo sanguine comparavit.” Similarly Calvin: “ neque enim aliud fuit consilium Johannis, quam toti Ecclesiæ commune facere hoc bonum. Ergo sub omnibus, reprobos non comprehendit: sed eos designat qui simul credituri erant, et qui per varias mundi plagas dispersi erant.” But this unworthy and evasive view is opposed by the whole mass of evangelical expositors. The reason of the insertion of the particular here, is well given by Luther: “ It is a patent fact that thou too art a part of the whole world: so that thine heart cannot deceive itself and think, The Lord died for Peter and Paul, but not for me” ). 3-11. This communion with God consists, secondly, in keeping His commandments, and especially the commandment to love one another. No new division of the Epistle begins, as in Sander: ver. 3 is closely joined to ch. 1:5, 6, which introduced the first conditional passage 1:7-2:2. The great test of communion with God, walking in the light, first requires that we confess our sins: next requires that we keep His commandments. So in the main Œ c.: εἰρηκὼςἄνωτοὺςεἰςτὸνκύριονπεπιστευκόταςκοινωνίανἔχεινπρὸςαὐτόν , πιστωτικὰτῆςκοινωνίαςτῆςπρὸςαὐτὸνπαρατίθεται . And in this (ἐν , of the conditional element: in this is placed, on this depends, our knowledge. In ch. 3:24 (see below), the ἐντούτῳ is resumed by ἐκτοῦπνεύματοςοὗἡμῖνἔδωκεν ) we know (pres.: from time to time, from day to day) that we have the knowledge of him (perf.: have acquired and retain that knowledge: and this ἐγνωκέναι is not, as some (Lange, Carpzov., Wahl) make it, the love of God, as neither of course is it mere theoretical knowledge: but is that inner and living acquaintance which springs out of unity of heart and affection), if (“ St. John uses the formula ἐντούτῳγινώσκομεν first as referring the demonstrative pronoun back to what has gone before, as e. g. in our ver. 5, and in ch. 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 ch. 4:2: sometimes the construction is slightly changed, and the sentence begun with ἐντούτῳ is not regularly brought to a close, but continued in a new and correlative form: e. g. ch. 3:24, where ἐντούτῳγινώσκ . is taken up by ἐκτοῦπν . And this way of expression is closely parallel to that where ὅτι completes the construction begun with ἐντούτῳ . So ch. 3:16, 19; 4:9, 10, 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, &c. But in other passages, we find instead of this ὅτι , an ἵνα , as ch. 4:17 (but see not there: the case surely is not quite parallel, H. A.), or an ἐάν , as here, John 13:35, or ὅταν , ch. 5:2. This ἐάν , 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.” Dü sterdieck, pp. 172 f. And so here: the token, that we have the knowledge of Him, is present, if, posito that) we keep (pres., as a habit, from time to time, ἐντολαί being necessarily prescriptions regarding circumstances as they arise) His commandments (first as to the expression. St. John never uses the word νόμος for the rule of Christian obedience: this word is reserved for the Mosaic law, John 1:17, John 1:46, and in all, fifteen times in the Gospel: but almost always ἐντολαί ,— sometimes λόγοςθεοῦ or χριστοῦ , John 8:51 f., John 14:23 f., John 17:6, our ver. 5. And as a verb he always uses τηρεῖν , very seldom ποιεῖν (only in the two controverted places, ch. 5:4, Revelation 22:14 v. r.: ch. 1:6, 2:17 are not cases in point). τηρεῖν keeps its peculiar meaning of watching, guarding as some precious thing, “ observing to keep.” Next, whose commandments? The older expositors for the most part refer αὐτόν , αὐτοῦ , αὐτῷ , vv. 3-6, to Christ: so Aug., Episcop., Grot., Luther, Seb.-Schmidt, Calov., Wolf, Lange, Bengel, Sander, Neander. Socinus inclines to this view, but doubtfully; Erasmus understands αὐτός vv. 3, 4, of God, αὐτός and ἐκεῖνος vv. 5, 6, of Christ. Most modern Commentators understand αὐτόν , αὐτοῦ , αὐτῷ throughout of God, and ἐκεῖνος of Christ. So Lü cke, Baumg.-Crus., De Wette, Huther, Brü ckner, and in old times Bede and Œ c. That this latter is the right understanding of the terms, is supposed to be shewn by the substitution (?) in ver. 5 of τοῦθεοῦ for αὐτοῦ , and its taking up again by ἐναὐτῷ in ver. 6, followed by καθὼςἐκεῖνοςπεριεπάτησεν . But of this I am by no means thoroughly persuaded: see note, ver. 6). 4. Assertion, parallel with ch. 1:8, of the futility of pretending to the knowledge of God where this test is not fulfilled. The man saying (ὁλέγων answers to ἐὰνεἴπωμεν , ch. 1:8. ὅτι recitantis cannot be expressed in English), I have the knowledge of Him (see above) and not keeping His commandments, is a liar (answers to ἑαυτοὺςπλανῶμεν ch. 1:8), and in this man the truth is not (see above on ch. 1:8, where the words are the Same: 5. assertion of the other alternative, not merely as before, but, as usual, carried further and differently expressed: “ oppositio cum accessione,” as Grot.):— but whosoever keepeth His word (synonymous with τὰςἐντολὰςαὐτοῦ , considered as a whole: on the mode of expression, see above), of a truth in him is the love of God perfected (why should this transition be made from knowledge to love? “ Amor præ supponit cognitionem,” as Grot.: and is a further step in the same κοινωνία with God: not indeed that the former step is passed through and done with, but that true knowledge and love increase together, and the former is the measure of the latter, just as keeping God’ s commandments is the test and measure of true knowledge of Him. And thus in the final and perfect ideal, the two are coincident: the perfect observation of His commandments is the perfection of love to Him. It is manifest, from what has been said, that ἡἀγάπητοῦθεοῦ must be our love towards God, not His love towards us: τοῦθεοῦ a gen. objective, not subjective. Some Commentators have held the other meaning: partly because τετελείωται seemed better to be interpreted thus, and partly from doctrinal motives, as in the case of Flacius and Calovius, to keep out the Romish folly of supererogation. But the explanation, though the words themselves admit it (see ch. 4:9), is manifestly alien from the context. And of any foolish dreams of perfection or super-perfection there is no fear, if we understand the passage as intended by the Apostle, as setting forth the true ideal and perfection of knowledge and love to God, as measured by the perfect keeping of His word: which though none of us can fully reach, every true Christian has before him as his aim and final object. So that there is no need again to depart from the meaning of τετελείωται , as has been done by Beza ). In this (in the fact of our progress towards this ideal state of perfection of obedience and therefore of love:— thus assured that the germ of the state is in us and unfolding) we know that we are in Him . 6. The state of being in Him is carried forward a step further by the expression “ abide in Him:” (“ Synonyma cum gradatione: Illum nosse: in Illo esse: in Illo manere: cognitio: communio: constantia.” Bengel:) and the way is prepared, by what follows, for the coming exhortation vv. 7-11, to walk in love. The man saying that He abideth in Him (God, as above) ought (see reff. Huther well remarks, that the obligation is grounded on the λέγειν , the profession, being one of consistency with it; not on the μένειν , which would imply that which follows, as matter of necessity), even as He (Christ: by ἐκεῖνος (see above) a third person is introduced: not necessarily, see 2 Timothy 2:26 and note, but apparently by the requirements of this passage, αὐτός having come down all the way from ch. 1:5 as referred to God. I say apparently: because I do not regard it as by any means a settled matter that this αὐτός does not throughout apply to Christ, and then this ἐκεῖνος will merely refer to a different phase of predication respecting the same person as the ἐναὐτῷ designates, as in the examples produced in the note as above) walked (during His life upon earth: see below), himself also thus to walk (not any one particular of Christ’ s walk upon earth is here pointed at, but the whole of his life of holiness and purity and love. This latter, as including all the rest, is most in the Apostle’ s mind. So in Ephesians 5:1, Ephesians 5:2, where St. Paul exhorts us to be followers of God, he adds, καὶπεριπατεῖτεἐνἀγάπῃ , καθὼςκαὶὁχριστὸςἠγάπησενὑμᾶς . Luther simply but appositely remarks, that it is not Christ’ s walking on the sea, but His ordinary walk, that we are called on here to imitate). 7-11. The commandment of Love. The context see below. Beloved, I write not to you a new commandment, but an old commandment, which ye had from the beginning: the old commandment is the word which ye heard (on the right understanding of this verse, very much depends. The great question is, To what commandment does ἐντολή refer? Does it point forward to the commandment of brotherly love, in ver. 9, or back to that of walking as Christ walked, in ver. 6? One or other of these views has generally been taken decidedly, and exclusively of the other. The former view has been upheld by Aug., Bede, Œ c., Thl., Luther, Calv., Grot., Wolf, Bengel, Knapp, Baumg.-Crus., De Wette, Neander, Sander, Dü sterdieck, al.; the latter by Beza, Socinus, Seb.-Schmidt, Piscator, Episcopius, Flacius, Calov., Lü cke, Fritzsche, Jackmann, al. Of these, some on both sides may fairly be dismissed, as maintaining preposterous meanings for some of the terms used. Thus Flacius, Seb.-Schmidt, Calov., understand ἐντολή to be, not a commandment, which from usage and from ver. 3 and ch. 3:23, 5:3, it must be, but the whole “ doctrina de Christo ejusque beneficiis,” including the forgiveness of sins, vv. 1, 2, 12. Then thus taking it, the epithets “ old” and “ new” become the O. T. prophecies of Christ, and their N. T. fulfilment. Thus on the other side some, e. g. Aug., Bede, Beza, Luther (2), Seb.-Schmidt, Wolf, al., understand “ new” and “ old” not of time, but in a tropical meaning, with reference to the old Jewish or heathen darkness and the new light of Christ: a view which cannot possibly be maintained in the face of so plain a token of time as is furnished by ἀπ ʼ ἀρχῆς and by the aor. εἴχετε and ἠκούσατε . These being so far set aside, the above classes of interpreters are again divided as to their understanding of the epithets “ old” and “ new.” Those who understand the ἐντολή vv. 7, 8, of the command of love, mostly explain the oldness and newness of the difference between O. and N. T. revelation (so the Greeks, Grot., and Wolf), and some go on to understand the ἀπ ʼ ἀρχῆς of the original obscure and imperfect command to love one another in the O. T. which failed in the crowning particular of love towards enemies. Of these, the Greeks, holding not Jewish Christians alone, but Gentile also to be addressed, interpret παλαιὰἀπ ʼ ἀρχῆς and ἠκούσατε of the testimony of conscience to the law of love among the Gentiles: so Œ c. and the Scholl. speak of ἡκατὰτὰςφυσικὰςἐννοίαςφιλικὴδιάθεσις . Wolf tries to distinguish the two by referring εἴχετε to the Jews, ἠκούσατε to the Gentiles. On the other hand, those who refer ἐντολή in vv. 7, 8, to ver. 6, mostly understand the “ old” and “ new” of the different aspects in which the following the example of Christ would be regarded, within the limits of the N. T. period, since the readers had begun their Christian lives: so Socinus, Jackmann, Piscator, Episcopius, Lü cke. The lastnamed reference of ἀπ ʼ ἀρχῆς to the beginning of the Christian life of the readers, and the corresponding explanation of the “ oldness” of the commandment, is combined by De Wette and Neander only with their view of ἐντολή as the law of love. Dü sterdieck, from whom the above particulars are mainly taken, finds fault with the exclusive reference maintained for the most part by the interpreters on both sides, and believes that a via media may be found more agreeable to the ethical habits of thought of the Apostle, and to the context of the passage. This context requires, 1) that we maintain a logical connexion between ver. 6 and ver. 7, as indicated by ὀφείλει and ἐντολή : 2) that we maintain the like logical connexion between ver. 8 and ver. 9, as indicated by the figure common to them both, of the darkness and the light. Now, of these, 1) is neglected by those who understand the ἐντολή barely as the law of love; 2) is neglected by those who understand it barely of following Christ’ s example. The former make ver. 7 spring out of no contextual development: the latter treat similarly ver. 9. And the true view is to be found as thus indicated: the walk of Christ, which is our example, is essentially and completely summed up in one word, Love: and so the command, to walk as he walked, essentially and completely resolves itself into the law of brotherly love: for this last, taken in all its depth, includes not one special detail in a holy Christian life, but the whole of that life itself. Taking then this view, how are we to interpret in detail? What is καινήν what is παλαιάν what is ἀπ ʼ ἀρχῆς For these clearly all hang together. If ἀπ ʼ ἀρχῆς is to signify ‘ from the beginning of O. T. revelation,’ or ‘ from the beginning of God’ s testimony in man’ s conscience,’ we seem to be doing violence to the simple mode of address which is prevalent in our Apostle’ s style. The εἴχετε and ἠκούσατε , especially the latter, will hardly bear interpreting of the remote forefathers of the readers, as on this hypothesis they must, but require to be confined to the readers themselves, especially as they are aorists and not perfects. And if so, the meaning of ἀπ ʼ ἀρχῆς is fixed to be, from the beginning of the Christian lives, from the time when τὸνλόγονἤκουσαν . Then as to καινήν , and παλαιάν , the explanation will be simple enough. The command to love one another cannot be said to be new, for it forms a part of the λόγοςὃνἠκούσατε , nay, is the very sum and centre of that λόγος : but again, it may be said to be new, inasmuch as it ever assumes new freshness as the Christian life unfolds, as the old darkness is more and more cleared away and the true light shineth: in that light we see light; in the light of Him who maketh all things new. That the ἐντολή as such refers to the law of love, thus indeed connected with Christ’ s example here, but still to the law of love and no other, is plain from the whole usage of the Apostle; compare especially 2 John 1:4-6, where the very same train of thought occurs as here, the περιπατεῖνἐνἀληθείᾳ being = περιπατεῖνἐνφωτί here, being followed up by καθὼςἐντολὴνἐλάβομενπαρὰτοῦπατρός , and that ἐντολή being characterized, as here,— οὐχὡςἐντολὴνγράφωνσοικαινήν , ἀλλὰἣνεἴχομενἀπ ʼ ἀρχῆς , and finally being stated to be ἵναἀγαπῶμενἀλλήλους . Indeed the whole process of that passage from this point is most instructive as to our present one: καὶαὕτηἐστὶνἡἀγάπη , ἵναπεριπατῶμενκατὰτὰςἐντολὰςαὐτοῦ . αὕτηἡἐντολήἐστιν , καθὼςἠκούσατεἀπ ʼ ἀρχῆςἵναἐναὐτῇπεριπατῆτε : where the same complex of the whole Christian walk is included in the one idea of love, and ἀγάπη identified with walking according to His commandments. Again in ch. 3:11, the same formula is used in speaking of the law of love— αὕτηἐστὶνἡἀγγελίαἣννἠκούσατεἀπ ʼ ἀρχῆς , ἵναἀγαπῶμενἀλλήλους : cf. also ch. 4:21, 5:3, 3:22-24: again ch. 3:14, 4:16, John 13:35; ch. 5:1, 2, John 15:10. To recapitulate: on the interpretation here adopted, which is also that of Dü sterdieck and Huther, the ἐντολή is the command to walk as Christ walked, passing as the passage advances into the law of love. This ἐντολή is no καινή , but παλαιά , seeing that they had it ἀπ ʼ ἀρχῆς , from the beginning of their faith, and it was in fact the sum of the λόγος which they ἤκουσαν ). 8. Again a new commandment write I unto you (“ new,” in three possible ways of interpretation: 1) “ novum dicit quod Deus quotidie suggerendo veluti renovat: … Joannes negat ejusmodi esse doctrinam de fratribus diligendis, quæ tempore obsolescat: sed perpetuo vigere,” Calv.: or 2) “ illam præ ceptionem quam vobis dudum cognitam esse dixi, sic vobis denuo commendo atque injungo, tanquam si nova esset, nec vobis antehac unquam cognita,” Knapp, and so Neander; or 3) in that it was first promulgated with Christianity and unknown before. The two first are condemned by the fact, that the word in each case on which the stress of the interpretation rests, is not expressed in the text: there is for 1) no ἀεί , for 2) no νῦν . The third agrees well both with the context and with St. John’ s habit of thought, as well as with matter of fact, and our Lord’ s own words, John 13:34, John 15:12. When Lü cke objects to it that thus we have to take παλαιάν and καινήν in two different senses, he hits in fact the very point in which this interpretation approves itself the most to those who are familiar with the oxymoron of St. John’ s style. As Dü sterd. replies, “ when I stand at the point of time indicated by ἀπ ʼ ἀρχῆς , and look forwards on the Christian life of the readers, the ἐντολή appears as one long known; the readers have known it from the beginning as an essential commandment, they have had it as long as they have been Christians: on the other hand, if I look backward on the life of the readers before that ἀρχή , whether they were before that Jews or Gentiles, this same commandment of necessity appears as a new one, essentially Christian, first beginning for the readers with that beginning; for even for the Jewish Christians the command of brotherly love is a new one, seeing that it is ordained in imitation of Christ, John 13:34” ), which (thing, viz the fact that the commandment is a new one: see below) is true in Him and in you: because the darkness is passing away, and the true light is now shining (i. e. the commandment is a new one, and this is true both in (the case of) Him (Christ) and in (the case of) you: because the darkness is passing away, and the true light is shining: therefore on both accounts the command is a new one: new as regards you, because you are newly come from darkness into light: new as regards Him, because He uttered it when He came into the world to lighten every man, and began that shining which even now continues. This reference of the two clauses I hold fast against Dü sterdieck, who maintains that the ὅ refers to the content of the ἐντολή , viz. walking in brotherly love: that the commandment finds its fulfilment (ἀληθέςἐστιν) in the walk of Christians in union with Christ. But to this there are several objections which he has not noticed: 1) the probable logic of the sentence. The Apostle has made what is apparently a paradoxical assertion. He has stated that the commandment is not new but old, and then has, notwithstanding, asserted its newness. Then he proceeds ὅἐστινἀληθὲς .… ὅτικ .τ .λ . Is it not probable that this form of sentence introduces the explanation of the paradox? Is it probable, as would be the case on the other view, that so startling a proposition (after ver. 7) as πάλινἐντολὴνκαινὴνγράφωὑμῖν , would remain altogether unexplained? 2) the word ἀληθές . Dü sterd. says, “ The Apostle calls that which is enjoined in the ἐντολή , ἀληθές , because it finds its truth in its living activity, in its practical reality: it is in deed and truth (ἀληθῶς , ver. 5, John 4:42, (6:55)) living and present, and so far true, real.” But even granting this sense of ἀληθής to be possible (which may be doubted: ἀληθῶς is clearly no case in point, its adverbial character removing it into another phase of predication), is it likely that so unusual and harsh a word would be chosen as the adj. ἀληθές when the obvious sense of ἀληθές would so naturally refer it, in the reader’ s mind, to the καινότης just asserted? 3) Dü sterd. has entirely neglected the repetition of the prep. ἐν , which fact separates off ἐναὐτῷ and ἐνὑμῖν as two distinct departments, and prevents their being considered in union. “ Him,” Christ, the Head, and “ you,” the readers, as the members, which depend on the Head as the grapes on the true vine, the Apostle regards as united in the real community of life (ch. 1:3 f.), &c. But this would require ἐναὐτῷκαὶὑμῖν : and accordingly a little below he says, “ Ihm und Euch ist es wahr, was Iohannes fordert.” 4) The strict present παράγεται is disregarded by D.’ s explanation. He upholds indeed a present sense, as against the “ transierunt tenebræ ” of the vulgate (“ the darkness is past,” E. V.), but makes no further remark, not seeing apparently how peculiarly this present fits the application of the sentence to accounting for the newness of the commandment— “ You are living in a time when the darkness is rolling away, even now passing:” so that the command, which is of the Light, is well said to be “ new.” As in almost every verse of this difficult portion of the Epistle, the divergencies of interpretation are almost endless. Some few only of them can be mentioned here. That recently defended (as above) by Dü sterdieck, was before taken by Œ c., Luther, Grot., Knapp, Baumg.-Crus., Semler, &c.: that which I have maintained, by Calvin, Socinus, Flacius, Calov., Morus, Horneius, De Wette, Lü cke, Neander, Huther. Some take the ὅτι as declarative: “ it is true, that the darkness,” &c.: so Castellio, Socinus, Bengel, “ ὅτι , quod: hoc est illud præ ceptum, amor fratris, ex luce.” Erasm., Episcopius, Grot., separate the words ὅἐστινἀληθὲςἐναὐτῷκαὶἐνὑμῖν into subject and predicate: “ quod verum est in illo (Christo), id etiam in vobis verum est,” or “ esse debet.” The whole discussion, carried into most minute detail, may be seen in Dü sterdieck’ s note. To mention two matters of verbal nicety: 1) παράγεται need not be pressed, with Bengel, to its passive meaning: “ non dicit παράγει , transit, sed -εται , traducitur, commutatur, ut tandem absorbeatur. Idem verbum, ver. 17, ubi opponitur mansioni.” But the passive is not necessary for this sense: nay, in ver. 17 it is hardly admissible, and there can be no doubt that the middle was intended, in the same sense as the intr. act., 1 Corinthians 7:31: 2) ἤδηφαίνει , joined with the present παράγεται , is best taken to mean, not the full and entire shining of the true light, but its beginning to shine: its full light at the coming of the Lord, is indeed close at hand, ver. 18, and to that the ἤδηφαίνει looks on. 9, 10. We now come to the enunciation of the law of brotherly love, and in a form resembling that used in ch. 1:8, 10: and in vv. 4 f. First is asserted the incompatibility of living in hatred and walking in the light: then the identity of walking in love and walking in the light: then lastly as a contrast to the last , the same fact with regard to hatred and the darkness, and the blinding effect on him who walks in it. The φῶς is as before, the light of Christ, now partially shining, but one day to be fully revealed: the σκοτία is the darkness of this present world, now passing away). He that saith that he is in the light, and hateth his brother, is in the darkness until now (Dü sterd. has very properly protested against the softening down of μισεῖν into “ minus diligere, posthabere, non colere,” &c. “ Nothing,” he says, “ can be more shallow and weak as compared with the ethics of the whole Scripture. All the truth, depth, and power of Christian ethics rests 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 (ch. 3:14): here, love; there, hate, i. e. murder (ch. 3:14 ff.), there is no medium. In the space between, is nothing. Life may as yet be merely elementary and fragmentary. Love may be as yet 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 that other word of the Lord is true, ‘ He that is not for me is against me,’ Luke 11:23. For a man can only be either for or against Christ, and consequently can only have either love or hate towards his brother.” Bengel says well, on ver. 11, “ oppositio immediata: ubi non est amor, odium est: cor enim non est vacuum.” It has been questioned, who is meant by τὸνἀδελφὸναὐτοῦ . It seems plain that the expression here is not = τὸνπλησίοναὐτοῦ , seeing that St. John is writing to Christians, and treating of their κοινωνίαμετ ʼ ἀλλήλων . On the other hand, if we are to restrict the meaning, as is done by most modern Commentators, to Christian brotherhood, it is plain that we cannot understand strictly τὸνἀδελφὸναὐτοῦ in vv. 9, 11, seeing that the man there spoken of is in reality not a Christian at all. So that either we must enlarge the sense of ἀδελφός , or suppose some impropriety of language in the use of the term in these verses, q. d. him who ought to be loved by him as a Christian brother, supposing himself to be really a Christian. This difficulty does not seem to have struck any of the Commentators: but it is one which certainly will not allow us to confine the term to its utmost strictness of meaning. ἕωςἄρτι , up to this moment: notwithstanding any apparent change which may have taken place in him when he passed into the ranks of nominal Christians). 10. He that loveth his brother abideth in the light (i. e. the continuance of the habit of brotherly love is a measure of and a guarantee for his continuance in that light whose great command is Love), and there is no occasion of stumbling in him (so E. V., excellently. For it is clear by the parallel in ver. 11, that this is what is meant, and not that he gives no occasion of stumbling to others, as Calov., al., “ Qui fratrem odit, ipse sibi offendiculum est, et incurrit in seipsum et in omnia intus et foris; qui amat, expeditum iter habet.” Bengel. Cf. also John 11:9, John 11:10, which is in more than one respect the key-text here. For it also explains the apparently difficult ἐναὐτῷ , occurring as it does there in ver. 10, ἐὰνδέτιςπεριπατῇἐντῇνυκτί , προσκόπτει , ὅτιτὸφῶςοὐκἔστινἐναὐτῷ . The light, and the darkness, by which we walk safely, or stumble, are within ourselves; admitted into us by the eye, whose singleness fills the whole body with light). 11. But (= whereas) he that hateth his brother (see above) is in the darkness (has never come out of it: corresponds to ἐντῷφωτὶμένει above: denotes his state, whereas περιπατεῖ indicates more his outward acts), and walketh in the darkness, and knoweth not where ὑπάγω are opposed to one another) he goeth, because the darkness blinded (it is a matter of old standing: “ blinded,” and not “ hath blinded,” because it is no new effect of a state into which he has lately come, but the long past work of a state which is supposed to be gone by, and is not) his eyes. 12-14. Threefold address to the readers, accompanied by a threefold reason for writing to them; all repeated by way of parallelism, with some variations and enlargements. On the connexion and explanation of these verses, it may be observed, 1) that we have three classes of readers, denoted the first time by τεκνία , πατέρες , νεανίσκοι , and the second time by παιδία , πατέρες , νεανίσκοι . 2) that all three are addressed the first time in the present γράφω , the second time in the aorist ἔγραψα . 3) that while to the πατέρες and νεανίσκοι the same words are each time used (to the latter with an addition the second time), the τεκνία and παιδία are differently addressed. The first question arising is, what do these three classes import, and how are they to be distributed among the readers? It is obvious that the chief difficulty here is with τεκνία and παιδία . The former word is used by our Apostle once with μου , ver. 1, and six times without μου ; ver. 28, ch. 3:7, 18, 4:4, 5:21; but always as importing the whole of his readers; and once it is reported by him as used by our Lord, also in a general address to all His disciples, John 13:33. παιδία is used by him similarly in our ver. 18, and reported by him as used by our Lord in a general address, John 21:5. These facts make it very probable that both the words are here used as general designations of all the readers, and not as a designation of any particular class among them. And this is made more probable, by the fact that if τεκνία and παιδία did point out the children among them, properly or spiritually so called, the rank of classes would be different from that which would occur to any writer, viz. neither according to ascending age nor to descending, but children, fathers, young men. We seem then to have made it highly probable that τεκνία and παιδία address all the readers alike. Now if we lay any stress on the third circumstance above mentioned, that τεκνία and παιδία are differently addressed, and not so πατέρες and νεανίσκοι , and endeavour therefrom to deduce any distinction between τεκνία and παιδία in the age or qualities expressed by them, I conceive that we shall establish nothing satisfactory. If a reason for this variation of address is to be discovered, it must be sought in the parallelism of the passage. With these preliminary remarks, we come to the details. I write to you, little children (see above), because to each class among them) your sins have been (perf.: see note on Matthew 9:2) forgiven you for the sake of His (Christ’ s) name (Ἰησοῦςχριστός , the Saviour, the anointed one, bringing to mind all the work wrought out by Him for us, and all the acceptance of that work by the Father: so that it may be well said that on account of, for the sake of, that Name which the Father hath given Him, which is above every name, our sins are forgiven). 13. I write to you, fathers, because ye know Him that was (cf. ὃἦνἀπ ʼ ἀρχῆς , χῆς , ch. 1:1) from the beginning (i. e. in St. John’ s usage of speech, Christ; see ch. 1:1 and notes). I write to you, young men,because ye have conquered the wicked one , ch. 5:18, which τηρεῖν (see note there), owing to their whole life being led in communion with the Father and Son, is a τηρεῖσθαι , John 17:15). He now repeats (see above) the three classes, but with some variations and additions in his reasons for writing to each, and with the aor. ἔγραψα instead of the present γράφω . In seeking a reason for this change of tense, we have a choice between several views of Commentators. These are rather complicated by the fact that many of them read γράφω in the fourth place, against almost all authority. Of those, some, as Calvin, have been fairly baffled by the two aorists following the four presents, and have imagined ver. 14 to be interpolated: “ Quanquam fieri potest ut Joannes ipse sententiam de adolescentibus augendi causa secunde inseruerit (illic enim addit fortes esse, quod non prius dixerat), librarii autem temere numerum implere voluerint.” Of the rest, some (Storr, Lange, Baumg.-Crus., Schö tt.) think that the allusion is to St. John’ s Gospel: others, as Michaelis, to a former epistle; by far the greater part however agree rightly that this Epistle must be meant by both: see Galatians 6:11, Philemon 1:19, Philemon 1:21; our vv. 21, 26; ch. 5:13. Still, there is a wide difference in giving each tense a distinct reference. Bengel holds them to import much the same: “ a scribo transit ad scripsi: non temere: scilicet verbo scribendi ex præ senti in præ teritum transposito immisit commonitionem firmissimam:” and so Sander, and in the main Neander: “ as John has said ‘ I write to you,’ so now he takes up again and sums up that which he has written, saying, ‘ I have written to you:’ q. d., it stands fast: I have nothing more to say: this you must regard as my permanent testimony.” And Paulus, comparing the formula “ we decree and have decreed.” But as Huther remarks, this view presupposes the false rendering of ὅτι by “ that.” Lü cke, after Rickli, with much ingenuity tries to fix ἔγραψα on the preceding portion of the Epistle, keeping γράφω for the following. And in so doing, he fancies he sees a correspondence, in what has preceded and in what follows, with these addresses to different classes of hearers: e. g., in ch. 1:5-7, and 2:15-17, with ἀφέωνταιαἱἁμ .: in 1:8-2:2, and 2:18-27, with ὅτιἐγνώκατε … : in 2:3-11, and 2:28-3:22, with ὅτινενικήκατε … But no such correspondence really subsists: and Lü cke himself subsequently gave up this view:— see note in Bertheau’ s edn. of Lü cke, p. 265. De Wette and Brü ckner, with whom Huther agrees, believe γράφω to refer to the immediate act of writing, going on at the moment: ἔγραψα , to what has preceded this point: so that the former refers more to the whole Epistle, the latter to the contents of what has gone before. Dü sterdieck disapproves this, and, following Beza, refers both γράφω and ἔγραψα to the whole Epistle: the former to the Apostle’ s immediate act of writing, the latter to the readers’ act of reading when complete. In deciding between these two last views, we must bear in mind the epistolary use of the aor. ἔγραψα , according to which it refers, never, that I am aware, when thus used absolutely, to a previous portion of the Epistle, but always to the whole: which circumstance would seem to rule the meaning here, and to determine for Beza and Dü sterdieck. And no objection lies against their view, as Huther urges, from the change of persons to be supplied (see above): the supply may just as well be thus made, understanding the reference both times to be to the Apostle himself: “ I write , now that I am writing:” “ I wrote , when I wrote.” I wrote to you, children (by παιδία all the readers are meant: see above), because ye know the Father (the very word παιδία reminds of πατήρ : and the relation is close, between this and that which is said before, that their sins are forgiven for Christ’ s name’ s sake. They are received thus by adoption into God’ s family, and He is become their reconciled Father, as He is the Father of Him through whom they have received their adoption: and one of the first evidences of dawning intelligence in a child is the recognition of its father. But this knowledge of the Father does not precede, nay, it presupposes, communion with the Son: for none knoweth the Father but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal Him, Matthew 11:27). I wrote to you, fathers, because ye know Him that was from the beginning . I wrote to you, young men, because ye are strong , and the word of God abideth in you , and ye have oonquered the wicked one (see above). 15-17. Dehortation from the love of the world. The preceding designation of the different classes has been, as so frequently in St. John, their ideal designation, in the perfection of their several states of Christian life: and now, as so often, he brings that ideal state to bear on real temptations and duties. The love of the Father, the abiding in Him by His word abiding in them, the victory over him in whom ὅλοςὁκόσμοςκεῖται ,— these particulars have been enounced: and though there may be a more apparent reason why the young should have this dehortation addressed to them, and more apparent allusion to the νενικήκατετὸνπονηρόν in the bringing out of the κόσμος , yet there can be no doubt that it is to all that this address is made. All are in the world, and as long as they are, are in danger of being betrayed by the senses to cleave to the things present and seen, to the forgetfulness of those which are absent and unseen. This general reference is shewn by the ἐάντις which follows. Love not the world (what is ὁκόσμος , in the diction of St. John? And what does he import by ἀγαπᾷντὸνκόσμον When we read John 3:16, οὕτωςἠγάπησενὁθεὸςτὸνκόσμον , ὥστετὸνυἱὸναὐτοῦτὸνμονογενῆἔδωκεν , κ .τ .λ ., are we to understand the same thing by the words as here? and if not, are both κόσμος and ἀγαπᾷν taken in a different sense, or if one only, which? Beza replies, “ Mundum considerat quatenus cum Dei voluntate non consentit, et enim amorem damnat qui nos a Deo abducit: alioquin dicitur Deus ipse suum mundum infinito quodam amore dilexisse, id est, eos quos ex mundo elegit,” The palpable error of this last “ id est,” directs us to the right solution of both questions. The κόσμος in both cases is the same, the ἀγαπᾷν is different. In John 3:16 it is the love of divine compassion and creative and redeeming mercy: here, it is the love of selfish desire, cherishing avarice or pride. But then recurs our question, What is ὁκόσμος And it is no easy one to answer. If we reply so as to make it personal, we are met at once by the difficulty of τὰἐντῷκόσμῳ : from which we cannot escape by saying that these are as below ἡἐπιθυμίακ .τ .λ ., for none can be said ἀγαπᾷντὴνἐπιθυμίαν , but the ἐπιθυμία is the ἀγάπη . Hence some have been led to take these three, ἡἐπιθ . τῆςσαρκός , ἡἐπιθ . τῶνὀφθ ., ἡἀλαζονείατοῦβίου , as put for the things desired, and the material of the ἀλαζονεία . So Calvin, Episcopius, Bengel: but this manifestly will not hold, owing to the opposition in ver. 17 between ὁκόσμοςκ . ἡἐπιθυμίααὐτοῦ on the one hand, and ὁποιῶντὸθέληματοῦθεοῦ on the other, which evidently requires that its first member should be personal as well as its second. And this last will be a weighty reason also against 2) taking ὁκόσμος as merely material, the present order of things, in so far as it is alien from God. We are thus brought to a point, for our understanding of ὁκόσμος , intermediate between personal and material. But then our question is, which of the two is to take the first place? Is ὁκόσμος the world of matter, including the men who dwell in it, or is it the world of man, including matter as subordinate to man? If the former, we seem in danger of falling into a dualism, in which God and the world of matter should be set over against one another as independent existences: for thus the evil one, the ἄρχωντοῦκόσμου , and his agents the κοσμοκράτορες , would themselves be included in the κόσμος , and adjuncts to the world of matter: a mode of thought which no where appears in the apostolic writings. We are thus narrowed to our other alternative, that of understanding ὁκόσμος as of human persons, including the inferior ranks of created being, and the mass of inanimate matter which they inhabit. Let us see whether this view will meet the necessities of our text and of similar passages. Thus understood, the κόσμος was constituted at first in Adam, well-pleasing to God and obedient to Him: it was man’ s world, and in man it is summed up: and in man it fell from God’ s light into the darkness of selfish pursuits and ἐπιθυμίαικοσμικαί , in and by which man, who should be rising through his cosmic corporeal nature to God, has become materialized in spirit and dragged down so as to be worldly and sensual and like him who has led him astray, and who now, having thus subjected man’ s nature by temptation, has become the ἄρχωντοῦκόσμου . And thus the κόσμος is “ man and man’ s world,” in his and its fall from God. It was this world which God loved, in its enmity to Him, with the holy love of Redemption: it is this world which we are not to love, in its alienation from Him, with the selfish love of participation. And this κόσμος is spoken of sometimes as personal, sometimes as material, according to the context in which it occurs. To give but a few decisive examples; of the purely personal sense, John 15:18, εἰὁκόσμοςὑμᾶςμισεῖκ .τ .λ ., followed by εἰἐμὲἐδίωξαν , καὶὑμᾶςδιώξουσιν , where the singular is broken up into the individual persons: of the purely material, John 11:9, ἐάντιςπεριπατῇἐντῇἡμέρᾳ , οὐπροσκόπτει , ὅτιτὸφῶςτοῦκόσμουτούτουβλέπει . And in passages like the present, these two senses alternate with and interpenetrate one another: e. g. in τὰἐντῷκόσμῳ , the κόσμος is apparently material and local: in the opposition which follows, between the love of the world and the love of the Father, the personal meaning begins to be evident: in what follows, πᾶντὸἐντῷκόσμῳ , which at first sight seems material, is explained by ἡἐπιθυμίατῆςσαρκός , κ .τ .λ ., which are the subjective desires of the τὰἐντῷκόσμῳ , not the things themselves: then, finally, in ver. 17 where ὁκόσμοςκαὶἡἐπιθυμίααὐτοῦ is opposed to ὁποιῶντὸθέληματοῦθεοῦ , it is plain that we have passed, by the transition in the last verse, from the material to the personal sense altogether. This account may serve to explain that which has given so much trouble to Commentators here, the question whether ἐπιθυμία is not put for the thing itself which is desired: the fact being that, the κόσμος including the material world in the men, the ἐπιθυμίαι , which are in the men, are in the κόσμος , as well as the things of which they are the desires, and which are in their turn included in them. See on the whole, the long and elaborate note in Dü sterdieck, the results of which are nearly the same as those arrived at above. To detail all the shades of opinion, would be hopeless: they will mostly be found, classified and discussed, in the note referred to), nor yet the things in the world (explained above: here, the objects after which the ungodly world’ s ἐπιθυμία reaches out, and on which its ἀλαζονεία is founded). If any man (see on the same expression above, ver. 1) love the world, the love of the Father is not in him (ἡἀγ . τοῦπατρός , love to the Father, as opposed to his love to the world: not as Luther (2), Seb.-Schmidt, and Calov., the love which the Father hath shewed to us: nor as Bengel, “ amor Patris erga suos et filialis erga Patrem.” As Bede, “ unum cor duos sibi tam adversarios amores non capit.” Philo says, fragm. ex Joh. Damasceni sacris parallelis, p. 370 b (vol. ii. p. 649), ἀμήχανονσυνυπάρχειντὴνπρὸςκόσμονἀγάπηντῇπρὸςτὸνθεὸνἀγάπῃ , ὡςἀμήχανονσυνυπάρχεινἀλλήλοιςφῶςκαὶσκότος ). 16. Gives a reason for the assertion in ver. 15: viz. the entire separation from one another of the world and God. In order to understand clearly the following, it is necessary to define strictly the things mentioned, and to lay down explicitly the apposition between πᾶντὸἐντῷκ ., and the three particulars which follow as included in that category. By some Commentators this has been altogether passed over: by others very variously done. I apprehend it can only be rightly done by bearing in mind what was said before,— that, as the world is summed up in man, both those objective material things which are properly τὰἐντῷκ ., and those inward subjectivities which are in man and grounded on his cosmic state, are regarded as being ἐντῷκ ., and these pass into, and are almost interchanged with, one another. Now here, the three things spoken of as examples of τὰἐντῷκ ., are all purely subjective,— ἐπιθυμία , ἐπιθυμία , ἀλαζονεία . But they are subjectivities having their ground in the objectivities of the ungodly world: the first ἐπιθυμία springs out of (see below) the σάρξ , the human nature unrenewed by God: the second resides in that sense which takes note of outward things and so is inflamed by them; and the ἀλαζονεία is that belonging to ὁβίος , the manner of life of worldly men among one another, whereby pride as to display and pomp is cherished. Now each one of these three is included in, and includes in itself, love to the world: and he that loves the world falls into, walks after, becomes part of, these lusts, and this ἀλαζονεία , which is not of the Father but of the world. Loving the things of the world, he becomes conformed to the world, and following the lusts and pride which are in the world, he himself becomes one of the things in the world. Because every thing that is in the world, (namely, or for instance) the lust of the flesh (τῆςσαρκός is not, as made by so many Commentators, an objective gen., so that the words should mean, “ lust after the flesh,” i. e. impure desire: this they include, but far more. The gen. is subjective, the flesh being that wherein the lust dwells, as in reff.: and in ἐπιθ . τῶνκαρδιῶν , Romans 1:24: cf. Proverbs 21:26, Sir. 5:2, 18:30,— τοῦσώματος , Romans 6:12,— τῶνἀνθρώπων , 1 Peter 4:2: cf. 2 Peter 3:3, Jude 1:16, Jude 1:18,— and cf. also such expressions as ἐπιθυμίαικοσμικαί , Titus 2:12, and σαρκικαί , 1 Peter 2:11. The gen. after ἐπιθυμία is never, either in LXX or N. T., objective. Cf. some passages in which it occurs in other than the subjective sense, but never of the object desired: Ephesians 4:22, 2 Peter 2:10. In Philippians 1:23, only Origen reads after ἐπιθυμίανἔχων , τοῦἀναλῦσαι instead of εἰςτὸἀν .), and the lust of the eyes (subjective gen. as before: the lust which the eye begets by seeing. In the apocryphal Testament of the twelve patriarchs (Fabricius, cod. Pseudepigr. Vet. Test. i. p. 522), among the seven πνεύματατῆςπλάνης is enumerated the πνεῦμαὁράσεως , μεθ ʼ ἧςγίνεταιἐπιθυμία . Sander, whose commentary, otherwise useful, is disfigured throughout by an ill-natured spirit of carping at Lü cke and De Wette, denies the applicability of this passage, understanding ἐπιθυμ . τῶνὀφθ . as (if I rightly take his meaning, which is not very clear) the desire of seeing, as of the man who would not come to the supper because he must go and see his five yoke of oxen. But his whole view of this difficult passage is very superficial), and the vainglory of life (the ἀλάζων is one who lays claim to credit or glory which is not his own: see notes on Romans 1:30 and James 4:16. βίος here as in ref. is men’ s way or course of life. So in Polyb. vi. 57. 6, ἡπερὶτοὺςβίουςἀλαζονείακ . πολυτέλεια : he having before observed, τοὺςβίουςγενέσθαιπολυτελεστέρους . This βίος comprehends in it the means of living and fashion of living,— table, furniture, equipage, income, rank; and the ἀλαζονεία arising out of these is that vainglorious pride, which is so common in the rich and fashionable), is not of (springs not from, has not as its source: see below) the Father (this name is again used for God, in reference to τεκνία and παιδία above), but is of the world (has its origin from the world. It is necessary, in opposition to all such interpretations as that of Socinus, “ valde dissident ab eis quæ Deus per Christum nos sectari jussit,” and Rosenmü ller, “ non est in his perfectio moralis,” to lay down very distinctly St. John’ s limits of thought and speech in this matter. “ Through our whole Epistle,” says Dü sterdieck (cf. especially ver. 29, ch. 3:7 ff., 4:2 ff., 7 ff., 5:1 ff.), “ runs the view, which also is 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 (vv. 3 ff.), 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, &c., 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. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/alfordgnt/ 3:1-10. The true and distinguishing signs of the children of God and the children of the devil. 1-3. The foundation and source of all righteousness in us is, the essential righteousness of God. All our doing of righteousness is a mere sign that He has begotten us anew— that we are His children. And what great things are contained in this name— how precious treasures of faith, of hope, of love! On this thought the Apostle now enters. He places the whole glory of the children of God before his readers. The being righteous as He is righteous, is the token of that new birth, and the measure of the life which began with it: the striving to perfect and mature this token, to fill up this measure, is an additional proof that a man is of God. 1. Behold , what manner of (thus the E. V., literally and rightly. ποταπός , properly ποδαπός , originally meant, “ of what country;” and occurs in this sense continually in the classics: e. g. Herod. vii. 218, εἴρετο … ποδαπὸς (or ὁποδ -) εἴηὁστρατός , al. Its derivation is matter of dispute: whether from δάπος , τάπος , which forms enter into δάπεδον , ἔδαφος , τόπος ; so Valcknaer: or from ἀπό , as Buttm. Lexil. comparing ἀλλοδάπος , παντοδάπος &c., δ being inserted as in prodire, prodesse. Then in later writers it came to signify “ of what kind,” as e. g. in Demosth. p. 782, 8, τίςὁκύωνκαὶποδαπός ; οἷοςμὴδάκνειν , al. The signification quantus seems never to have belonged properly to the word. It may of course be often included in qualis, as it undoubtedly is here: “ what manner of” including “ how great,” “ how free,” “ how precious” — in fact all the particulars which are afterwards brought out respecting this love: see ver. 16, ch. 4:9, 16) love (is ἀγάπην here, joined as it is with the verb δέδωκεν , literally love itself, or does it import some gift, bestowal, or fruit of love? The latter (caritatis munus) is taken by Beza: and similarly, beneficium, or the like, by Socinus, Episcopius, Seb.-Schmidt, Grot., Est., Rosenm., Neander, al. But there seems no necessity for diverting the word from its proper meaning. As in ch. 4:9, the proof of the love is that which is imported, not by the love itself, but by the verb joined with it; as by ἐφανερώθη there, so by δέδωκεν here. So that in fact δέδωκεν , which has been the motive for these renderings, speaks, as Dü sterd. observes, most decidedly against them. He quotes from Luther’ s scholia, “ Usus autem est Joannes 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.” Cf. χἁρινδιδόναι , ref. James) the Father hath given (see above) unto us, that (how is ἵνα here to be taken? is it to be kept to its strong telic sense, indicating that our being called the children of God is the purpose of that gift of love just spoken of, or does it, as so often in St. John, introduce the purport of that love, stated in the form of an end to be gained by its manifestation? Lange, Lü cke, De Wette, and Brü ckner keep the strong telic sense. “ What great love,” says Lü cke, “ hath the Father shewn us (viz. in sending His Son, ch. 4:10), in order to make us children of God!” But the objection to this is, that thus a proof of the divine Love is hinted at in our verse which is not expanded, but is left to be gathered from elsewhere: and the purpose introduced by ἵνα becomes the secondary and remote subject of the sentence, whereas, from τέκναθεοῦ taking up the preceding γεγέννηται , and being again taken up in verse 2, it is evidently the primary subject. The other meaning of ἵνα is taken by the ancient Greek expositors, so Œ c., Thl., εἴδετεγὰρὅτιἔδωκενἡμῖντέκναθεοῦγενέσθαιτεκαὶκληθῆναι (λογισθῆναι Thl.). And this is not to confound ἵνα with ὅτι . Of the latter construction we have a plain example with ποταπός , in Matthew 8:27: ποταπόςἐστινοὗτος , ὅτικαὶοἱἄνεμοι … ὑπακούουσιναὐτῷ . There, the matter of fact is the ground of the wonderment expressed in the ποταπός — “ What a man must this be, seeing that … :” whereas here the ground of the wonderment is in the result: “ what manner of love … resulting in, proved by, our being, &c.” The effect of the love, that at which it is aimed in its immediate bestowal (its Ziel), is, that we should be called children of God: its ultimate purpose (its Zweck) is another thing. Cf. vv. 11, 23, where we have the same construction) we should be called children of God (why has the Apostle rather used κληθῶμεν than ὦμεν Probably to bring forward the title, the reality of which, notwithstanding its non-recognition by the world, he is about to assert immediately. It is not that καλεῖσθαι , as Baumg.-Crusius, = ἐξουσίανἔχεινγενέσθαι , John 1:12, so that the sense should be, “ that we have a right to presume to call ourselves children of God,” Neander: against this the aor. κληθῶμεν is decisive, signifying our reception of the title once for all, and identifying this reception with the gift of love spoken of above. In this definite reference to an actual bestower of the name, probably an allusion is made to such prophecies as that cited 2 Corinthians 6:18); and we are (so): for this cause the world doth not know (apprehend, recognize) us; because it did not know Him as one great act of non-recognition, disobedience, rebellion, hate , which makes them incapable of recognizing, loving, sympathizing with, those who are veritably children of God: cf. ch. 5:1). 2. Beloved, now are we children of God (the world recognizes us not: but our sonship is real: none the less real, that we ourselves know not our future condition in all its manifestation. So that the next member of the sentence is introduced not with an ἀλλά , but with a καί : the two are not contrasted, but simply put in juxtaposition as components of our present state. We are really sons of God, even now: and we look (this very word νῦν suggesting a future) for an inheritance in virtue of that sonship: it has not been yet manifested of what sort that inheritance shall be: thus much we know &c. Such seems to be the simple connexion, without any adversative particles expressed or understood), and it was never yet manifested (on any occasion: such is the force of the aor. And ἐφανερώθη , as so often in St. John, and as in the next sentence, does not mean, made manifest to knowledge or anticipation,— for that it is, as asserted below: but, shewn forth in actuality, come to its manifestation) what we shall be (understand, in virtue of this our state of sons of God: to what new development or condition this already existing fact will lead. But we must take care not to fall into Grot.’ s error, “ quo modo futuri simus filii Dei:” for as Calov. rightly remarks, “ non dantur gradus υἱότητος :” we are as truly, and in the same sense, children of God now, as we shall be then: but now (cf. Galatians 4:1) we are children waiting for an unknown inheritance— then we shall be children in full possession of that inheritance. And hence, from the reality and identity of that sonship, comes what follows,— our certain knowledge, even in this absence of manifestation in detail, that our future condition will consist in likeness to Him. As Œ c., τὸγὰρνῦνἄδηλονφανερὸνγενήσεται , ἐκείνουἀποκαλυπτομένου . ὅμοιοιγὰραὐτῷἀναφανέντεςτὸτῆςυἱοθεσίαςλαμπρὸνπαραστήσομεν . οἱγὰρυἱοὶπάντεςὅμοιοιτῷπατρί ). We know (no contrast— see above: what we know of this τίἐσόμεθα is this. There is not even a correction of the preceding as Dü sterd.: the connexion is simply, “ This future condition of ours hath never yet appeared: thus much we know of it.” οἴδαμεν , as always, of certain, well assured cognition) that if it were manifested (viz. the τἱἐσόμεθα ; this φανερωθῇ takes up again the former one. So Didymus (Aug. is quoted on both sides by the Commentators, but he does not really commit himself on the point), Œ c. , Luther, Seb.-Schmidt, Socinus, Episcopius, Schlichting, Grotius, Spener, Bengel, Benson, Rosenm., Lü cke, Sander, De Wette, Baumg.-Crus., Neander, Dü sterd., Huther, and others: on the other hand, , Calvin, Beza , Aretius, Whitby, Calov., Estius, al., supply “ He,” understanding Christ: appealing to St. John’ s well-known usage which we have in ch. 2:28, and below in our ver. 5. But it may be replied, that in the former case the subject was plainly suggested by ἐναὐτῷ in the latter actually expressed in ἐκεῖνος : whereas here the reference of the verb is no less plainly given by the preceding ἐφανερώθη . Besides which, ἐκεῖνος in verse 5 clearly shews that the divine subject of these verses is not Christ but the Father. Estius and Lyra indeed seem to hold it possible to supply ὁθεός as a subject to φανερωθῇ here, but not even themselves have propounded this for their own interpretation: indeed the former sets it aside, and the latter seems to be only paraphrasing when he says, “ cum nobis se patrem ostenderit in possessione cœ lestis hæ reditatis.” On the ἐάν , hypothetical, see above, ch. 2:28. As there, the φανερωθῇ is the futurus exactus: “ on its manifestation:” and here the hypothesis, from the repetition of the verb, necessarily gains, emphasis, almost = that, even if it were manifested, … This consideration has an important bearing on what follows), we stall be (ἐσόμεθα taken up again from above, and the emphatic ὅμοιοιαὐτῷ corresponding exactly to τί above) like Him (God; as Œ c. above, and most Commentators. See below), because , Schol. ii. , Luther (et). Nor does it express merely the mode of the transformation, as Lyra. Still less must we, with Calvin , Seb.-Schmidt , and Socinus ,— and so even Huther, endorsing Calvin’ s statement, “ ratio hæ c ab eftectu sumta est non a causa,” — reverse the causal connexion, and make the seeing Him as He is merely a proof that we shall be like Him . Whatever consequences it may entail, it is philologically certain that the proposition introduced by ὅτι contains the real essential cause and ground of that which it follows) we shall see Him (God: see below) as He is (with St. John, the recognition and knowledge of God is ever no mere cognition, but the measure of the spiritual life: he who has it, possesses God, has the Father and the Son: becomes more and more like God, having His seed in him. So that the full and perfect accomplishment of this knowledge in the actual fruition of God Himself must of necessity bring with it entire likeness to God. And this is the part of the future lot of the sons of God which is certain. Because we shall see Him as He is,— which is taken for granted as a Christian axiom,— it of necessity follows that we shall be entirely like Him: ethically like Him: we shall behold, as Œ c., δίκαιονδίκαιοι , ἀγνὸνἁγνοί . The difficulty that no man can see God, is not in reality contained here, any more than it is in our Lord’ s “ Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.” The word, however understood, has for its limit, that no created eye even in the glorified body can behold the Creator: that beyond its keenest search there will be glory and perfection baffling and dazzling it: but this incapacity does not prevent the vision, as far as it can reach, being clear and unclouded: being, to the utmost extent of which our glorified nature is capable, ὡςἔστιν — a true and not a false vision of God. And if it be again objected that we seem to be thus confounding the ethical sight of God which is the measure of our likeness to God, with corporeal sight of Him in the resurrection body, I answer that in the realm where our thoughts are now employed, I cannot appreciate that distinction between ethical and corporeal. We are speaking of things which eye hath not seen, nor mind conceived: what a σῶμαπνευματικόν may imply, our ideas now do not enable us to conceive: but I suppose it must at all events be a body, all of whose senses are spiritually conditioned and attuned: that what τὰφυσικά are to our bodies here, τὰπνευματικά will be there: and feeling this, however little I may know of the details of the great fact, it removes from me all insuperable difficulty as to the ὀψόμεθααὐτὸνκαθὼςἐστίν . “ I know that in my flesh I shall see God,” may not be the right expression in Job, but it is the expression of my hopes as a son of God: it is the one expression of a hope in which all other hopes culminate and centre. And every son of God knows, that for it ever to be fulfilled, he must be growing onward in likeness to Him, pure, even up into His purity: for in His light only shall we see light. The literature of this verse would far surpass our limits, even in an abridged summary. It will be found in Dü sterdieck’ s Commentary, vol. ii. pp. 56-82. One point only must be noticed before passing onward; the fact that several of the great interpreters understand αὐτῷ and αὐτόν of Christ. This has partly of course been occasioned by their supplying Christ as a subject to the verb φανερωθῇ above. Augustine has one of his most beautiful passages, explaining how at Christ’ s appearing, the impious shall see only formam servi, but we formam Dei. The whole view, however, does not satisfy the requirements of the passage. It is the τέκναθεοῦ who are addressed: and the topic of exhortation is that they be righteous as God their Father is righteous. Christ is expressly introduced below in ver. 5 (see on ver. 3) by ἐκεῖνος . Augustine concludes with a burst of eloquence which describes just as well the true view of the vision: “ Ergo visuri sumus quandam visionem, fratres, quam nec oculus vidit, nec auris audivit, nec in cor hominis ascendit: visionem quandam, visionem præ cellentem omnes pulchritudines terrenas, auri, argenti, nemorum atque camporum, pulchritudinem maris et aë ris, pulchritudinem solis et lunæ , pulchritudinem angelorum, omnia superantem, quia ex ipsa pulchra sunt omnia.” Tract. in Ep. Joh. iv. 5, vol. iii. p. 2008). 3. And every one that hath this hope (viz., that of being like Him hereafter) on Him (i. e. rested and grounded on God. In God, and grounded on His promises, is all our hope), purifieth himself appears to be synonymous with καθαρός , being used for ט ָ ה ו ֹ ר and like words. Levitical purity of persons and things (Numbers 8:21, 31:19, Numbers 8:23; 1 Chronicles 15:12), the pure life of the Nazarenes (Numbers 6:2, Numbers 6:3), the purity of God’ s word (Psalms 11:7, Psalms 18:10), all these are expressed by ἁγνός , ἁγνίζειν &c. And correspondent to this is N. T. usage. The purity of the wisdom that cometh from above (James 3:17), the purity of those who had to keep a vow (Acts 21:24, Acts 21:26, Acts 21:24:18), the absence of moral stain in the Christian character generally, which includes above all things purity of heart (1 Peter 1:22; James 4:8; 2 Corinthians 6:6; 2Co_1 Tim. 5:22: cf. Philippians 4:8; 1 Peter 3:2), and the particular purity of chastity (Titus 2:5; 1 Timothy 4:12, 1 Timothy 4:5:2; 2 Corinthians 11:2),— all these are rightly included in the name ἁγνεία .” Dü sterdieck), even as He is pure (Who is intended by ἐκεῖνος Clearly below in ver. 5, Christ, from the facts of the case. But is it as clear here? Almost all the modern Commentators assume it. And certainly, first appearances are greatly in its favour: the usual rule requiring that ἐκεῖνος shall point to a third person as yet not spoken of in the context, and differing from αὐτός . The inference is also upheld by a first view of ch. 2:6, where much the same expression is used, and used of Christ. But there are some weighty considerations against the view. First, it is the Father, of whom it is written, “ Be ye holy, for (or, as) I am holy,” 1 Peter 1:15, 1 Peter 1:16; Leviticus 11:44, 19:2: cf. also Matthew 5:48. Secondly, it would be very harsh thus to introduce a new subject, in the face of this Scripture usage. Thirdly, it would be against the whole spirit of the context: in which sonship of God and likeness to God are joined together, and the hopes belonging to the state are made motives for the duty. Fourthly, if it be asserted that Christ is our Pattern, in whom we see the Father’ s purity shewn forth; I answer that this would be perfectly intelligible, if allusion was made, as in ch. 2:6, to some historical manifestation in our Lord’ s life : but being as it is in the present tense, it refers to the essential divine attribute of purity: and if so, then to that attribute in its primary inherence in the Father. Fifthly, the usage of ἐκεῖνος with αὐτός does not at all require the change of persons, only a change of the phase of predication regarding the same person, and the throwing up into emphasis some new particular which is brought into view. See this discussed on 2 Timothy 2:26, and consult also the note on ch. 2:6, where it is very doubtful whether αὐτός and ἐκεῖνος do not refer to the same divine Person. For these reasons, I would interpret ἐκεῖνος here of the Father, in whom essentially abides this perfection of purity, and after continual increase of likeness to whom his sons, having the ultimate hope of being completely like Him, will be striving. In ver. 5 the case is otherwise: see there, and also on ver. 7). 4-10. The irreconcileability of sin with the work of redemption, with communion with Christ, and with being born of God. So De Wette; and the passage seems thus to be well described. But the difficulty has been, to mark distinctly the connexion with the foregoing. In order to discover this, we must go back to the theme of the whole section of the Epistle, in ch. 2:29: “ If God is righteous, then every one that doeth righteousness, is born of Him.” Hitherto the positive side of this position has been illustrated: the inseparability of birth-from-God and likeness-to-God. Now, the Apostle comes to treat its negative side: the incompatibility of sin with birth-from-God. And this he deals with essentially and in the ideal, as always. The whole is in the closest connexion with the foregoing, and is developed step by step with the minutest precision, as will be seen in the exegesis. 4. In this verse we have ver. 3 taken up ex adverso. There, God’ s essential purity formed a law, according to which the child of God, having hope of ultimate complete likeness to Him, purifies himself. Here we have it declared that the sinner goes counter to (this and all other) law: indeed the two terms, sin and lawlessness, are synonymous and convertible. Every one that committeth sin, also committeth transgression-of-law: and sin (abstract and in general) is transgression-of-law , or notorious and unrepented sins, or sins against brotherly love (as Luther, and Aug. on ver. 9): “ peccare contumaciter,” Aret.: “ peccato dare operam,” Beza, Piscator: “ peccare scientem et volentem,” Seb.-Schmidt, Spener. The assertions are all perfectly general, and regard, in the true root and ideal, every sin whatever. Every sin whatever then is a transgression of God’ s law: as indeed its very name implies: ἁμαρτάνειν being to miss a mark, and the mark being that will of God which is the νόμος and σκοπός to him who ποιεῖτὸθέληματοῦθεοῦ , ch. 2:17. Œ c. gives the meaning very well, except that he understands of the law of nature only, what ought to be understood of the law of God, the revelation of His will, in whatever way made: ἰστέονδὲὡςἁμαρτίαμὲνἡτοῦἀγαθοῦἀπόπτωσίςἐστιν , ἀνομίαδὲἡπερὶτὸνθετὸννόμονπλημμέλεια . καὶταύτηνἔχουσινἀρχὴνἑκάτεροντούτων , τὸμὲντὴνἀπὸτοῦἀγαθοῦἔκπτωσιν , τὸδέτὴνπερὶτὸνθετὸννόμονπλημμέλειαν . συμφέρονταιδέταύταιςκαὶκατὰταὐτόν . ὅτεγὰρἁμαρτάνωντοῦκατὰτὴνφύσινκαὶἐντῇφύσειἀπέτυχεσκοποῦ . σκοπὸςγὰρτῇἀνθρωπείᾳφύσειτὸκατὰτὸνλόγονζῇν , τῆςἀλογίαςπόῤῥωἀπῳκισμένῃ . ὡσαύτωςκαὶὁἄνομοςπλημμελεῖπερὶτὸνἐντῇφὐσειδεδομένοννόμον , διαγινόμενοςἀκρατῶς , καλῶςοὖνὁμαθητὴςτοῦκυρίουεἰςταὐτὸνἀμφότεραπεριέστησεν ). 5. Additional argument for the incompatibility of sin with the life of God’ s children; that He, Christ, in and by whom we have this adoption (John 1:12), and by being in whose likeness alone we can be perfectly like God, was manifested to take away all sins, being Himself sinless. And ye know (the Apostle assumes it as known by those who had an anointing from the Holy One and knew all things, ch. 2:20) that He (now clearly Christ, from the context, which (see above on ἐκεῖνος , ver. 3) can alone decide the reference in each case) was manifested (viz. by His appearing in the flesh, and all that He openly and visibly did and taught in it, or may be known, by the Spirit, to have done and taught) in order that He may (might) take away (aor. “ take away by one act and entirely” . The meaning, “ take away,” and not “ bear,” is necessitated here by the context. Sin is altogether alien from Christ. He became incarnate that He might blot it out: He has no stain of it on Himself. If we render ἄρῃ “ bear,” this coherence is lost. Of course this fact is in the background, that He took them away by bearing them Himself: but it is not brought out, only the antagonism between Him and sin. See, on the word, the note on ref. John) sins ; and in Him sin is not (as His work, in being manifested, was, altogether to take away sin, so likewise is He himself free from all spot of sin. The καί serves to co-ordinate the last clause with the first, not to subordinate it, as many Commentators have supposed, and even Aug.: “ In quo non est peccatum, ipse venit auferre peccatum: nam si esset et in illo peccatum, auferendum esset illi, non ipse auferret:” and Œ c., τὸκαὶἀντὶτοῦδιότι : and afterwards, ἵναὡςμὴἁμαρτίανποιὴσαςτὰςἁμαρτίαςἡμῶνἄρῃ : so also Corn.-a-lap., Lorinus, Baumg.-Crus., Sander, Neander. This interpretation is confuted by the ἐστιν , which should have been ἦν : and by the following context, in which this fact of the sinlessness of Christ serves as the foundation for what is said, verse 6. The most palpable violations of the construction and sense are made by the rationalists, of whom Grotius may serve as an example: “ præ sens pro præ terito: peccatum in eo non erat, nempe cum vitam mortalem viveret.” Socinus, feeling that this could not be, tries to explain away peccatum, as meaning “ non vitium aliquid in moribus,” but the consequences of sin, “ omnia mala, omnesque perpessiones, una cum ipsa morte,” from which Christ is now (hodie) for ever free, “ utpote beatissimus, et impatibilis atque immortalis.” And strange to say, Calvin so far misunderstands what is here said as to write “ non de Christi persona hic agit, sed de toto corpora. Quocunque vim suam diffundit Christus, negat amplius locum esse peccato.” This would deprive ἐναὐτῷμένων , verse 6, of all its meaning as referring back to the ἐναὐτῷ here, and make it merely tautological. It is only by holding fast here the personal reference to Christ in himself, that we keep the logical coherence between that verse and this: the reasoning from that which He is not, and cannot be, to that which they that abide in Him are not and cannot be). 6. The connexion see above. Every one that abideth in Him (μένειἐναὐτῷ is not to be weakened down, with Semler, Episcopius, al., by any rationalistic interpretation as “ credere in Christum,” “ Christi discipulum esse:” still less as Œ c., does ἀνενδότωςτὰςἀρετὰςμετιών express ὁἐναὐτῷμένων . Grot. is better this time,— “ qui vero amore Christo conjungitur;” but this is not enough. This a man might be to an earthly friend: but could not be said ἐναὐτῷμένειν . See the sense expanded in the note on ch. 2:24. Nothing short of personal immanence in the personal Christ will satisfy the words: a living because He lives, and as receiving of His fulness) sinneth not , Sander, al. Against all such the plain words of the Apostle must be held fast, and explained by the analogy of his way of speaking throughout the Epistle of the ideal reality of the life of God and the life of sin as absolutely excluding one another. This all the best and deepest Commentators have felt: so Augustine and Bede, “ in quantum in ipso manet, in tantum non peccat.” The two are incompatible: and in so far as a man is found in the one, he is thereby separated from the other. In the child of God is the hatred of sin; in the child of the devil, the love of it; and every act done in virtue of either state or as belonging to either, is done purely on one side or purely on the other. If the child of God falls into sin, it is an act against nature, deadly to life, hardly endured, and bringing bitter repentance: it is as the taking of a poison, which if it be not corrected by its antidote, will sap the very springs of life. So that there is no real contradiction to ch. 1:8-10, 2:2, where this very falling into sin of the child of God is asserted and the remedy prescribed. The real difficulty of our verse is in that which follows); every one that sinneth hath not seen Him, neither hath known Him (here it seems to be said that the act of sinning not only “ in tantum” excludes from the life in God and Christ, but proves that that life has never existed in the person so sinning. That this cannot be the meaning of the Apostle, is evident from such passages as ch. 1:8-10, 2:2, and indeed from the whole tenor of the Epistle, in which the νῦντέκναθεοῦἐσμέν occurs in combination with μηδεὶςπλανάτωὑμᾶς and the like: whereas if the above view were correct, the very fact of πεπλανῆσθαι not only would cause them to cease from being τέκναθεοῦ , but would prove that they never had been such. If then this cannot be so, what meaning are we to put upon the words? First observe the tense in which the verbs stand: that they are not aorists but perfects: and that some confusion is introduced in English by our perfect not corresponding to the Greek one, but rather partaking of the aoristic sense: giving the impression “ hath never seen Him nor known Him:” whereas the Greek perfect denotes an abiding present effect resting on an event in the past. So much is this so, that ἔγνωκα , and many other perfects, lose altogether their reference to the past event, and point simply to the abiding present effect of it: ἔγνωκα is the present effect of a past act of cognition, = “ I know.” In the Greek perfect, the present predominates: in the English perfect (and in the German still more), the past. Hence in very many cases the best version-rendering of the Greek perfect is by the English present. And so here, without for a moment letting go the true, significance of the tense, I should render, if making a version, “ seeth Him not, neither knoweth Him.” But manifestly such an interpretation would be philologically insufficient, and would only be chosen as the less of two evils, and as bringing out that side of the Greek perfect which, besides being the prevalent one, is less liable to mistake than the other. In exegesis, we must take in not merely the absence of such sight and knowledge in the present state of the sinner, but the significance of such present failure as regards the past: that his sight and knowledge are so far annulled as to their validity and reality. In fact, we get to much the same declaration as that in ch. 2:19, εἰἐξἡμῶνἦσαν , μεμενήκεισανἂνμεθ ʼ ἡμῶν : and their very going out shewed that they were not (all are not) of us: so here: the cutting off by an act of sin of the sight and knowledge of Christ, shews, and shews in proportion as it prevails, unreality in that sight and knowledge. As regards the relation of the words themselves, ἑώρακεν and ἔγνωκεν ; some, with whom Dü sterd. in the main agrees, hold that there is no perceptible difference: but that the latter word fixes and specifies the necessarily figurative meaning of the former: οὐδέ being simply copulative . Lü cke would understand ὁρᾷν of knowledge obtained by historical information, which matures and completes itself into γινώσκειν (edn. 3); taking οὐδέ also merely as copulative. But this seems hardly according to St. John’ s practice, who uses ὁρᾷν either of bodily sight (John 1:18, 1 John 1:1, &c., &c.),— or of an intuitive immediate vision of divine things, such as Christ has of the Father and heavenly things (John 3:11, John 3:32, John 3:6:46, John 3:8:38),— or of spiritual intuition gained by knowledge of Christ and the divine life (John 14:7, John 14:9; 3 John 1:11)and there can be little doubt that this last is the meaning here: as Sander; and thus οὐδέ will retain its proper exclusive and climacteric force: ὁρᾷν is a further step than γινώσκειν : a realization of Christ’ s personality and of the existence of heavenly things which is the result of spiritual knowledge: and thus the sinner “ hath not seen Him, nor yet known Him” ). 7, 8. The contrast is again stated, and introduced by a solemn warning not to be misled respecting it: and, as usually in St. John’ s repetitions, a new feature is brought in, which the following verses take up and further treat: viz. ἐκτοῦδιαβόλουἐστίν . 7. Little children, let no one deceive you (it does not seem that any particular false teacher is here in St. John’ s view; but he alludes to all who would sever ethical likeness to God from the Christian life): he that doeth righteousness (τὴνδ ., perhaps as being abstract, but more probably because the righteousness spoken of is but one, and that God’ s: the righteousness which is His) is righteous, even as He is righteous. This verse has absolutely nothing to do with the sense which the R.-Cath. expositors have endeavoured to extract from it, “ adversus hæ reticos hodiernos, simili ratione populum seducentes, cum negant per bona opera quemquam justum esse coram Deo,” Est., and so Lyra, Corn.-a-lap., and Tirinus. But this is altogether to invert the proposition of the Apostle, who is reasoning, not from the fact of doing good works to the conclusion that a man is righteous, but from the hypothesis of a man’ s being a child of God, born of Him and like Him, to the necessity of his purifying himself and doing righteousness. And in doing this, he ascribes the ποιεῖντὴνδικαιοσύνην to its source, and the ποιεῖντὴνἁμαρτίαν to its source: the one man is of God, the other is of the devil. As Luther well says (in Dü sterd. h. l.), “ good works of piety do not make a good pious man, but a good pious man does good pious works.… Fruits grow from the tree, not the tree from fruits” ). 8. Contrast to ver. 7: cf. ὁποιῶν … ὁποιῶν : but here by the necessity of the case, when a positive assertion comes to be made respecting the sinner, the new element ἐκτ . διαβ . ἐστίν is introduced: see below. He that doeth sin is of the devil (notice first ὁποιῶντὴνἁμαρτίαν , as indicative not so much of individual acts as of a state, corresponding to ὁποιῶντὴνδικαιοσύνην . And then ἐκτοῦδιαβόλουἐστίν must not be rationalized away, as is done by those who deny the personal existence of the devil. It is the distinct opposite correlative of ἐκτοῦθεοῦἐστιν (ver. 10 al. freq.), and implies a personal root and agency just as much as that other does. But again, it does not imply any physical dualism on the part of the Apostle. “ Neminem fecit diabolus,” says Aug. h. l. Tract. iv. 10, 11, vol. iii. p. 2011, “ neminem genuit, neminem creavit; sed quicunque fuerit imitatus diabolum, quasi de illo natus, fit filius diaboli, imitando, non proprie nascendo.… 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.… ” And below, § 11, “ Ergo duas nativitates attendite, Adam et Christi. Duo sunt homines, sed unus ipsorum homo homo, alter ipsorum homo Deus. Per hominem hominem peccatores sumus, per hominem Deum justificamur. Nativitas illa dejecit ad mortem, ista nativitas erexit ad vitam: nativitas illa trahit secum peccatum, nativitas ista liberat a peccato: ideo enim venit Christus homo, ut solveret peccata hominum.” Origen (in Joan. tom. xx. 13, vol. iv. p. 325 d) remarks that ἐστίν is said ἐπὶτοῦἐκτοῦδιαβόλου , not ἐπὶτῶνἐκτοῦθεοῦ , and on the other hand γεγεννημένος is said ἐπὶτῶνἐκτοῦθεοῦ , not ἐπὶτῶνἐκτοῦδιαβόλου . This must not be urged too far, seeing that St. John does speak of εἶναιἐκτοῦθεοῦ , e. g. ch. 5:19, and places over against one another the τέκνατοῦθεοῦ and the τέκνατοῦδιαβόλου ver. 10: besides which, the devil is said to be ὁπατήρ of the unbelieving (John 8:44). All that we can say is, that the two are not strictly correspondent: that Origen’ s latter assertion is true— we have no γεγεννῆσθαιἐκτοῦδιαβόλου . In the case of the children of God, there is a definite time, known to Him, when they passed from death unto life (ch. 2:29, 3:14, 5:11; John 1:12, John 1:3:3 ff., John 1:5:24, &c.): from which their new life unto God dates: but there is no such point in the life of those who are the children of the devil: no regeneration from beneath corresponding to that from above: the natural life of men is not changed by seed of the devil as it is by seed of God. Rather may we say, that in those who are of the devil this latter change has never taken place. Since sin has come to reign in the world by man’ s sin, our natural birth, which is properly and essentially a birth from God, a creation by the eternal Word, has become a birth from the devil: so that it is, as Bengel expresses it, “ corruptio, non generatio,” and there is no trace of a physical dualism in St. John’ s doctrine: nay, the idea is at once precluded by the fact that according to the Apostle (John 1:12) those who are children of God have become so from having been children of the devil. See this expounded, as usual, in Dü sterd.’ s note, from which much of the above is gathered): because the devil sinneth from the beginning (= ‘ sinned in the beginning, and has never ceased to sin since:’ as Bede: “ cum præ mitteret ‘ ab initio,’ subjunxit verbum præ sentis temporis ‘ peccat:’ quia ex quo ab initio cœ pit diabolus peccare, nunquam desiit.” But the question meets us, what is ἀπ ʼ ἀρχῆς Bede, al., understand it of the beginning of all creation: “ neque enim dubitandum est inter primas creaturas angelos esse conditos; sed cæ teris ad laudem Creatoris gloriam suæ conditionis referentibus, ille qui primus est conditus, mox ut altitudinem suæ claritatis aspexit, contra conditorem cum suis sequacibus superbus intumuit, perque eandem superbiam ex initio peccans, de archangelo in diabolum est versus.” Many Commentators, to avoid all chance of dualism, make it mean not from the time of his creation, but from that of his fall: so Estius, understanding the ἀρχή of the beginning of our world: “ statim a mundi creatione diabolum peccasse, cum prius nullum esset in mundo peccatum:” Calvin, “ nihil aliud vult Johannes, quam diabolum statim a creatione mundi fuisse apostatam.” But again, others suppose the term to mark the beginning of the devil’ s own apostasy: so Bengel, “ ex quo diabolus est diabolus,” Sander, al. And lastly, Lü cke, De Wette, Brü ckner, Dü sterd., Neander, take it with Seb.-Schmidt, “ ab initio τοῦ peccare,” from the time when any began to sin. And this seems, when we compare John 8:44, to be the true interpretation. He has ever been the depositary, as it were, of the thought and the life of sin: the tempter to sin: the fountain out of which sin has come, as God is the fountain out of which has come righteousness. See on this subject, my Sermons on Divine Love, Serm. v. pp. 68 ff., “ the First Sinner;” and Sartorius, “ Lehre von der heiligen Liebe,” i. pp. 115 ff.). To this end was the Son of God manifested (viz. in His incarnation, pregnant with all its consequences), that He might destroy (do away, break up, pull down: see reff.: of a building, or a law, or an organized whole) the works of the devil (what are these? Clearly, in the first place, works whereof the devil is the author: not as Baumg.-Crus., merely devilish works. And then, are we to include in the list not only sins, which manifestly belong to it, but also the consequences of sin, pain, sorrow, death? The fact would be true if we did: for Christ hath abolished death (2 Timothy 1:10): and Estius’ s objection need not have any weight with us, “ mors peccatum non est, sed pœ na peccati, Deum habens auctorem.… Destruitur mors per Christum, non quod ipsa sit opus diaboli sed quod ex opere diaboli justo Dei judicio subsecuta:” for even thus considered, it would be implicitly one of those works. But the context seems to require that we should at all events keep death and the results of sin in the background, as no mention is made of them here, and sinful works are clearly in the Apostle’ s mind. These works the whole φανέρωσις of Christ went directly to nullify: more especially His Death, in which His power over Satan reached its highest point,— the bruising of His heel, in which He bruised the Enemy’ s head:— for it was in that, that He won for us that acceptance which is sealed by His glorification, and in virtue of which the Holy Spirit is given us, of whose work in us it is said that we πνεύματιτὰςπράξειςτοῦσώματοςθανατοῦμεν , Romans 8:13). 9, 10. The contrast taken up again, and from the converse: he that is born of God cannot sin: he that does not righteousness, is not of God: i. e. is a child of the devil. Then we have the usual new particular, to give the transition note to that which is to follow,— including in this last category him that loveth not his brother. Every one that is begotten of God, doeth not sin (the meaning of this declaration has been treated of above, ver. 6. Here we meet it in its barest and plainest form— the two states, being begotten of God, and sin, absolutely excluding one another), because His seed abideth in him (i. e. because that new principle of life from which his new life has unfolded, which was God’ s seed deposited in him, abides growing there, and precludes the development of the old sinful nature. So the majority of the better expositors, defining somewhat differently, when they come to explain in detail this germ of spiritual life: Œ c.,— ἤτοι (1) τὸπνεῦμαὃδιὰτοῦχαρίσματοςἐλάβομεν , … ἢ (2) καὶαὐτὸςὁχριστὸς , ὃςἐνοικῶνἐντοῖςπιστοὶςποιεῖαὐτοὺςυἱοὺςθεοῦ : Severus in Cramer’ s Catena, ἡτοῦἁγίουπνεύματοςἐπιφοίτησιςδι ʼ ἧςἀνεγεννήθημεν : so (1) Lü cke, Dü sterd.;— “ Spiritus sanctus et virtus ejus” Calvin, Beza; “ gratia,” Lyra, Tirinus, Corn.-a-lap.; “ nativitas spiritualis,” Estius, Luther; “ vires regenerationis quæ a Spiritu sancto fit,” Seb.-Schmidt; “ the power of the divine life,” De Wette (= τὸπν . τοῦθ .), Baumg.-Crus., Neander, Erdmann, De W.; “ the spirit of man new begotten by the Spirit of God, in contrast to the flesh,” Sander. Some of the ancients understood it of the word of God, as in the parable of the sower, Matthew 13:3 ff. So Clem. Alex. (but not as exegesis on this passage: at least if the passage in Strom. i. 1. 1, p. 317 P be meant,— ὁΣαλομῶν (Proverbs 2:1) … σπειρόμενοντὸνλόγονκρύπτεσθαιμηνύεικαθάπερἐνγῇτῇτοῦμανθάνοντοςψυχῇ , καὶαὕτηπνευματικὴφυτεία ), Aug. , Bede (h. l.), Luther (1), Spener, Grotius, Calov., Bengel, Benson, Whitby, Socinus, Schlichting, Rosenmü ller, al. This last interpretation has been impugned by all the moderns, but I cannot see that they have made good their objection: the force of which, as stated by Huther and Dü sterd., amounts to this; that the word of God is not so much the Seed, as the means whereby the begetting to the new life takes place (“ das Mittel der Erzeugung des neuen Lebens,” Huth.). 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 on 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, τὸνλόγοναὐτοῦοὐκἔχετεἐνὑμῖνμένοντα . Nor should any exception have been taken by Huther and Dü sterd. to the comparison with the parable of the Sower (“ wie viele altere Ausleger mit ungeschickter Bergleichung von Matthew 13:3 Matthew 13:3 ff.,” Dü sterd.), for though the attendant circumstances of generation are different, the analogy is the same. There is a novel and extraordinary rendering proposed by Bengel, who, after explaining σπέρμα by “ verbum Dei cum sua virtute,” says, “ vel potius sic: Semen Dei, i. e. is qui natus est ex Deo, manet in Deo. σπέρμα , natus. Tales sunt vere ז ֶ ר ַ ע א ֱ ל ֹ ה ִ י ם , semen Dei: Malachi 2:15:” — and adopted by Sander,— see above. This hardly needs refutation: we can only say that any one who can persuade himself that σπέρμααὐτοῦ , anarthrous, and loco subjecti, can mean ὁἐκτοῦθεοῦγεγεννημένος , has, both philologically and exegetically, much yet to learn. The reason of this absence of the article is plain: the seed is thought of not individually, but categorically: q. d., “ because seed of His abideth in him” ); and he cannot sin (there is no climax in καὶοὐ : if there is any, it rests entirely with δύναται . No explaining away of this declaration must be attempted, as is done by Corn.-a-lap., who understands it of deadly sin; by Aug. and Bede, who confine the ἁμαρτάνειν to the violation of brotherly love: or as Grot. “ res de qua agitur aliena est ab ejusmodi ingenio.” The Apostle is speaking not only of the ideal, but of the real state of those born of God: drawing the strongest possible contrast between the life of God and the life of sin, as excluding one another absolutely. And there is no contradiction between what is here said and ch. 1:8, 9; nay, rather that passage shews, by the strong desire to be cleansed from all sin, which it assumes, the same incompatibility as is here insisted on), because he hath been begotten of God (almost all the expositors, from the first times until now, make this ὅτι more or less represent ἐφ ʼ ὅσον , in quantum, quam diu, quatenus, and the like. And where τὸἐναὐτῷμένειν was the matter to be measured, as in ver. 6, no doubt this might be: but τὸἐκτοῦθεοῦγεγεννῆσθαι is an absolute fact, to which an ἐφ ʼ ὅσον refuses to be applied: it either has been, or it has not been: its effect either endures, or does not endure. And in this last consideration lies the true solution of the difficulty. As before in ver. 6, so now, the Greek perfect is especially to be held firm in our exegesis. The Apostle does not say οὐδύναταιἁμαρτάνειν , ὅτιἐκτοῦθεοῦἐγεννήθη : this would testify to a past fact, once for all occurring, without any reference to its present permanence: but he has said ὅτιἐκτ . θ . γεγέννηται ,— because he has abiding in him that his birth from God. So that the ἐφ ʼ ὅσον explanation, though falling far short of the real meaning, has at least a feeling after the truth of the Apostle’ s assertion in it. The abiding force of this divine generation in a man, excludes sin (“ qui eam indolem retinebit, non peccabit,” as Grotius, thus far right): where sin enters, that force does not abide: the γεγεννῆσθαι is in danger of becoming a γεννηθῆναι , a fact in the past instead of a fact in the present: a lost life, instead of a living life. And so all such passages as this, instead of testifying, as Calvin would have this one do , to the doctrine of final perseverance of the regenerate, do in fact bear witness to the very opposite: viz., that, as the Church of England teaches, we need God’ s special grace every day to keep us in the state of salvation, from which every act and thought of sin puts us in peril of falling away. Jerome, advers. Jovin. ii. 1, vol. ii, p. 321, quotes Jovinian as maintaining, from this verse, “ eos qui fuerint baptizati a diabolo non posse tentari: quicunque autem tentati fuerint, eos aqua tantum et non spiritu baptizatos;” which view Lü cke ascribes to his desire, in a spirit of ethical reform, to bring back men’ s minds to the fundamental and ideal contrasts of Scripture itself. But surely in such a case, “ a diabolo non posse tentari” was rather beyond the mark. Before leaving this important passage, I must quote Dü sterdieck’ s concluding remarks. “ The difference between the older and more modern expositors (as Lü cke, Rickli, De Wette, and Neander) lies in this, that the former are more anxious to moderate the details of the Apostle’ s sentiment, and to tone down his assertion to the actual life of Christians, while the moderns recognize the full precision of the text as it stands, but then remind us that the ideal truth of the principle announced by St. John continually so to speak floats above the actual life of believers as their rule and aim, and that, in so far, the Apostle’ s saying finds in such actual life only a relative fulfilment. None however of all the expositors, who in any way has recognized the ideal character of St. John’ s view, has overlooked the fact, that even in the actual life of all that are born of God there is something which in full verity answers to the ideal words ‘ they cannot sin.’ The children of God, in whom the divine seed of their eternal life abides, have, in reality, a holy privilege, as Steinhofer says,— they sin not, and they cannot sin, just in proportion as the new divine life, unconditionally opposed to all sin, and manifesting itself in godlike righteousness, is present and abides in them. Expositors of all theological tendencies, in all times, e. g. Didymus, Œ c., Est., Schlichting, Luther, Hunnius, Seb.-Schmidt, Calov., Bengel, Joachim Lange, Rosenm., Lucke, Neander, &c. point to this, that the new life of believers, veritably begotten by regeneration from God, is simply incompatible with sin (ἀνακόλουθονκαὶἀνάρμοστον , Didymus);— the life which essentially alienates the spirit from all sin (ἀνεπίδεκτονἁμαρτίαςτὸννοῦνἡμῶνποιεῖ , Œ c.), fills it with an irreconcilable hate against every sin, and urges it to an unceasing conflict against all unrighteousness. Luther excellently says, that a child of God in this conflict receives indeed wounds daily, but never throws away his arms or makes peace with his deadly foe. Sin is ever active, but no longer dominant: the normal direction of life’ s energies in the believer is against sin, is an absence of sin, a no-will-to-sin and a no-power-to-sin. He that is born of God has become, from being a servant of sin, a servant of righteousness: according to the divine seed remaining in him, or, as St. Paul says, according to the inner man (Romans 7:15 ff.), he will, and he can work only that which is like God,— righteousness, though the flesh, not yet fully mortified, rebels and sins: so that even in and by the power of the new life sin must be ever confessed, forgiveness received (ch. 1:8 ff.), the temptation of the evil one avoided and overcome (ch. 5:18), and self-purification and sanctification carried on” ). 10. “ Epilogus superioris argumenti,” as Luther: with the insertion, in the latter half, of the new particular which is to form the argument of the next section. But this latter half belongs not only to that next section, but to this as well: its assertion πᾶςὁμὴκ .τ .λ ., is requisite for the carrying out fully of the ἐντούτῳ , which at the same time looks backward and forward: backward, for the children of God have already been designated by the absence of sin, ver. 9: forward, for the children of the devil are designated below by the presence of sin in the second half of the verse. In this (fact, circumstance: in better than by, which gives the idea that this is the only sign) are manifest (it has been asked, to whom? Lü cke, Sander, and Dü sterd say, to God’ s unerring eye alone. True, in the full and deep truth of the saying: but surely in degree and proportion to those whom the unction from the Holy One enables to know all things: in proportion as sin is manifested, or hatred and avoidance of sin is manifested, in a character. And the especial sign which follows, the sin of hate, is one which is plainly open to men’ s eyes, at least in its ordinary manifestations) the children of God and the children of the devil : every one that doeth not righteousness (see ch. 2:29: the difference here being that δικαιος . having no art. is more general, whereas it was τὴνδικαιος . there in reference to the δίκαιος which was predicated of God. It is natural that, in a recapitulation, the language should be more general, though the same thing is intended) is not of God (= is not a child of God. It may be observed that , , , al. read ὁμὴὢνδίκαιος , which is edited by Lachmann), and he that loveth not his brother (see below, these words pointing on to the next section). 11-24. Of brotherly love, as the sum and essence of δικαιοσύνη : as Christ’ s command (ver. 11): whereas in the world there is hate (12, 13): bound up with life, as hate with death (14, 15): finding its great pattern in Christ (16); to be testified not in word only but in deed (17, 18); as the ground of confidence toward God and the granting of our prayers to Him, being obedience to His will (19-22); which obedience consists in faith and love (23), and is testified to by the witness of His Spirit (24). Before entering on ver. 11, the latter half of ver. 10 must be considered, as belonging properly, in its sense, to this section, though in arrangement inseparable from the last. The καί , which binds on the additional particular in the last clause, serves, as in ver. 5, to co-ordinate that clause with the foregoing: not in this case as excluded from the forementioned category, but as one particular, taken out from among the general category, and put into a co-ordinate position with it. And it is thus put, as being the most eminent, and most of the nature of a summary, and criterion, of the rest, of any of those graces which are necessarily involved in δικαιοσύνη . Aug. beautifully says, “ Dilectio sola discernit inter filios Dei et filios diaboli. Signent se omnes signo crucis Christi: respondeant omnes Amen: cantent omnes Halleluia: baptizentur omnes, intrent ecclesias, faciant parietes basilicarum: non discernuntur filii Dei a filiis diaboli nisi caritate.” And this love, thus constituted into “ magnum indicium, magna discretio” (Aug.), is necessarily the family love of brother for brother within the limits of those who are begotten of God. Universal love to man is a Christian grace— but it is not that here spoken of: it neither answers the description of the ἀγγελία given in ver. 11, nor corresponds to the context here in general, the drift of which is that a test of our belonging to God’ s family is our love towards His children who are our brethren in that family: cf. ch. 5:1 ff. But, while there can be no doubt that this is the right understanding of the brotherly love here insisted on, we incur at once a formal difficulty in applying this meaning to the negative or exclusive side of the test. He who does not love his brother, has in strict fact no brother to love, for he is not a child of God at all. Hence we must understand, strictly speaking, τὸνἀδελφὸναὐτοῦ in this case as importing his hypothetical brother: him, who would be, were he himself a true child of God, a brother, and if so, necessarily beloved. That this love does not exist in him, demonstrates him not to be of God’ s family. 11. Because (proof that absence of love of the brethren excludes from God’ s family) the message which ye heard from the beginning is this (in all such sentences as this, the demonstrative pronoun which begins them is in reality the predicate, and often might in English be transposed to the end with advantage), that we love one another (on ἵνα , see note, ver. 1. It is impossible here, as there, to press the strong telic sense. The particle carries that combination of purpose and purport which we have so many times had occasion to notice: see e. g., note on 1 Corinthians 14:13). 12, 13. See summary above: example of the first instance of the world’ s hate, by way of contrast. 12. Not as Cain was of the wicked one and slew his brother (the construction is elliptic, or rather brachylogic, for nothing is to be supplied, as ἐσμέν (Sander), or ὦμενἐκτοῦπονηροῦ , as Grot., Lü cke, or diligamus, as Corn.-a-lap.; or a relative ὅς before ἐκτ . πον . ἦν , as Beza and Socinus. The construction is just as in John 6:58, and in the passage of Demosth. p. 415 a, which Winer adduces, οὐγὰρἐκπολιτικῆςαἰτίας , οὐδ ʼ ὥσπερἈριστοφῶν … ἔλυσετὴνπροβολήν . It would be simpler, οὐκαθὼςΚάϊνἔσφαξετὸνἀδ . αὐτοῦ , ἐκτοῦπονηροῦὤν . The word σφάζω properly means to kill by cutting the throat. It is said to occur in LXX and N. T. in the general sense of killing (so Dü sterd.); but I cannot find any instances which will not bear the precise meaning as well as a more general one. It is remarkable however, that St. John only of N. T. writers uses the verb, and that in every place there is nothing requiring the proper sense: so that any inference from its occurrence here as to the manner of Cain’ s murder of Abel would be unsafe. In ἐκτοῦπονηροῦἦν we have a resumption of ἐκτοῦδιαβόλουἐστίν from above, ver. 8: the word πονηροῦ being used probably on account of τὰἔργααὐτοῦπονηρὰἦν following. Observe, the ἐκτοῦπονηροῦἦν is the inference from that great proof which he gave of it by killing his brother: as is also the reason given in what follows: see below. So that here the assertion of his being of the wicked one is, as above, strictly ethical, and in no way physical or dualistic: “ Cain erat filius non Dei sed diaboli, non generatione, sed imitatione et suggestione,” Corn.-a-lap.). And for what reason (reff.) slew he him? because his (own) works were wicked, and those of his brother righteous (it has caused some difficulty, that no mention of this ethical difference is made in the narrative in Genesis. It has been supposed, e. g. by Socinus, that the Apostle gathers it from God’ s differing acceptance of the offerings of the two: others, as Lyra, have called the ethical characters of the two the “ occasio præ via,” whereas the immediately exciting cause was the “ occasio propinqua,” of the murder. But properly considered, the Apostle’ s assertion here is only a “ deductio ex concesso.” Cain murdered his brother: therefore he hated him: and hate belongs to the children of the evil one,— classes him at once among those whose works are evil, and who hate those who, like Abel, are testified to (Hebrews 11:4) that they are of the children of God who work righteousness. Whatever might be the exciting occasion of the murder, this lay at the root— the hatred which the children of the devil ever bear to the children of God. The various legends, about Cain being the child of the serpent by Eve, and the characters of Cain and Abel, see in Lü cke, edn. 3, pp. 317, 318, notes; and the former in Huther, p. 148). 13. The connexion with verse 12 is close: the world (= the children of the devil) began so, and will ever go on as it began. Marvel not, brethren, if (no doubt is expressed by this εἰ . The hypothesis is set forth as actually fulfilled. See on this (originally Attic) use of εἰ after θαυμάζω , and like verbs, in Kü hner, § 771. Among his examples are the following: οὐδὴθαυμαστόνἐστινεἰστρατευόμενοςκ . πονῶνἐκεῖνος … ἡμῶνμελλόντων … περιγίγνεται , Demosth. p. 24. 23: ἀλλ ʼ ἐκεῖνοθαυμάζω , εἰΛακεδαιμονίοιςμένποτε … ὑπὲρτῶνἙλληνικῶνδικαίωνἀντήρατενυνὶδὲὀκνεῖτε , κ .τ .λ ., ib. p. 52. 43: in both which places matters of fact follow the εἰ . Kü hner ascribes the idiom to the Attic urbanity, which loved to give to speech a certain tinge of doubt and uncertainty) the world hateth you (“ magis esset mirabile si diligerent eos,” says Didymus. This verse is in close sequence on the example just given: Cain being taken as the prototype and exemplar of such hate). 14, 15. See summary above on ver. 11. The connexion with the foregoing is very close. We learnt from ver. 10, that the love of the brethren is that which makes manifest the children of God and the children of the devil. And now again, having spoken of the hate of the world as a thing to be looked for, the Apostle brings up this sign as one tending to comfort the child of God, and shew him that, notwithstanding the world’ s hate, he has more to rejoice at than to fear from the fact: he is in life, they in death. We (ἡμεῖς , emphatic: we whom the world hates: we, as set over against the world) know (see above, ver. 2 al.: of certain knowledge) that we have passed over out of death into life (notice both times the articles after the prepositions, removing the nouns in this case out of the abstract, and giving them a concrete totality— the death, which reigns over the unregenerate: the life, which is revealed in Christ), because we love the brethren (here distinctly, our Christian brethren: the term οἱἀδελφοί being that well-known one by which the body of Christians was represented. It is curious to follow Dü sterdieck in his recension of the R.-Cath. and Socinian interpretations of this verse, and to see how they both run into one in wresting it to their own doctrines. First, the former begin with οἴδαμεν . Lyra would confine it to the Apostles; they knew “ certitudinaliter, de hoc per divinam revelationem certificati;” but “ si ad alios refertur, tum hoc scire accipitur pro probabili conjectura.” Similarly Corn.-a-lap., Tirinus, and Estius (and I may add, Justiniani, even more strikingly; see below), denying that St. John speaks of the certainty of assurance grounded on faith by the heretics, but “ de certitudine morali et conjecturali, concepta ex testimonio bonæ conscientiæ , innocentia vitæ et consolatione Spiritus Sancti.” (Justiniani’ s words are, “ Recte ait (Didymus) nos disciplinabiliter id scire, ut formidinem quidem excludat, nihil tamen præ ter probabilitatem ex scientia offerat.” ) Estius predicates the knowledge indeed simply of Christians respecting all the “ boni fideles,” “ quorum e numero nos esse singuli confidimus.” On the other hand Socinus, remarking that the Scripture writers (and even our Lord Himself, for which he refers to the Beatitudes) often “ hyperbolicis quibusdam amplificandæ rei causa loquutionibus utuntur,” says of the test here proposed, “ nam qui tali animo est præ ditus, vix fieri potest quin alias etiam Christianas qualitates habeat, quæ necessariæ sunt ad vitam æ ternam consequendam.” This remark brings us on common ground with the R.-Catholics, who would do violence to the express perfect tense μεταβεβήκαμεν to suit their purpose. So even Didymus, “ quoniam qui diligit fratres secundum Deum, ad vitam ex morte transit:” so Bede, who having explained rightly μένειἐντῷθανάτῳ below, “ quod in anima mortui omnes in hanc lucem nascimur,” goes on to say, “ in illa utique morte, … si fratres perfecte amaret, exsurgere posset:” so Lyra,— “ opera ex caritate facta sunt meritoria;” so the Socinians, e. g. Schlichting , adding, as we might expect, “ dicit transivimus, per enallagen temporis pro transibimus:” so the rationalists, Grotius , and Carpzov. It is very remarkable, that the fine exegetical tact of Estius causes him on the one hand to deliver a clear and decided interpretation of the verse as it really is (“ non hic significatur meritum aut omnino causa dictæ translationis, quasi prius sit, diligere fratres, posterius autem, et effectus illius, transferri de morte ad vitam, id est, justificari. Neque enim opera bona præ cedunt justificandum, sed sequuntur justificatum, ut concinne B. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/alfordgnt/ Chap. 4:1-6. Warning against, and criteria whereby to distinguish, false teaching. This passage takes up again, with reference to this portion of the Epistle, the similar warning given in the former portion, ch. 2:18 ff. It is intimately connected with what has immediately preceded. By brotherly love we are to know that we are of the truth, ch. 3:19,— and the token that He abideth in us is to be the Spirit which He gave us. This Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, it becomes then all-important for us to be able to distinguish, and not to be led astray by any false spirits pretending to his character and office. Such false spirits there are, which are not of God, but of the world, and which make up that spirit of antichrist, of which prophecy had already spoken. 1. Beloved (so verse 7, and ch. 3:2, 21, marking a transition to a subject on which the Apostle affectionately bespeaks their earnest attention), believe not every spirit (the expressions πᾶνπνεῦμα , τὰπνεύματα , indicating plurality of spirits, are to he explained by the fact that both the Spirit of Truth and the spirit of error speak by the spirits of men who are their organs. So we have, in reference to prophecy, 1 Corinthians 14:32, πνεύματαπροφητῶνπροφήταιςὑποτάσσεται . By the nature of the testimony of the human spirits, we shall know whether they are of God or not; whether they are organs of the πνεῦματῆςἀληθείας or of the πνεῦματῆςπλάνης . It will be observed that this interpretation of πᾶνπνεῦμα , and the Apostle’ s way of speaking, rest on the assumption of there being One Spirit of Truth, from God, and one spirit of error, from the world; as opposed to all rationalizing interpretations, such as “ sensus hominis aliquo modo inspiratus,” Socinus; “ doctrina,” Episcopius: as opposed also to all figurative understanding of the word, as Calv., “ metonymice accipio pro eo qui spiritus dono se præ ditum esse jactat ad obeundum prophetiæ munus,” Beza, Grot., Whitby, Wolf, and even Lü cke, who explains it by λαλοῦντεςἐνπνεύματι . It is not the men themselves, but their spirits as the vehicles of God’ s Spirit or the spirit of antichrist, that are in question. In πιστεύετε some have seen a figure drawn from the physical meaning of πνεῦμα ; so Corn.-a-lap.,— “ Respicit ad nautas, qui non credunt omni spiritui, id est, vento.” But this is far fetched and unlikely, in the universal acceptance of the spiritual meaning of both words), but try the spirits (this δοκιμάζειν is enjoined not on the “ ecclesia in suis præ latis,” as Estius and the R.-Cath. expositors, but on all believers, as even he reluctantly admits: and the test is one of plain matter of fact, of which any one can be judge. The Church by her rulers is the authoritative assertor of this δοκιμασία in the shape of official adoption or rejection, but only as moved by her component faithful members, according to whose sense those her formularies are drawn, of which her authorities are the exponents) whether they are of God (bear the character of an origin from Him): because (ground for the necessity of this trial) many false-prophets are gone forth (scil. from him who sent them: even as Jesus Himself is said, John 8:42, John 8:13:3, John 8:16:27, John 8:28, ἐξεληλυθέναι from God. Or we may take it as in ch. 2:19, ἐξἡμῶνἐξῆλθον ,— from the Church: but the other is more likely. Socinus and Grotius take it of “ prodire ad munus suscipiendum:” but it certainly means more than this) into the world (cf. John 16:28, which tends to fix the ἐξεληλύθασιν above). 2, 3 a.] Test, whereby the spirits are to be tried. In this (see above, ch. 3:10, &c.) ye know (apprehend, recognize. γινώσκετε is taken as imperative, on account of the preceding πιστεύετε and δοκιμάζετε , by Huther, De Wette, Lü cke (most Commentators do not touch it). But on account of the very frequent ἐντούτῳγινώσκομεν , I should let analogy prevail, and take it as indicative) the Spirit of God (the Holy Spirit, present, inspiring, and working in men’ s spirits). Every spirit which confesseth (“ spiritui tribuitur actio quæ hominis est per spiritum.” Schlichting. The confession is necessarily, from the context here, not the genuine and ascertained agreement of lips and life, but the outward and open profession of faith: see 2 John 1:7-10, where ταύτηντὴνδιδαχὴν .… φέρειν is its equivalent) Jesus Christ come in the flesh (Ἰ . χρ . primary predicate: ἐνσαρκὶἐληλυθότα , secondary predicate: = Ἰ . χρ . ἐρχόμενονἐνσαρκί , 2 John 1:7. Cf. the same arrangement of predicates 1 Corinthians 1:23, κηρύσσομενχριστὸνἐσταυρωμένον : 2 Corinthians 4:5, κηρύσσομενχριστὸνἸησοῦνκύριον . In all these cases it is important to observe, that the construction is not equivalent to an accusative with an infinitive, Ἰ . χριστὸνἐνσαρκὶἐληλυθέναι . If it were, the confession, or the preaching, would be simply of the fact announced: whereas in each case it is the Person who is the object or primary predicate: the participle carrying the attributive or secondary predicate. This is abundantly shewn here, by the adversative clause, where it is simply μὴὁμολογοῦντὸνἸησοῦν . The confession required is, “ Jesus Christ come in the flesh:” ἐληλυθώς here standing midway between the ἐρχόμενος of 2 John 1:7, which is altogether timeless, and the ἐλθών of ch. 5:6, which is purely historical. This perfect gives the present endurance of a past historical fact. If we enquire what that fact is, we are met by two widely divergent interpretations. On the one side we have the Socinian view, which, while it keeps to the strict philological sense of the words, ἐνσαρκί and ἔρχεσθαι (see below), distorts the meaning to bring the Apostle into accord with the tenets of that school: e. g. Socinus: “ Jesum Christum, i. e. Jesum qui dicitur Christus, non modo mortalem hominem fuisse, sed etiam innumeris malis et denique ipsi cruentæ morti obnoxium:” and Grotius,— “ non cum regia pompa et exercitibus, sed in statu humili, abjecto, multisque malis ac postremum cruci obnoxio.” But no such sense of ἐνσαρκί can be or has been attempted to be adduced. On the other hand we have many of the orthodox expositors, who strive to make the words not implicative only, but directly assertive of the Incarnation. So Piscator, who plainly asserts that ἐνσαρκί = εἰςσάρκα : so others who 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:” so Bengel (apparently), al. And among this number must proximately be reckoned Augustine, who introduces in the train of the Incarnation the death and redeeming love of Christ, and makes the confession or denial depend on “ caritatem habere:” “ 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 illum adduxit ad crucem. Quisquis ergo non habet caritatem, negat Christum in carne venisse.” As between these two, the recent Commentators, Lü cke, De Wette, Dü sterd., Huther, appear to have taken the right path, in keeping ἐν strictly to its proper meaning, ‘ in,’ ‘ clothed with,’ = διὰ , ch. 5:6: and ἔρχεσθαι also to its proper meaning, to “ come forward,” “ appear,” “ prodire:” and in interpreting the words as directed against the Docetæ , who maintained that the Son of God had only an apparent, not a real human body. I cannot however agree in Huther’ s view, that Ἰησοῦν is here to be taken alone as the object, and χριστὸνἐνσαρκὶἐληλ . together as predicate: Jesus as Christ come in the flesh. For first, it would be against the usage of our Apostle, see ch. 5:1, in this case, to leave out the article before χριστόν : secondly, Ἰησοῦνχριστόν thus in conjunction, could hardly but express the joint Name so well known: and thirdly, the sense required, that Jesus is the Christ, is assumed, by the very juxtaposition of the names. The words imply the præ -existence and incarnation by their very terms: but they do not assert these doctrines, only the verity of our Lord’ s human nature), is of God (has its origin and inspiration from Him by His Spirit): 3 a.] ex adverso: and every spirit which does not confess Jesus (τὸνἸησοῦν , in the complex of all that He is and has become, involved as it is in His having come in the flesh), is not of God. Some notice must be taken of the remarkable reading ὃλύειτὸνἸησοῦν . The words of Socrates (see Digest) hardly seem to amount to an absolute assertion that the reading was found in any mss. extant in his time, and it appears to have been regarded rather as an interpretation against the Nestorians than as a part of the ancient text. Bengel says well of it, “ humanam potius artem quam apostolicam redolet sapientiam.” The appearance of it in the vulgate is remarkable, seeing that not one of our present mss. has it, and not one version besides. 3 b.] This has been already virtually explained on ch. 2:18. And this is the (spirit) (so nearly all the Commentators supply the ellipsis, and rightly. Episcopius, Valla, Zeger, the R.-Cath. Mayer, and Huther, render it, this is “ proprium antichristi.” But this would not surely be τὸτοῦἀντιχρίστου , but τοῦἀντιχρίστου only. None of the passages cited by Huther touch the point, Matthew 21:21, τὸτῆςσυκῆς , “ this of the fig-tree;” 1 Corinthians 10:24, τὸτοῦἑτέρου , “ that which belongs to his brother;” 2 Peter 2:22, τὸτῆςπαροιμίας , “ that of the proverb;” James 4:14, τὸτῆςσὔριον , “ the event of to-morrow.” In every one of these the genitive belongs to the subject: but Huther would attach it to the predicate, “ hoc est proprium antichristi,” in which case I cannot see how the article could be there. Besides, the ὃἀκηκόατεὅτιἔρχεται would be awkwardly said as applied merely to an abstract fact, the τὸμὴὁμολογεῖντὸνἸησοῦν , to which it must be referred if τοῦτο is subject, and the genitive imports proprium antichristi) of antichrist (of) which ye have heard , but to the course of their Christian instruction in which this had been taught them) that it cometh (the present used as so often of that which is a thing fixed and determined, without any reference to time: “ that it should come” of the E. V. is in sense very good, but does not quite suit the perf. ἀκηκόατε , which seems grammatically in English to require “ that it shall come;” “ that it must come” would perhaps be better), and now it is (not, now is: this ἐστίν is not dependent on the preceding ὅτι , but introduces a fresh assertion) in the world already (viz., in the person of these ψευδοπροφῆται , who are its organs). 4. Ye (so we had ὑμεῖς ch. 2:24, 27: his readers clearly and sharply set against the antichristian teachers) are of God, little children (thus he ever speaks to his readers, as being children of God, see ch. 3:1 ff.), and have overcome (there need not be any evading or softening of this perfect: see ch. 2:14. It is faith outrunning sight: the victory is certain in Him who said ἐγὼνενίκηκατὸνκόσμον , Joh_16 ult. The ground of this assurance follows) them (αὐτούς , the false prophets, thus identified with antichrist. The vulg. has the unjustified reading eum, which is naturally referred to antichrist (, , and the R.-C. expositors generally); to the world, “ devincendo concupiscentiam,” by Lyra; to “ antichrist and the world,” by Erasmus), because greater is He (that is) in you than he (that is) in the world. ὁἐνὑμῖν is most naturally understood of God, seeing that ἐκτοῦθεοῦἐστέ preceded; for he who is ἐκτοῦθεοῦ has God dwelling in him. Though, as Dü sterd. remarks, it matters not much whether we take it thus, or of the indwelling of God by His Spirit, or of the life of Christ in believers. The former of these is taken by Lü cke, al., the latter by Aug., Bede, Grot., Corn.-a-lap., al. ὁἐντῷκόσμῳ is the devil, the prince of this world. Having said this, he proceeds in the next verse to identify these false prophets with the κόσμος of which he has spoken. 5. They are of the world (this description is not ethical, as Socinus and Grot.,— “ affectus habent, quales habet mundus, i. e. pars longe maxima humani generis: amant splendorem hujus vitæ , opulentiam et voluptates:” — but betokens the origin and source of that which they are and teach, as ἐκτοῦθεοῦἐστέ did on the other side. That origin and source is the world, unregenerate human nature, ruled over and possessed by the devil, the prince of this world): for this cause they speak of (not concerning, but of, as out of and from; the material of what they say being cosmic: “ ex mundi vita et sensu sermones suos promunt,” Bengel) the world, and the world heareth them (loving as it does its own, who aro of it, John 15:19, from which our verse is mainly taken: see also John 8:47, John 18:37). 6. contrast. We (emphatic, as opposed to them: but who are meant? The Apostles and their companions in the ministry, or all believers? Or again, all teachers of God’ s truth, the Apostles included? It is hardly likely that the wider meaning has place here, seeing that 1) he has before said ὑμεῖςἐκτοῦθεοῦἐστέ , and 2) he is here opposing one set of teachers to another. On the other hand, it is not likely that he should confine what is said to the Apostles only: such as are mentioned with praise in 3 John 1:5-8 would surely be included) are of God (see above): he that knoweth (pres.: apprehendeth: hath any faculty for the knowledge of. The Apostle sets ὁγινώσκωντὸνθεόν in the place of ὁὢνἐκτοῦθεοῦ , as belonging more immediately to the matter in hand, the hearing, and receiving more knowledge. This γινώσκειντὸνθεόν , the apprehension and recognition of God, is the peculiar property of God’ s children, not any natural faculty in which one unrenewed man differs from another. All rationalistic interpretations of these words, e. g., that of Socinus, Schlichting, al. “ animi probitas et studium ea faciendi quæ Deo probantur,” are quite beside the purpose) God heareth us: he who is not of God doth not hear us (here we must remember carefully, what the context is, and what its purpose. The Apostle is giving a test 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 ʼ ἀρχῆς , ch. 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 enquire: we have elsewhere tests to distinguish them, ch. 3:9, 10, and have there gone into that other question. We have a striking parallel, in fact the key to these words, in the saying of our Lord to Pilate, John 18:37). From this we know (in this unemphatic first person the Apostle includes his readers: we, all God’ s children. γινώσκομεν , distinguish, recognize, as so often) the Spirit of truth (the Spirit that cometh of God and teacheth truth: see reff.) and the spirit of error (the spirit that cometh of the devil, teaching lies and seducing men into error: see ch. 1:8, 2:26). 7-21. The Apostle again takes up his exhortations to brotherly love, but this time in nearer and deeper connexion with our birth from God, and knowledge of Him who is Himself Love, vv. 7, 8. This last fact he proves by what God has done for us in and by His Son, vv. 9-16: and establishes the necessary connexion between love to God and love to man, vv. 17-21. The passage is in connexion with what went before, but by links at first sight not very apparent. The great theme of the whole was enounced ch. 2:29. The consideration of that has passed into the consideration of that δικαιοσύνη in its highest and purest form of love, which has been recommended, and grounded on His love to us, in ch. 3:11-18, where the testimony of our hearts came in, and was explained— the great test of His presence in us being the gift of His Spirit, ch. 3 ult. Then from the necessity of distinguishing and being sure of that His Spirit, have been inserted the foregoing tests and cautions respecting truth and error. And now he returns to the main subject. The γινώσκειτὸνθεόν , ἐκτοῦθεοῦἐστιν and γεγέννηται , the taking up again of God’ s love to us in Christ at ver. 9 from ch. 3:16, the reiteration of the testimony of the Spirit in ver. 13, all serve to shew that we are reading no collection of spiritual apophthegms, but a close and connected argument, though not in an ordinary style. 7, 8. Beloved (as before, marks the fervency and affection of the Apostle turning to his readers with another solemn exhortation. Here the word is especially appropriate, seeing that his own heart is full of that love which he is enjoining), let us love one another: because (he at once rests the exhortation on the deepest ground) love (ἡἀγάπη , abstract, in the widest sense, as the following words shew) is from God (has its origin and source in God: He is the wellspring and centre of all love. No such weakening as “ Deo maxime placet” (Grot.) must be thought of. It is remarkable that Didymus understood ἀγάπη here of Christ,— ἥντιναοὐκἄλληνεἶναινομιστέονἢτὸνμονογενῆ , ὥσπερθεὸνἐκθεοῦ , οὕτωκαὶἀγάπηνἐξἀγάπηςὄντα :— and Augustine, fitting together “ Dilectio est ex Deo,” and “ Dilectio est Deus,” infers that “ Dilectio est Deus ex Deo,” which comparing with Romans 5:5, he infers that love is the Holy Spirit: Tract, vii. 6, vol. iii. p. 2032): and every one that loveth (there is no need to supply an object after ἀγαπῶν , as τὸνθεόν in A, “ his brother” as some latt., and Lü cke: indeed to do so would be to narrow the general sense of the Apostle’ s saying: all love is from God: every one that loveth, taking the word of course in its pure ideal sense in which the assertion follows from the former), hath been begotten of God (has truly received within him that new spiritual life which is of God: see note on ch. 2:29), and knoweth (pres.: in his daily walk and habit, recognizes and is acquainted with God: by virtue of that his divine birth and life) God: 8. (Contrast, but with some remarkable variations) he that loveth not (general, as before: no object: he that hath not love in him) hath never known God (aor.: hath not once known: has never had in him even the beginnings of knowledge of God: as Lü cke, “ noch gar nicht kennen gelernt hat.” So that the aorist makes a far stronger contrast than the present οὐγινώσκει would. That is excluded, and much more); because (reason why he who loveth not can never have known God. ὅτι cannot well be “ that,” dependent on ἔγνω , as e. g. Tirinus (cited by Dü sterd.) seems to make it: “ non novit, saltem practice non ostendit se nosse et agnoscere, Deum esse … caritatem:” in that case it would be either οὐκἔγνω , ὅτιὁθεός … or οὐκἔγνωτὸνθεόν , ὅτιἀγ . ἐστίν ) God is love (ἀγάπη , not ἡἀγάπη : love is the very essence, not merely an attribute, of God. It is co-essential with Him: He is all love, love is all of Him: he who has not love, has not God. It is not the place here to enter on the theological import of this weighty and wonderful sentence. It will be found set forth in Augustine, de Trinitate, ix. 2 ff., vol. viii. p. 961 ff.: in Sartorius, die Lehre von der heiligen Liebe, i. 1, and in the first of my Sermons on Divine Love, which are founded on Sartorius’ s work. Dü sterd. refers also to Nitzsch, ü ber die wesentliche Dreieinigkeit Gottes, in the Studien u. Kritiken for 1841, 2, p. 337: and Liebner, Christologie, p. 135. But it may be necessary to put in a caution against all inadequate and shallow explanations of the saying: such as that of Grotius (after Socinus), “ Deus est plenus caritate,” — 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 demonstrativè , ἐνεργητικῶς , shewing great philanthropy to men:” — Hammond, “ God is made up of love and kindness to mankind:” — Calvin, “ hoc est quod ejus natura sit, homines diligere … de essentia Dei non loquitur, sed tantum docet qualis a nobis sentiatur:” &c. &c. In all these,— in the two last by supplying an object, “ homines,” which is not in the sacred text,— 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 in 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). 9, 10. Proof of this as far as we are concerned, in God’ s sending His Son to save us. In this (viz. which follows: the ὅτι is the apodosis, as in ch. 3:16) the love of God was manifested in regard to us would require the article ἡἐνἡμῖν . Many Commentators have thus wrongly connected it, and in consequence have been compelled to distort ἐν into εἰς : so Luther, Seb.-Schmidt, Spener, Beza, Socinus, Schlichting, Episcop., Grot., Benson, Neander, al. Bengel has fallen into the former fault, though not into the latter: “ amor Dei qui nunc in nobis est, per omnem experientiam spiritualem.” This is upheld also by Sander, who defends it by Galatians 1:16, where a totally different matter is treated of. Connected then with the verb, it must not be taken as = εἰς , but as in reff., especially John 9:3, where the same phrase occurs: “ in,” i. e. “ in the matter of,” in regard of: cf. ver. 16 below: the manifestation not being made to us as its spectators, but in our persons and cases, as its “ materies.” ἡμῖν , communicative, believers in general), that God hath sent (perf. The manifestation is regarded as one act, done implicitly when God sent His Son: but the sending is regarded in its present abiding effects, which have changed all things since it took place) His only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him (no words can be plainer than these and need less explanation to any one acquainted with St. John. The endeavours of the old rationalists, Socinus, Schlichting, Grotius, to escape from the assertion of Christ’ s præ existence, by rendering εἰςτὸνκόσμ . “ ad mundum,” μονογ ., “ dilectissimum,” &c., may be seen in Dü sterd. He well remarks, “ Such expositors may naturally be expected to give an answer to the question, how a Christ so understood could be our life (ver. 9), our atonement (ver. 10), or our salvation (ver. 14).” The two emphatic words in the sentence are μονογενῆ and ζήσωμεν . This was the proof, that such a Son of God was sent, that we might live). 10. The same proof particularized in its highest and noblest point, the atonement: and at the same time this brought out, that the love manifested by it was all on God’ s side, none on ours: was love to us when we were enemies, Romans 5:8, and therefore all the greater. Ch. 3:16 is very similar: except that there it is Christ’ s personal love to us: here the Father’ s, in sending His Son. In this is love , not that (the ὅτι is the usual one, introducing the apodosis for which the ἐντούτῳ prepares us: and οὐκ denies this. “ In this is love, not in the fact that … , but in the fact that” .… Thus taken, there is no difficulty whatever in the sentence: cf. John 12:6, 2 Corinthians 7:9. Some Commentators have missed this, and thus found a difficulty. “ οὐχὅτι (non quasi) pro ὅτιοὐκ (quasi non),” says Grotius: but does not make his meaning very plain. Rosenm., who takes the transposition, explains it, “ Quod, quamvis nos non amavissemus Deum, ille tamen amaret nos.” Justiniani takes ὅτι as “ because” both times, and regards the apodosis as beginning at καὶἀπέστειλεν ) we loved God (the aor., corresponding to the aor. below, marks the verb as referring to an indefinite time past— no act of love of ours to God at any time done furnishes this example of love, but an act of His towards us. It is not the nature of our love to God, as contrasted with His to us, of which the clause treats, but the non-existence of the one love as set against the historical manifestation of the other. Again that “ He loved us, though we did not love Him,” is so far in the words as it is given by the context (see above), but is not the meaning of the words themselves), but that He loved us (aor., referring again to an act of Love, which is now specified), and (proved this love in that He) sent His Son a propitiation (see on ch, 2:2) for (see ibid.) our sins (His death being therein implied, by which that propitiation was wrought, Ephesians 1:7: and that, God’ s giving His own Son to death for us, being the greatest and crowning act of divine Love). 11. Application to ourselves of this example, as a motive to brotherly love. Strictly parallel with the latter part of ch. 3:16, where the same ethical inference is drawn with regard to the example of Christ Himself. Beloved (the Apostle’ s usual introduction of a fervent and solemn address, vv. 1, 7, al.), if (this εἰ with an indicative is very difficult to give exactly in English. It is not on the one hand any expression of uncertainty: but neither on the other is it = “ since,” or “ seeing that.” We may call it 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 English filling up of the sense) God so loved us (so namely as detailed in ver. 10, which and which alone, by the catch-word ἠγάπησεν in the aorist, is pointed at), we also ought to love one another (the καί does not belong to the ὀφείλομεν , but purely to the ἡμεῖς ,— “ we, on our side.” But on what does the obligation, asserted in ὀφείλομεν , rest? Clearly, on that relation to God and one another implied by being children of God, ἐκθεοῦγεγεννῆσθαι , which runs through all this section of the Epistle. If we are of God, that love which is in Him, and which He is, will be in us, will make us like Him, causing us to love those who are begotten of Him, ch. 5:1, 2. And of this love, our apprehension of His Love to us will be the motive and the measure). 12. God hath no one ever beheld (what is the connexion of these words, so suddenly and startlingly introduced? It is evident that ver. 12 is connected with ver. 11, by the words ἐὰνἀγαπῶμενἀλλήλους , taking up again ὀφείλομενἀλλήλουςἀγαπᾷν . But it is also evident that it is connected with ver. 13 by the ἐνἡμῖνμένει , κ .τ .λ . And it is further plain, that these words, θεὸνοὐδεὶςπώποτετεθέαται , must have some close reference to ἀλλήλουςἀγαπᾷν , seeing that they stand between those words in ver. 11, and the resumption of them in ver. 12. It would appear by this, that the idea of connecting them with ἡμεῖςτεθεάμεθα , ver. 14, in the sense, “ but we have truly beheld,” &c., as Carpzov., is a mistake. Œ c. (and similarly Thl. and Aretius) takes it as if some objector were introduced,— ἀκόλουθονδ ʼ ἦνεἰπεῖντινα , καὶπόθεντοῦτολέγειςπερὶπραγμάτωνἀθεάτωνκαὶἀνεφίκτων , καὶδιαβεβαιοῖςἡμᾶςοἷςμήπωτιςἔγνωκε ; and that the Apostle, συντρέχωντοῖςοὕτωλέγουσιφησὶκαὶαὐτὸςὅτιθεὸνμὲνοὐδεὶςἑώρακεπώποτε , σύμφημικαὶαὐτός . ἀλλ ʼ ἐκτῆςεἰςἀλλήλουςἀγάπηςφησὶγινώσκομενὅτιὁθεὸςἐνἡμῖνἐστι . But of this objection there is not the slightest trace in the text: and had the Apostle intended to adduce such an one, he would, as Dü sterd. well observes, have replied to it not from the effect of our love to one another, but from the facts of the mission and ministry of the Son of God. Of the remaining Commentators, there are two great divisions. The first consists of those who take the axiom as referring forward to ὁθεὸςἐνἡμῖνμένει : i. e. our inner communion of life with God whom we have not seen must be realized and will be realized, by love towards one another: so the Scholl., I.,— ὁἀόρατοςθεὸςκ . ἀνέφικτοςδιὰτῆςεἰςἀλλήλουςἀλάπηςἐνἡμῖνμένει , and II.,— τοῦτοοὖνκατορθώσει , φησίν , ἡἀγάπη , τὸἔνοικονἡμῖνγενέσθαιθεόν , ὃνοὐδεὶςπώποτετεθέαται . And so Hunnius, Seb.-Schmidt, Spener, Joach. Lange, Socinus, Grot., Rosenm., Baumg.-Crus., Rickli, Neander, De Wette, Sander, Dü sterd., Huther, al. Dü sterd. quotes Rickli’ s representation of this view as the best: “ To behold God,— to perceive Him immediately and according to His infinite divine essence, is given to no man here: we cannot apprehend God: but then in the highest and the best manner do we perceive Him inwardly, as His true children, if we love one another, for then God abideth in us.” And all this is most true. But I would submit that although it might explain ver. 12 and what follows, it does not explain the place of ver. 12 in the context at all. How comes the Apostle thus suddenly to introduce this axiom and what follows it? Clearly, vv. 11 and 14 are connected: the same strain of argument is going on, and it is most improbable that a thought thus foreign to that argument would be introduced into the midst of it. Obviously, this is a great defect in this interpretation. Let us turn to the other, and see whether we have it supplied. It takes the words as saying this: “ We cannot immediately return to the invisible God the love which He has shewn to us: for no man has ever seen Him: i. e. He is not to be seen by any. But if we love our brethren, whom we do see, God abides in us, we are His children, objects of His love, and so, by love to our brethren, love to God is perfected in us.” (Lü cke.) And thus or nearly thus, Corn.-a-lap., Mayer, Schlichting, Episcopius, Bengel, Whitby, G. Lange, Jachmann. Now this interpretation, as above given, has the merit of being linked to what went before, by our inability to return God’ s love: but I must feel that Dü sterd.’ s objection to it is fatal: it gives a sense wholly alien from St. John’ s habit of thought, in alleging that we cannot return God’ s love, and further alien in giving as a reason for this inability, that He is invisible. It would be a most unjustifiable use of ver. 20, to convert it thus and make it say that we cannot love God whom we have not seen. Thus it appears that each view has something to recommend it, each something to discommend it. Is there no third way to be found? In examining ver. 11, we find an unexpected substitution, εἰοὕτωςὁθεὸςἠγάπησενἡμᾶς , καὶἡμεῖςὀφείλομεν (not τὸνθεόν , but) ἀλλήλουςἀγαπᾷν . Why so? Here, ver. 20 will guide us to an answer, if rightly used. Not, because we cannot love God whom we have not seen: but because the exponents of God whom we have not seen are our brethren whom we do see. And the Apostle, in substituting ἀλλήλους , does not for a moment drop or set aside the higher τὸνθεόν , but in fact leads up to it by putting its lower and visible objects before us. And then ver. 12 comes in as an explanation, an apology as it were, for this substitution, in the following manner: ἀλλήλουςἀλαπᾷν , I say: for the love to God, which is our ὀφειλή , is love towards one whom we have never seen, and cannot exist in us (as ver. 20) unless by and with its lower degrees as manifested towards our brethren whom we have seen. By our love to them are we to know, how far we have love to Him: if that be present, He dwelleth in us, and ἡἀγάπηαὐτοῦτετελειωμένηἐστὶνἐνἡμῖν . And thus (see below) the way is prepared for vv. 15, 16, which take up and bring to a conclusion the reasoning): if we love one another, God abideth in us (for the reason already stated in ver. 8, and restated in immediate connexion with this very matter in ver. 16, that God is Love, and every one that loveth is born of God, knows God, abides in God and God in him), and the love of Him (i. e. ἡἀγάπηαὐτοῦ , as in ch. 2:5, where we had the same expression, our love to Him, not, as Beza, Bengel, Sander, al., His love to us. This is evident not merely from ch. 2:5, but from the context here: see it explained above, and remember that it is our love to God which is here the subject, as evinced by our love to our brethren. This is further shewn by the recurrence of the same expression in ver. 17, ἐντούτῳτετελείωταιἡἀγάπημεθ ʼ ἡμῶν , and ver. 18, ὁφοβούμενοςοὐτετελείωταιἐντῇἀγάπῃ . And so the majority of Commentators. Calvin proposes as a possible alternative, “ caritas, quam nobis inspirat.” Socinus renders “ dilectio quam ipse Deus nobis præ scripsit.” But both these are forced, and agree neither with usage nor with the context) is perfected in us (on the view above maintained of ἡἀγάπηαὐτοῦ , ἐνἡμῖν keeps its primary and obvious sense, “ in us,” “ within us,” as in ch. 2:5). 13. In this we know that we are abiding in Him and He in us, because He hath given us of His Spirit (nearly repeated from ch. 3:24. But why introduced here? In the former verse, the fact of His abiding in us was assured to us, if we love one another. Of this fact, when thus loving, we need a token. Him we cannot see: has He given us any testimony of His presence in us? He has given us such a testimony, in making us partakers of His Holy Spirit. This fact it is to which the Apostle here calls our attention, as proving not the external fact of the sending of the Son (ver. 14), but one within ourselves— the indwelling of God in us, and our abiding in Him. It is obvious that all inferences from the expression ἐκτοῦπν . against the personality of the Holy Ghost are quite beside the purpose: compare Acts 2:17 with Joe 2:28 (Heb. and E. V.). We each have the indwelling of one and the same personal Spirit, but each according to our measure, 1 Corinthians 12:4, 1 Corinthians 12:11. One only had the Spirit without measure, in all His fulness: even Christ; John 3:34. And the presence of the Holy Spirit is most aptly adduced here where love is in question, His first fruit being love, and His presence being tested by His fruits). 14, 15, 16. The connexion seems to be this: the inward evidence of God’ s abiding in us and we in Him, is, the gift of His Spirit. But this is not the only evidence nor the only test which we have. This internal evidence is accompanied by, nay, is itself made possible (see ver. 19) by, our recognition of the Father’ s love in sending His Son as our Saviour: which last is a fact, testified by human evidence. This recognition of God’ s love is a condition of abiding in Him and He in us: in a word, is the μένεινἐντῇἀλάπῃ , which is equivalent to abiding in Him. And we (this ἡμεῖς brings up in sharp relief the apostolic body whom Christ appointed His witnesses, John 15:27, Acts 1:8. The assertion is of the same kind as that in ch. 1:1) have beheld (τεθεάμεθα is joined closely to μαρτυροῦμεν , and in common with it belongs to the ὅτι following. No object must be supplied after it, as “ Deum ejusque virtutes imprimis caritatem.” Piscator. The construction of θεᾶσθαι with ὅτι is found John 6:5) and do testify that the Father hath sent (not merely to the historical fact as a thing past, but to its abiding influence as implied by σωτῆρατ . κόσμου below: q. d., that the Father sent the Son, and that the Son is the Saviour of the world) the Son (better here than “ His Son:” ὁπατήρ , τὸνυἱόν , are termini theologici) as Saviour of the world (σωτῆρα , anarthrous, is not appositive but predicatory = in meaning “ to save the world,” but one degree removed back from it in telic force: σώζειντὸνκόσμον would express more strongly the ultimate view of His mission; σωτῆρατοῦκόσμου gives the mediate aim, leaving it possible that another may be yet behind. τοῦκόσμου here, as in ch. 2:2, John 3:16, in its widest sense: no evasion of this sense, such as the “ electorum in omnibus populis” of Piscator and Aretius, is to be endured). 15. And recognition of this fact is a condition and proof of the life of God. Whosoever confesseth (the aorist can only be given by the English present and an exegesis,— viz. that this present betokens not a repeated act and habit, but a great act once for all introducing the man into a state of ὁμολογῆσαι . All futures, “ shall confess,” and futuri exacti, “ shall have confessed,” are objectionable; the one as losing the retrospective tinge, the other as making it unduly prominent, and indeed imparting a slight hue of transitoriness, which least of all belongs to the word. The same remark holds good of this confessing, as before with regard to denying, ch. 2:23: viz., that we must not bring into it more than the Apostle intends by it: it is not the “ confession of the life” which is here spoken of, but that of the lips only. Of course it would be self-evident that this is taken by the Apostle as ruling the life: but simply as a matter of course. He speaks of the ideal realized) that Jesus is the Son of God (i. e. receives the testimony in the last verse as true), God abideth in him, and he in God. 16. a) And we (not now the apostolic body only, but communicative, the Apostle and his readers. This is evident and necessary (against Episcopius, Huther, al.), because on the other view the ἐνἡμῖν which follows, interpreted as it must necessarily be of the same persons, would fit awkwardly on to the repeated general proposition with which the verse concludes) have known and have believed (the two roots which lie at the ground of ὁμολογεῖν , ἐγνώκαμεν and πεπιστεύκαμεν , are in St. John’ s language, most intimately connected. “ True faith is, according to St. John, a faith of knowledge and experience: true knowledge is a knowledge of faith.” Lü cke. Cf. John 6:69) the love, which God hath in regard to us (ἐνἡμῖν as above, ver. 9: not “ towards us,” as Beza (and E. V.), Estius, Luther, Socinus, Grot., &c. b) God is Love, and he that abideth in love abideth in God and God (abideth) in him (this is the solemn and formal restatement of that which has been the ground-tone of the whole since ver. 7. And here, as there, ἀγάπη is in its widest abstract sense. Its two principal manifestations are, love to God, and love to one another: but this saying is of Love absolute). 17, 18. These verses, which are parallel with ch. 3:19-21, set forth the confidence with which perfect love shall endow the believer in the great day of judgment. In this is love perfected with us (for ἐντούτῳ , see below. ἡἀγάπη , not, as Luther, Calv., Spener, Grot., Calov., Bengel, Sander, al., God’ s love to us: this is forbidden by the whole context: our verse is introduced by ὁμένωνἐντῇἀγάπῃ , and continued by φόβοςοὐκἔστινἐντῇἀγάπῃ : it is love dwelling and advancing to perfection in us. And again, not love to God merely, nor love to our brethren merely; these are concrete manifestations of It: but love itself in the abstract— the principle of love, as throughout this passage. This sense of ἀγάπη will point out that of μεθ ʼ ἡμῶν , which belongs not to ἡἀγάπη but to the verb, as in ver. 12. Love is considered as planted in us; its degrees of increase take place μεθ ʼ ἡμῶν — not merely “ bei uns,” “ chez nous,” πρὸςἡμᾶς , but as concerned with us; in a sense somewhat similar to that in which ἐμεγάλυνενκύριοςτὸἔλεοςαὐτοῦμετ ʼ αὐτῆς , Luke 1:58. See 2 John 1:2, where however the idea of dwelling with is more brought out than here), that we have confidence in the day of judgment (ἵνα gives not the purpose of the τετελείωται , but the apodosis to the ἐντούτῳ , as in reff.: “ in this love is perfected in us, viz. that we, &c.” So most, and nearly all the best Commentators. Beza (and E. V.), Socinus, Grot., Mayer, give ἵνα its telic force, regarding ὅτι as the apodosis (not so E. V.), and assuming a trajection: the objection to which is, not the transposition, but the sense so gained, as belonging to the context. On this view, the aim given by the ἵνα comes in altogether disjointed from the context, and the perfection of love in us is stated to be found in a fact which is objective, not subjective. It is only necessary to cite Grotius’ s exegesis to shew the incongruity, even in his understanding of ἡἀγάπη . “ Hic est summus gradus dilectionis Dei erga nos, si qualis in hoc mundo Christus fuit, i. e. mundi odiis et propterea plurimis malis expositus tales et nos simus (John 15:18; 1 Peter 2:19, 1 Peter 4:16). Ideo hoc Dens ita disponit, ut cum bona fiducia appareamus in die judicii. Nam constans perpessio malorum ad exemplum Christi efficit, ut a Christo optima exspectemus, quippe ipsi similes.” Can any thing be more broken and farfetched than such a connexion? to say nothing of its “ si simus” for ὅτιἐσμέν . On the right interpretation, the confidence which we shall have in that day, and which we have even, now by anticipation of that day, is the perfection of our love; grounded on the consideration (ὅτικαθὼςκ .τ .λ .) which follows: casting out fear, which cannot consist with perfect love, ver. 18): because even as He (Christ, see below) is, we also are in this world (this is the reason or ground of our confidence: that we, as we now are in the world, are like Christ: and in the background lies the thought, He will not, in that day, condemn those who are like Himself. In these words, the sense must be gained by keeping strictly to the tenses and grammatical construction: not, as e. g. Œ c. ὡςἐκεῖνοςἦνἐντῷκόσμῳ , by changing the tenses (so also Thl., Tirin., Corn.-a-Iap., Mayer, Grot., Luther, Calov., Rickli, al.), nor by referring the words ἐντῷκόσμῳτούτῳ to Christ, as several of the above, and Socinus. And when we have adhered to tense and grammar, wherein is the likeness spoken of to be found? Clearly, by what has been above said, not in our trials and persecutions. Nor by our being not of the world as He is not of the world : nor in that we, as sons of adoption through Him, are beloved of God, even as He is beloved (Tirinus, Neander); nor as Huther, in that we live in Love, as He lives in Love: but in that we are righteous as He is righteous, ch. 2:29, 3:3 ff., 10, 22: this being evinced by our abiding in Love. And so mainly (Œ c., Thl., with the mistake pointed out above), Beza, Corn.-a-lap., Mayer, Socinus, Lü cke, De Wette, Rickli, Dü sterd., al. Many indeed of these approach to Huther’ s view impugned above, and make it to be love in which we are like Christ: but Dü sterd. brings rightly this logical objection,— that 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 ch. 3:21 f. 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). 18. Confidence in (or as understood, as to) that terrible day presupposes the absence of fear: and this casting out of fear is the very work of love, which in its perfect state cannot coexist with fear. Fear (φόβος , abstract and general: anarthrous, on account of the negative predication) existeth not in love (τῇἀγάπῃ , abstract and general also, as in ver. 17: not “ God’ s love to us,” as Calv., Calov., Spener, al.: nor “ brotherly love,” as Lü cke, al.), nay perfect (see on τετελείωται in ver. 17) love casteth out fear, because fear hath torment (see below): but he that feareth hath not been perfected in (his) love. The points here to be noticed are, 1) the emphatic οὐκἔστιν , which is better rendered as above, than “ There is no fear in love,” in order to keep φόβος , which is the subject in the Greek, also the subject in the English: 2) ἀλλά , which 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 ʼ ἐντῷμίσει : but it is the stronger adversative, implying “ nay far otherwise:” “ tantum abest ut … ut:” 3) the argument in ἀλλ ʼ … ἔχει , which is doubly enthymematic, having in it two assumptions or suppressed premisses, α ) that nothing having κόλασις can consist with perfect love: β ) that fear is in us by nature and needs casting out in order to its absence: 4) the meaning of κόλασινἔχει . There are two opinions: a) that κόλασις is merely pain or torment; so Aug. , Erasmus , Tirinus , Luther, Calvin, Schlichting, Beza (and E. V.), Piscator, Aretius, Episcopius, Rosenm., Bengel , Joach. Lange (who interprets it, compunction at the preaching of the law), Sander, al.: b) that κόλασις is properly punishment. So Lyra , Corn.-a-lap., Estius , Mayer, Seb.-Schmidt, Calov., Spener, Benson, Whitby, Baumg.-Crus., Neander, Lü cke (includes in itself punishment, i. e. consciousness of deserving it), De Wette, Dü sterd., Huther. And this last is certainly the sense, both from the usage of the word (reff.), and from the context, in which the day of judgment is before us. Fear, by anticipating punishment, has it even now; bears about a foretaste of it and so partakes of it: 5) the last clause, ὁδὲφοβούμενοςοὐτετελείωταιἐντῇἀγάπῃ , is intimately connected with what follows (see on ver. 14) as well as with what went before. The δέ is adversative to the whole preceding sentence, ἡτελείαἀγάπηκ .τ .λ ., and mainly to the idea of τελείαἀγάπη therein expressed. As regards the absence of fear from the love of the Christian believer, it has been well observed by Œ cum., 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 for ever,” Psa_19, and which δέουςτοιούτουἀπήλλακται . And Bengel says in his brief pointed manner, “ Varius hominum status: sine timore et amore: cum timore sine amore: cum timore et amore: sine timore cum amore.” The difference is finely wrought out by Augustine, in loc. Tract. ix. 5-8, vol. iii. p. 2048 ff. 19. I am sorry to be obliged here to differ from the best modern Commentators, Lü cke, De Wette, Dü sterdieck, Huther, as well as from Episcop., Grot., Luther, Calov., Spener, al., and the Commentators on the vulgate, in holding firmly that ἀγαπῶμεν is indicative, not imperative (i. e. hortative). This I do not merely on account of the expressed ἡμεῖς , though that would be a strong point in the absence of stronger, but on account of the context, which appears to me to be broken by the imperative. 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: We (emphatic— one side of the antithesis) love (see above. The indic. is taken by Calvin, Beza, Aretius, Socinus, Schlichting, Seb.-Schmidt, Whitby, Bengel, Rickli, Neander, al. Most Commentators supply αὐτόν or ἀλλήλους , but unnecessarily. It is of all love that he is speaking; of love in its root and ideal), because He (God: see the parallel, ver. 10) first loved us (viz. in the sending of His Son). 20. The connexion is most close: and the error great of those who, as e. g. Erdmann, have made a new section begin here. This ἀγάπη is universal, necessarily manifested in both of the two great departments of its exercise. Love, living and working in the heart as a principle, will fix first upon objects at hand and seen: those objects being natural objects for it to fix on. How then can a man love God, the highest object of love, who is removed from his sight, and at the same time refuse to love his brother, bearing the mark of a child of God, before his eyes from day to day? Put in a brief form, the argument, as connected with the last verse, is this: His love has begotten us anew in love: in this us are included our brethren; objects of our daily sight: if therefore we do not love them, we do not love Him. If any say (aor. “ have said;” i. e. at any time: the saying once, rather than the habit, is the hypothesis) I love God, and hate (pres. of habit) his brother, he is a liar: for (here again the argument is enthymematic, and we must supply from our common sense ἐφελκυστικὸνγὰρὅρασιςπρὸςἀγάπην , Œ c.: “ oculi sunt in amore duces,” &c.) he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen (perf.: and continues to feel the influence of that sight. We do not say “ I have seen him” of the dead, but of the living only), cannot love God whom he hath not seen (St. John does not say that there is no love without sight; nor that we love all we see better than any thing we do not see: his argument rests on a deeper and truer position: viz. on that assumed in the word ἀδελφόν , which carries with it the consideration that he of whom it is said is begotten of God. Both ὁἀδελφός and ὁθεός are used within the limits of the Christian life, of which that is true, which is unfolded ch. 5:1, that this ἀδελφός as begotten of God is a necessary object of love to one that loves Him that begat him. Here, a lower step of the same argument is taken; but without this great truth, lying beneath the word ἀδελφός , it would carry no conviction with it). 21. And besides this argument from common sense, there is another most powerful one, which the Apostle here adds. “ Quomodo diligis eum, cujus odisti præ ceptum?” as Aug. And this commandment we have from Him (God: not, Christ: see below), that he who loveth God, love also his brother (where have we this commandment? In the great summary of the law, “ Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, … and thy neighbour as thyself,” so often cited by our Lord; see Matthew 22:37-39). Chap. 5:1. And who is our brother? and why does this name carry with it such an obligation to love? These questions, in closest connexion with the last verse, the Apostle answers in this. Every one that believeth (not as Grot. “ qui credere se ostendit:” it is the faith itself which is spoken of) that Jesus is the Christ hath been begotten of God (to whom do these words apply? from what follows, in which the γεγέννηται is taken up by τὸνγεγεννημένον , to the brother whom we are to love as a necessary accompaniment of our loving God. But most Commentators, including Lü cke, De Wette, Huther, Dü sterd., assume that it is of ourselves that this is said: our birth of God depends on and is in closest union with our faith, ch. 3:23, 24. Then the connexion between this and the following clause must be made by filling up an ellipsis, “ and if born of God we love God.” But this is far-fetched and, as has been above shewn implicitly, alien from the context, the object of which is to point out who those are whom we are bound to love if we love God. Then having made this predication of all the children of God, πᾶςὁπιστ . κ .τ .λ ., he, as so frequently, takes it up again below, ver. 4, with a more general reference, and dwells on our faith as the principle which overcomes the world: see there): and every one who loveth him that begot (these words take up again the ἐάντιςεἴπῃὅτιἀγαπῶτὸνθεόν , of ch. 4:20), loveth also him that is begotten of him . 2. And indeed so inseparable are the two, that as before, ch. 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. In this we know that we love the children of God (τὰτέκνατοῦθεοῦ takes up again τὸνγεγεννημένονἐξαὐτοῦ of the preceding verse) when we love God, and do His commandments . 3. For (explaining the connexion of the two preceding clauses) the love of God is this (consists in this: αὕτη , as the demonstrative pronoun, in all such sentences, being the predicate), that (ἵνα introduces the apodosis to αὕτη as in ch. 4:17, where see note) we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not grievous (the reason, why they are not grievous, is given in the next verse. Almost all the Commentators refer to Matthew 11:30, ὁζυγόςμουχρηστός , κ . τὸφορτίονμουἐλαφρόνἐστιν . Œ c., however, al., repudiate this reference, but apparently on account of the form of expression; observing that the Apostle has said not ἐλαφραὶεἰσίν , but βαρεῖαιοὐκεἰσίν ; but the comment of Œ c. is in confusion, and not easy to understand. The Schol. in the Oxf. Catena well remarks, εἴτιςπροσελθὼναὐταῖςμὴὃνδεῖτρόπονλέγειαὐτὰςβαρείας , τὴνἑαυτοῦἀσθένειανᾐτιάσατο · φίλονγὰρτοῖςἄγανἀποβάλλουσινἰσχὺνβαρέανομίζεσθαικαὶτὰπάνυἐλαφρὰκαὶκοῦφα . This declaration, that His commandments are not grievous, has, as did ch. 3:9, furnished some of the R.-Cath. 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 shewing 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), 4. because (reason, why His commandments are not grievous: not, as Œ c., ἐπιτίθησιτοῖςἤδηεἰρημένοιςκσὶἕτερονἐπακτικὸνπρὸςτὴνμεταχείρισιντῆςἀγάπης , making καὶαἱἐντ . αὐ . β . οὐκεἰς . merely parenthetical) all that is born of God (the neuter is here used as gathering together in one, under the category of “ born of God,” the ἡμεῖς implied in the last verses. So St. John uses the comprehensive categorical neuter in reff. Œ c. seems to deny this personal meaning of πᾶν , and to understand it “ every thing,” applying it afterwards to ἡπίστιςἡμ . as one such thing. Aretius and Paulus take it similarly. But besides the Apostle’ s usage cited above, the whole analogy here is against such an interpretation. It is we, not our faith, of which the term ἐκτοῦθεοῦγεγεννῆσθαι is used) conquereth (νικᾷ , of habit: simply predicated of the category πᾶντὸκ .τ .λ .) the world (the kingdom of evil under its prince the devil, God’ s adversary; in the main as Calv., “ quicquid adversum est Dei spiritui. Ita naturæ nostræ pravitas pars mundi est, omnes concupiscentiæ , omnes Satanæ actus, quicquid denique nos a Deo abstrahit.” 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), and the victory which (hath) conquered the world is this, our faith , “ significatur victoria jam parta:” cf. ch. 2:13, 4:4. Socinus absurdly explains the aorist as speaking of those whose Christian course is done, against the plain ἐστίν , not only here but in ver. 5). 5. If it be asked, How does our faith overcome the world? this verse furnishes the answer; because it brings us into union with Jesus Christ the Son of God, making us as He is, and partakers of His victory, John 16:33. Through this belief we are born again as sons of God; we have Him in us, One greater than he who is in the world, ch. 4:4. And this conclusion is put in the form of a triumphant question: What other person can do it? Who that believes this, can fail to do it? Who is be that conquereth the world, except he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God? By comparing ver. 1 a, we find 1) that ὁχριστός there answers to ὁυἱὸςτοῦθεοῦ here; 2) that by the combination of the two verses, we get the proposition of ver. 4 a. Episcopius gives well the meaning: “ Lustrate universum mundum et ostendite mihi vel unum, de quo vere affirmari possit, quod mundum vincat, qui Christianus et fide hac præ ditus non est.” 6-21. The third and last division of the Epistle. This portion falls naturally into two parts: vv. 6-13, and vv. 14-21: the former of which treats of the concluding part of the argument, and the latter forms the close of the Epistle. 6-13. As in the former portions, our communion with God who is light (ch. 1:5 ff.) was treated, and our birth in righteousness from God who is righteous (2:29 ff.), by faith in Jesus the Son of God,— so now we have another most important element of the Christian life set before us: the testimony to it arising from that life itself: the witness of the spiritual life to its own reality. This witness rests not on apostolic testimony alone, but on the Holy Spirit, which the believer has in himself (ver. 10), and which is God’ s testimony respecting His Son (vv. 9, 10), and our assurance that we have eternal life (ver. 13). There is hardly a passage in the N. T. which has given rise to more variety of interpretation: certainly none which (on account of the apparent importance of the words interpolated after ver. 7) has been the field of so much critical controversy. Complete accounts of both the exegesis and the criticism will be found in the recent monographs on the Epistle: more especially in that of Dü sterdieck. I shall indicate the more salient points of the divergent interpretations as I proceed. 6. This (viz. the person spoken of in the last verse; Jesus. This, which is maintained by most Commentators, is denied by Knapp and Huther, who refer οὗτος to ὁυἱὸςτοῦθεοῦ : “ This Son of God is he &c.:” making the proposition assert the identity of the Son of God with the historical Jesus, not the converse. This Huther supports on two grounds: 1) that the fact that Jesus came by water and blood needed no proof even to Heretics: 2) that on the ordinary interpretation the following words, Ἰης . χριστός , become altogether superfluous. But to these it is easily replied, 1) that although the fact might be confessed, that was not confessed to which the fact bore testimony, viz. that Jesus who came in the flesh was the Son of God: 2) that the appositional clause Ἰης . χριστός is by no means superfluous, being only a solemn reassertion of our Lord’ s Person and Office as testified by these signs. The main objection to Huther’ s view is, that, as well stated by Dü sterd., it makes the coming by water and blood, which, by the context, is evidently in the Apostle’ s argument a substantiating consideration, to be merely an exceptional one: “ this Son of God is Jesus (the) Christ, though He came by water and blood.” Therefore the other interpretation must stand fast. It is well defended also by Lü cke) is he that came by water and blood , Knapp, &c. But if this meaning is in ἐλθών , then it cannot be the mere exponent of δι ʼ ὕδ . κ . αἵμ ., but must take an emphatic place of its own, and δι ʼ ὕδ . κ . αἵμ . must stand awkwardly alone, “ and that by water and blood,” or must, as Hofmann, belong to ἐστιν . Taking then the generally received construction, we may observe that the article before the aor. part. ἐλθών , makes οὗτόςἐστινὁἐλθών to be the identification of οὗτος with ὁἐλθών , i. e. with one who as an historical fact, ἦλθεν , precluding such renderings as “ came” for ἐστὶνὁἐλθών ; also forbidding the making the aor. into a present, “ this is He that cometh,” as Luther, Seb.-Schmidt, J. Lange, Rickli, Sander, al., and perhaps Œ c., as has been inferred from his understanding ὕδωρ and αἷμα of present means of grace and salvation: ὁγὰρἐλθὼνἸησοῦςὁχριστὸςδι ʼ ὕδατοςἀναγεννᾷκαὶαἵματος . But he may have been misunderstood: the ἐλθών in this comment, and the circumstance that he afterwards dwells on the historical facts of the Baptism and the Crucifixion, seem to shew that he understood the participle aoristically. We may clearly do so, and still regard the water and blood as present in their effects and testimony. All Commentators, except Hofmann (see above), regard ἐλθών as referring, not to the Lord’ s birth in the flesh, but to His open manifestation of himself before the world. See above on ch. 4:2. The prep. διὰ , which passes into ἐν in the next sentence, is thereby explained to bear its very usual sense of through or by means of, as said of that which accompanies, as the medium through which, or the element in which. We have an example of ἐν passing into διὰ , 2 Corinthians 6:6, 2 Corinthians 6:7: and the very same phrases, δι ʼ αἵματος and ἐναἵματι , are used of our Lord in Hebrews 9:12, Hebrews 9:25, which chapter is the best of all comments on this difficult expression. δι ʼ ὕδατοςκ . αἵματος has been very variously understood. Two canons of interpretation have been laid down by Dü sterd., and may safely be adopted: 1) “ Water” and “ blood” must point both to some purely historical facts in the life of our Lord on earth, and to some still present witnesses for Christ: and 2) they must not be interpreted symbolically, but understood of something so real and powerful, as that by them God’ s testimony given to believers, and eternal life assured to them. These canons at once exclude such interpretations as that of Wetst., al., “ probavit se non phantasma sed verum hominem esse qui ex spiritu (sive aë re, ver. 8) sanguine et aqua seu humore constaret, John 19:34:” — as the purely symbolical interpretation, of which there are two kinds:— 1) that of Socinus and his school, in which ὕδωρ stands for the purity and innocence of the life and doctrine of Christ, Hebrews 10:22, Ephesians 5:26,— and αἷμα of the death of Christ as His testimony of Himself. So Schlichting and Grotius: 2) that given by Clement of Alex., Adumbrationes ad h. 1. 1011 P (not in Migne), in which ὕδωρ represents regeneration and faith, and αἷμα , knowledge (cognitionem): by Beza,— in which ὕδωρ is “ ablutio a peccati labe, cujus nunc tessera est Baptismus,” — αἷμα , “ expiatio et persolutio pro peccatis:” by Calvin, in which he explains both ὕδωρ and αἷμα by “ summatim ostendit quorsum præ cipue tenderent ceremoniæ veteres: nempe ut homines ab inquinamentis purgati et soluti omnibus piaculis, Deum haberent propitium et illi consecrarentur.” By the latter of our two canons is excluded also the idea of mere symbolic reference to the sacraments, as e. g. Beza (see above), Luther, Calvin, al. Dü sterdieck observes that it is remarkable that the best R.-Cath. expositor, Estius (whose commentary is unfortunately broken off at this verse), does not as some have done, interpret αἷμα of the Sacrament of the Lord’ s Supper, but puts together ὕδωρ and αἷμα , as Calvin and Luther: “ per sanguinem vivificat tum in baptismo aquæ , tum in aliis sacramentis, tum etiam extra sacramenta.” So that, as Dü sterdieck proceeds, the great leaders of the three schools of theology have had the tact to see that which their less skilful followers have missed seeing,— that αἷμα cannot by any means be understood of the Lord’ s Supper, as has been done by Hunnius, Seb.-Schmidt, Calov., Wolf, Bengel, Carpzov., Sander, al. The next point which comes before us is, to enquire whether at all, or how far, our passage is connected with John 19:34? It occurs here, because many Commentators, e. g., , Hunnius, Seb.-Schmidt, Calov., Wolf, Bengel, &c., have seen in the incident there related a miraculous symbolizing of the two sacraments, and in this passage an allusion to that incident. To deny all such allusion, as is done by Dü sterdieck, seems against probability. The Apostle could hardly both here and in that place lay such evident stress on the water and blood together, without having in his mind some link connecting this place and that. That in the Gospel it is αἷμα and ὕδωρ ,— in this place ὕδωρ and αἷμα ,— a difference of which Dü sterd. makes much, is surely not worth mentioning. The idea that we have here nothing more than a reference to the fact of Joh 19:34, is against our 2nd canon above: but that John 19:34 and this refer to the same fundamental truth, is I conceive hardly to be doubted. It rests now then that we enquire into the meaning of each expression. On αἷμα , there cannot surely be much uncertainty. The blood of His Cross must, by all Scripture analogy, be that intended. The pouring out of this blood was the completion of the baptism which He had to be baptized with, Mark 10:38, Mark 10:39, Luke 12:50. And if this is so, to what can ὕδωρ be referred so simply, as to that baptism with water, which inaugurated the Lord’ s ministry? It might indeed be said that the baptism which He instituted for His followers, better satisfies the test of our 2nd canon, that viz. of being an abiding testimony in the Christian Church. But to this there lies the objection, that as αἷμα signifies something which happened to Christ Himself, so must ὕδωρ likewise, at least primarily, whatever permanent testimony such event may have left in the Christian Church. And thus some modern Commentators have taken it: as uniting the historical fact of the Lord’ s baptism with the ordinance of baptism, grounded on it, and abiding in the Christian Church. So Semler, Rosenm., Baumg.-Crus., Brü ckner, Neander, Huther. Dü sterd. refuses to accept this view, denying that our Lord’ s Baptism was any proof or testimony of His Messiahship, and understanding ὕδωρ of the ordinance of baptism only. But surely we are not right in interpreting ὁἐλθὼνδι ʼ ὕδατος , He that ordained baptism: nor, whatever Dü sterd. may say, in giving the two, αἷμα and ὕδωρ , an entirely different reference. For his endeavour to escape from this by making αἷμα not Christ’ s death but His blood, applied to us, cannot be accepted, as giving a “ non-natural” sense to ἐλθὼνδι ʼ αἵματος likewise. All this being considered, it seems impossible to avoid giving both to αἷμα and ὕδωρ the combined senses above indicated, and believing that such were before the Apostle’ s mind. They represent,— ὕδωρ , 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. And it is equally impossible to sever, as Dü sterd. does, 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 was given, by which the Baptist knew Him to be the Son of God: ἐγὼἑώρακακ . μεμαρτύρηκαὅτιοὗτόςἐστινὁυἱὸςτοῦθεοῦ , 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. And thus both our canons are satisfied, which certainly is not the case in Dü sterdieck’ s interpretation, though they were laid down by himself), Jesus Christ (see above on οὗτος . As now, with the art. omitted, the words are merely the name, “ Jesus Christ:” if it were inserted, the adjunct ὁχριστός would be an appositional predicate, and would necessarily send the thought back to the ἐλθὼνδι ʼ ὕδ . κ . αἵμ . as a proof of the Messiahship of Jesus. It may be remarked, however, that in all the places where St. John uses this Name, it has a solemn meaning, and is by the emphasis thus thrown on the official designation of our Lord, nearly = Ἰησοῦςὁχριστός . Cf. John 1:17, John 17:3: 1 John 1:3, 1 John 2:1, 1 John 3:23, 1 John 4:2, 1 John 5:20: 2 John 1:3, 2 John 1:7): not in the water only, but in the water and in the blood (ἐν , see above on διά . The sense of the two is there shewn to be closely allied, ἐν giving rather the “ element in which,” διὰ , the medium through which. The art. before each dative shews not merely, as Huther, that ὕδωρ and αἷμα have been before named, but that they are well-known and solemn ideas. It is inserted not as matter of course, but as giving solemnity. But why has the Apostle added this sentence? Schö ttgen thought that it is to give Christ the preference over Moses, who came only by water (1 Corinthians 10:2), and Aaron, who came only by blood (of sacrifice), whereas Christ united both. But this is too far-fetched. Baumgarten-Crusius again regards the words as directed against those who despised the Cross of Christ (1 Corinthians 1:23): but a more definite explanation than this is required. And those can hardly be wrong, who find it in such words as those of the Baptist in John 1:25, ἐγὼβαπτίζωἐνὕδατι , μέσοςὑμῶνστήκειὃνὑμεῖςοὐκοἴδατε : cf. the emphatic repetitions below, ib. ver. 31, ἦλθονἐγὼἐντῷὕδατιβαπτίζων , and ver. 33, ὁπέμψαςμεβαπτίζεινἐνὕδατι . The baptism of Jesus was not one of water only, but one of blood,— ἴδεὁἀμνὸςτοῦθεοῦ — and something more than that, which follows in the next clause): and the Spirit is that which witnesseth, because the Spirit is the truth which He when dying commended into His Father’ s hands. Augusti, who explains ὕδωρ and αἷμα of the two Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’ s Supper, sees in πνεῦμα , in connexion with John 20:22 ff., a third Sacrament of absolution. Ziegler and Stroth regard it as = ὁπνευματικός , i. e. St. John himself. Œ c. and Knapp regard it as = ὁθεός — διὰδὲτοῦπνεύματος , ὅτεὡςθεὸςἀνέστηἐκνεκρῶν · θεοῦγὰρτοῦτομόνουλοιπόν , τὸἀνιστᾷνἑαυτόν . τῇδὲτοῦπνεύματοςφωνῇσημαίνεταιὁθεός : thus making the threefold witness to the υἱοθεσία of Jesus, τὸβάπτισμα , ὁσταυρός , ἡἀνάστασις . Then again Socinus, Schlichting, Grot., Whitby, al., interpret it of the Divine power by which Christ wrought His miracles: “ id est,” says Grot., “ per μετωνυμίαν , admiranda ejus opera, a virtute divina manifeste procedentia.” But this, as well as Bede’ s interpretation, that the Spirit which descended on the Lord at His baptism is meant, inasmuch as it testified to His being “ verus Dei filius,” — fails, in giving no present abiding testimony such as the context requires. Others again understand by πνεῦμα the ministry of the word: so Aretius, J. Lange, Hunnius , Luther, Piscator, Carpzov., Rosenmü ller (the Gospel), Seb.-Schmidt , &c. Most of these, as well as Bengel, whose whole interpretation is confused by his attempt to force the interpolated words in ver. 7 into the context, understand πνεῦμα here and in ver. 8 differently. But nothing can be plainer than that we must not alter the meaning, where the ὅτι binds together the sentences so closely. The above interpretations (to which we may add that of Sander, that τὸπν . = τὸχάρισμα , the transformation of a man which takes place by the agency of the Holy Spirit) failing to give any satisfactory account of the text, we recur to the simple and obvious meaning, the Holy Spirit. This is taken by Schol. I., Estius, Corn.-a-lap., Tirinus, Calvin, Calov., Lü cke, Rickli, De Wette, Huther, Neander, Dü sterdieck, al. And it seems fully to satisfy all the requirements of the passage. The Holy Spirit is He, who testifies of Christ (John 15:26), who glorifies Him, and shews of the things which belong to Him (John 16:14). It is by the possession of Him that we know that we have Christ (ch. 3:24). And the following clause, “ because the Spirit is the Truth,” exactly agrees with this. He is the absolute Truth (John 14:17, John 15:26), leading into all the Truth (John 16:13 f.). And in this consists the all-importance and the infallibility of His witness. “ Testimonium ejus hand-quaquam rejici potest, quoniam Spiritus est veritas, quum sit Deus, ideoque nec falli potest, nec fallere.” Estius). 7. “ Johannes hic causam reddit, cur locutus fuerit non de Spiritu tantum, cujus præ cipua 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.” Grot. For (from what has been just cited from Grot. it will be seen that “ because” would be here, as so often, too strong a causal rendering for ὅτι , and that even at the risk of identifying it with γάρ , logical accuracy requires the slighter causal conjunction) those who bear witness are three (τρεῖςεἰσιν is copula and predicate. The three are considered as living and speaking witnesses; hence the masculine form. By being three, they fulfil the requirements of the Law as to full testimony: cf. Deuteronomy 17:6, Deuteronomy 19:15: Matthew 18:16, 2 Corinthians 13:1), the Spirit, and the water, and the blood (now, the Spirit is put first: and not without reason. The Spirit is, of the three, the only living and active witness, properly speaking: besides, the water and the blood are no witnesses without Him; whereas He is independent of them, testifying both in them and out of them), and the three concur in one (contribute to one and the same result: viz. the truth that Jesus is the Christ and that we have life in Him. Corn.-a-lap.’ s mistake, “ in unum, ad unum, scil. Christum,” cannot have come (as Dü sterd.) from a misunderstanding of the vulgate, seeing that it has “ hi tres unum sunt:” but is merely an exegesis, and in the main a right one. But the words simply signify in themselves, “ are in accord.” And this their one testimony is given by the purification in the water of baptism into His name, John 3:5: by the continual cleansing from all sin which we enjoy in and by His atoning blood: by the inward witness of His Spirit, which He hath given us). The question of the genuineness of the words read in the rec. at the end of ver. 7, has been discussed, as far as external grounds are concerned, in the digest; and it has been seen, that unless pure caprice is to be followed in the criticism of the sacred text, there is not the shadow of a reason for supposing them genuine. Even the supposed citations of them in early Latin Fathers have now, on closer examination, disappeared (see Digest) Something remains to be said on internal grounds, on which we have full right to enter, now that the other is secured. And on these grounds it must appear, on any fair and unprejudiced consideration, that the words are 1) alien from the context: 2) in themselves incoherent, and betraying another hand than the Apostle’ s. For 1) the context, as above explained, is employed in setting forth the reality of the substance of the faith which overcomes the world, even of our eternal life in Jesus the Son of God. And this is shewn by a threefold testimony, subsisting in the revelation of the Lord Himself, and subsisting in us His people. And this testimony is the water of baptism, the blood of atonement, the Spirit of truth, concurrent in their witness to the one fact that He is the Son of God, and that we have eternal life in Him. Now between two steps of this argument,— not as a mere analogy referred to at its conclusion,— insert the words “ For there are three that bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one,” and who can fail to see, unless prejudice have blinded his eyes, that the context is disturbed by the introduction of an irrelevant matter? Consequently, Bengel, one of the most strenuous upholders of the words, is obliged tamely to take refuge in the transposition of vv. 7 and 8 (which was perhaps the original form of its insertion in the vulgate; see Digest I. II. and the quotation by Vigilius), so as to bring into treatment the matter in hand, before the illustration of it is introduced. But even suppose this could be done; what kind of illustration is it? What is it to which our attention is directed? Apparently the mere fact of the triplicity of testimony: for there is not the remotest analogy between the terms in the one case and those in the other; the very order of them, differing as it does in the two cases, shews this. Is this triplicity a fact worthy of such a comparison? And then, what is the testimony in heaven? Is it borne to men? Certainly not: for God hath no man seen, as He is there: His only-begotten Son hath declared Him to us on earth, where all testimony affecting us must be borne. Is it a testimony to angels? Possibly: but quid ad rem? And then, again, what but an unworthy play on words can it be called, to adduce the ἕνεἰσιν on the one side, the essential unity of the ever blessed Godhead, and on the other the εἰςτὸἕνεἰσιν , the concurrence in testifying to one fact,— as correspondent to one another? Does not this betray itself as the fancy of a patristic gloss, in the days when such analogies and comparisons were the sport of every theological writer? And 2) the very words betray themselves. ὁπατήρ and ὁλόγος are never combined by St. John, but always ὁπατήρ and ὁυἱός . The very apology of Bengel, “ Verbi appellatio egregie convenit cum testimonio,” may serve to shew how utterly weak he must have felt the cause to be. The best conclusion to the whole subject is found in the remark of Bengel himself on another occasion (cited by Lü cke here), of the practice reprobated, of which he himself furnishes here so striking an instance: “ male strenuos ii se præ bent in bellis Domini, qui ita animum inducunt, ‘ Dogmati elenchoque meo opportunus est hic textus: ergo me ipse cogam ad eum protinus pro vero habendum: eumque ipsum, et omnia quæ pro eo corradi possunt, obnixe defendam.’ Atqui veritas non eget fulcris falsis, sed se sola multo melius nititur.” A sketch of the principal particulars of the dispute and of the books relating to it is given in Horne’ s Introduction, vol. iv. pp. 355-388. 9. An argument a minori ad majus, grounded on the practice of mankind, by which it is shewn that God’ s testimony must be by all means believed by us. If we (mankind in general: all reasonable men) receive (as we do: εἰ with an indic.: cf. John 7:23, John 10:35, John 13:14. On the expression μαρτ . λαμβάνειν , see reff. It is, to receive with approval, to accept) the testimony of men (τῶνἀνθρ ., generic; τὴνμαρτ . in any given case. No special testimony need be thought of, as touching this present case: the proposition is general), the testimony of God is greater (supply in the argument, “ and therefore much more ought we to receive that.” The testimony of God here spoken of is not any particular testimony, as the prophecies concerning Christ (Bede), or the testimony of the Baptist and other eyewitnesses to Him (Wetstein, Storr), or the Prophets, the Baptist, Martyrs, and Apostles (Bengel, Episcopius, al.): it is general, as is the testimony of men with which it is compared. The particular testimony pointed at by the general proposition is introduced in the following words): for , the testimony of God is this, that He hath borne testimony concerning His Son (i. e. the testimony of God to which the argument applies is this, the fact that He hath borne testimony to His Son: αὕτηἐστὶνἡμαρτυρία , ὅτι … , as in ver. 11. The correction to the easier ἥν , as in ver. 10, gives a wrong reference for αὕτη , making it refer back to that mentioned in vv. 6-8, and throws back also a wrong shade of meaning over ver. 9, making “ the testimony of God” there particular instead of general. The absolute sense of μεμαρτύρηκεν is found in the Gospel, 1:32, 13:21, 19:35: see also vv. 6, 7 above). 10-12. The perfect μεμαρτύρηκεν , ver. 9, shewed that the testimony spoken of is not merely an historical one, such for instance as Matthew 3:17, which God ἐμαρτύρησεν , but one abiding and present. And these verses explain to us what that testimony is. He that believeth in the Son of God hath the testimony (just spoken of; τοῦθεοῦ , as the gloss adds: see var. readd.) in him (i. e. in himself. The two readings do not differ in sense. The object of the divine testimony being, to produce faith in Christ, the Apostle takes him in whom it has wrought this its effect, one who habitually believes in the Son of God, and says of such an one that he possesses the testimony in himself. What it is, he does not plainly say till below, ver. 11. But easily enough here we can synthetically put together and conjecture of what testimony it is that he is speaking: the Spirit by whom we are born again to eternal Life, the water of baptism by which the new birth is brought to pass in us by the power of the Holy Ghost (John 3:5, Titus 3:5), the Blood of Jesus by which we have reconciliation with God, and purification from our sins (ch. 1:7, 2:2), and eternal life (John 6:53 ff.),— these three all contribute to and make up our faith in Christ, and so compose that testimony, which the Apostle designates in ver. 11 by the shorter term which comprehends them all. This is rightly maintained by Dü sterd. as the exegesis: identifying the μαρτυρία here with that in ver. 11, as against numerous expositors who make the one differ from the other. It is plain that all evasive senses of ἔχειἐναὐτῷ , such as “ recipit in se” of Socinus, Grot., Rosenmü ller, are inadmissible): he that believeth not God (St. John, as so frequently, proceeds to put his proposition in the strongest light by bringing out the opposite to it. The reading τῷθεῷ is internally as well as externally substantiated. The participle with the dative is wholly different from the same above with εἱςτὸνυἱόν . That is the resting trust of faith: this the mere first step of giving credit to a witness. Huther well fills in τῷθεῷ by τῷμεμαρτυρηκότι . And thus it is tacitly assumed that one who does not believe in the Son of God, gives no credit to God Himself) hath made Him a liar (perf. because the state of discredit implies a definite rejection still continuing. On the expression, see ch. 1:10), because he hath not believed in (here, not only, hath not credited, though that was the more shameful rejection of God’ s word: but now the full rejection— the refusal to believe in, cast himself on God’ s testimony) the testimony which God hath testified concerning His Son. 11. Wherein this testimony consists. And the testimony (just spoken of) is this, that God gave (not, “ hath given.” This is of especial importance here, where not the endurance of a state, but the fact of the gift having been once made, is brought out. The present assurance of our possessing this gift follows in the next clause, and in ver. 12) to us eternal life, and (ὅτι is not to be supplied, nor does this clause depend on αὕτηἐστὶνκ .τ .λ ., but it is appositional and co-ordinate with it) this life is in His Son (is, as Dü sterd. quotes from Joachim Lange, in Him, οὐσιωδῶς (John 1:4, John 11:25, John 14:6), σωματικῶς (Colossians 2:9), ἐνεργητικῶς (2 Timothy 1:10). Here again, as ever in this Epistle, we have to guard against the evasive and rationalistic interpretations of Socinus, Grotius, Schlichting, al., such as “ vitæ æ ternæ a Deo consequendæ rationem totam inveniri in ipso Jesu” of Socinus: “ in pro per,” and “ est pro contingit,” of Grot.: “ illa vita æ terna ipsa est quam Jesus revelavit,” of the same). 12. Conclusion of the whole argument from ver. 6: dependent on the last clause of ver. 11, and carrying it on a step farther, even to the absolute identity as matter of possession for the believer, of the Son of God, and eternal life. He that hath the Son, hath the life: he that hath not the Son of God, the life hath he not. First notice the diction and arrangement, on which Bengel has well remarked, “ Habet versus duo cola: in priore non additur Dei, nam fideles norunt Filium: in altero additur, ut demum sciantinfid eles, quanti sit non habere. Priore hemistichio cum emphasi pronunciandum est habet: in altero, vitam.” This latter furnishes a simple and beautiful example of the laws of emphasis in arrangement: ἔχειτὴνζωήν — τὴνζωὴνοὐκἔχει . Next, the ἔχειντὸνυἱόν must not be explained away with Grotius by “ verba illa retinere quæ Pater Filio mandavit,” nor ἔχειντὴνζωήν , with the same, by “ jus certum habere ad vitam æ ternam.” The having the Son is the possession of Christ by faith testified by the Spirit, the water, and the blood: and the having the life is the actually possessing it, not indeed in its most glorious development, but in all its reality and vitality. Thirdly, it must be remarked that the question as to whether eternal salvation is altogether confined to those who in the fullest sense have the Son (to the exclusion, e. g., of those who have never heard of Him), does not belong here, but must be entertained on other grounds. See note on 1 Peter 3:19. Dü sterd. has remarked that the use of ὁμὴἔχων , not ὁοὐκἔχων (cf. οἱοὐκἠλεημένοι 1 Peter 2:10), shews that the Apostle is contemplating, at all events primarily, rather a possible contingency than an actual fact: and thus is, primarily again, confining his saying to those to whom the divine testimony has come. To them, according as they receive or do not receive it, according as they are οἱἔχοντες or οἱμὴἔχοντεςτὸνυἱὸντοῦθεοῦ , it is a savour of life unto life, or of death unto death. 13. This verse seems, as John 20:30 f., like an anticipatory close of the Epistle: and its terms appear to correspond to those used in ch. 1:4. This view, which is maintained by Dü sterd., is far more probable than that it should refer only to what has occurred since ver. 6, as ch. 2:26 to ver. 18 ff. there (so De Wette): or only to vv. 11, 12, as Huther. Still less likely is it that the concluding portion of the Epistle begins with this verse, as Bengel, Baumg.-Crus., Lü cke, Sander, and Tischendorf in his editions. These things wrote I to you that ye may know that ye have eternal life, (to you) that believe in the name of the Son of God (as to the reading, I believe the text, which is found in 1 only, to be the “ fons lectionum.” The unusual position of the dative seeming hard, it was altered to the nominative as in A al., or transposed with its accompanying words, to follow ὑμῖν . Then the final clause, not having been struck out, was adapted to the preceding ἵναεἴδητε , or to John 20:31, from whence came the reading (see Tischdf.) πιστεύσητε . The two readings come, in the sense, to much the same. If the rec. be followed, then the πιστεύητε must be interpreted “ continue to believe” ). 14-21. Close of the Epistle. The link which binds this passage to ver. 13 is the παῤῥησία , taken up again from the εἴδητεὅτι of that verse. This παῤῥησία is the very energizing of our spiritual life: and its most notable and ordinary exercise is in communion with God in prayer, for ourselves or for our brethren, vv. 14-17. Then vv. 18-20 continue the explanation of the “ sin unto death,” and the “ sin not unto death,” by setting forth the state of believers as contrasted with that of the world, and the truth of our eternal life as consisting in this. Then with a pregnant caution, ver. 21, the Apostle closes his Epistle. 14, 15. The believer’ s confidence as shewn in prayer. And the confidence which we have towards Him (which follows as a matter of immediate inference from the fact of our spiritual life: see ch. 3:19-21) is this, that if we ask any thing according to His will, He heareth us (this confidence may be shewn in various ways, including prayer as one, ch. 3:22. And that one, of prayer, is alone chosen to be insisted on here. As regards the construction, there is no ellipsis between ἡπαρ . and ὅτι ; “ our confidence is this, (the confidence) that … ,” as some, e. g. Lü cke, have thought. ἡπαῤῥησία is itself subjective, the feeling of confidence. αὐτόν and τὸθέλημααὐτοῦ must by all analogy be referred to the Father, not to the Son, by whom we have access to the Father. See especially ch. 3:21, 22. The truth that God hears (ἀκούει , as in reff.) all our prayers, has been explained on ch. 3:22. The condition here attached, that the request be κατὰτὸθέλημααὐτοῦ , is in fact no limitation within the reality of the Christian life, i. e. in St. John’ s way of speaking according to the true ideal. For God’ s will is that to which our glorious Head himself submitted himself, and which rules the whole course of the Christian life for our good and His glory: and he who in prayer or otherwise tends against God’ s will is thereby, and in so far, transgressing the bounds of his life in God: see James 4:3. By the continual feeling of submission to His will, joined with continual increase in knowledge of that will, our prayers will be both chastened, and directed aright. If we knew His will thoroughly, and submitted to it heartily, it would be impossible for us to ask any thing, for the spirit or for the body, which He should not hear and perform. And it is this ideal state, as always, which the Apostle has in view. In this view he goes still farther in the next verse). 15. And if we know that He heareth us whatsoever we ask (= our every petition: the condition, κατὰτὸθέλημααὐτοῦ , is omitted this time as being supposed to be fulfilled), we know that we have the petitions (τὰαἰτήματα , ‘ res petitas,’ as Huther from Lorinus) which we have asked from Him (notice the pres. ἔχομεν with the perf. ᾐτήκαμεν .The perf. reaches through all our past prayers to this moment. All these we ἔχομεν : not one of them is lost: He has heard, He has answered them all: we know that we have them in the truest sense, in possession. If the perf. were pres., αἰτούμεθα , the assertion ἔχομεν would be merely of habit, on each occasion: as it is, it is of the present possession of all past requests. The παρ ʼ αὐτοῦ belongs, by the arrangement of the words, to ᾐτήκαμεν , not to ἔχομεν , as Huther). 16, 17. Join together the confidence concerning prayer just expressed, and the all-essential Christian principle of brotherly love, and we have following, as matter of course, the duty, and the practice, of intercession for an erring brother. And of this, with a certain not strictly defined limitation, these verses treat. If any man see his brother (as throughout the Epistle, to be taken in the stricter sense: not “ proximus quicunque,” as Calov., but his Christian brother, one born of God as he is himself) sinning (Dü sterd. remarks, that the present part. is not merely predicative, as would be the infin. ἁμαρτάνειν , but more graphic, as describing the ‘ brother’ actually in the act and under the bondage of the sin in question) a sin not unto death (see below), he shall ask (the future conveys not merely a permission, “ licebit,” but a command, taking for granted the thing enjoined as that which is to happen), and shall give him life (viz. the asker shall give: not, as Beza, Piscator, Socinus, Grot., Benson, Bengel, Lü cke, Sander, al., God shall give, though of course this is so in reality: but the words mean, he, interceding for his brother, shall be the means of bestowing life on him: “ rogans vivificabit,” as the æ thiopic version. The vulg. evades it by “ dabitur ei vita.” This bestowal of life by intercessory prayer, is not to be minutely enquired into, whether it is to be accompanied with “ correptio fraterna,” — whether it consists in the giving to the sinner a repentant heart (Grot., 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 in peril and indeed in process of falling, but his sin was not an actual fall) for them that sin not unto death . There is a sin unto death: concerning it I do not say that he should make request (leaving for the present the great question, I will touch the minor points in this verse. First, it necessarily by the conditions of the context involves what is equivalent to a prohibition. This has been denied by many Commentators, “ Ora si velis, sed sub dubio impetrandi,” says Corn.-a-lap. And it is equally denied, without the same implied meaning being given, by Socin., Schlichting, Grot., Carpzov., Neander, Lü cke, De Wette, Huther: some of these, as Neander, thinking it implied, that prayer may be made, though the obtaining of it will be difficult,— others, as De Wette, that it will be in vain, others as Huther, that St. John simply says such a case was not within his view in making the above command. And most of even those who have recognized the prohibition, strive to soften it, saying, as e. g. Lyra, that though “ non est orandum pro damnatis,” yet we may pray for such a sinner, “ ut minus peccaret et per consequens minus damnaretur in inferno:” or as Bengel, “ Deus non vult ut pii frustra orent, Deuteronomy 3:26. Si ergo qui peccatum ad mortem commisit ad vitam reducitur, id ex mero provenit reservato divino.” Calvin indeed holds fast the prohibition in all its strictness, but only in extreme cases: adding, “ Sed quia rarissime hoc accidit, et Deus, immensas gratiæ suæ divitias commendans, nos suo exemplo misericordes esse jubet: non temere in quem-quam ferendum est mortis æ ternæ judicium, potius nos caritas ad bene sperandum flectat. Quod si desperata quorundam impietas non secus nobis apparet, ac si Dominus eam digito monstraret, non est quod certemus cum justo Dei judicio, vel clementiores eo esse appetamus.” 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. The second point here relates to the difference between αἰτεῖν and ἐρωτᾷν . The first is petere, the second rogare: as in Cicero, Planc. x. 25, “ Neque enim ego sic rogabam ut petere viderer, quia familiaris esset meus.” Cf. Trench, N. T. Synonyms, pp. 140-143, edn. 1865. αἰτεῖν is more of the petition of the inferior: “ in victum quasi et reum convenit,” as Bengel: ἐρωτᾷν is more general, of the request of the equal, or of one who has a right. Our Lord never uses αἰτεῖν or αἰτεῖσθαι of His own requests to God, but always ἐρωτᾶν , John 14:16, John 14:16:26, John 14:17:9, John 14:15, John 14:20. It is true, Martha says, ὅσαἂναἰτήσῃτὸνθεόν , δώσεισοιὁθεός , John 11:22, but it was in ignorance, though in simplicity of faith, see Bengel in loc.: Trench, p. 142: and my note, Vol. I. And this difference is of importance here. The αἰτειν for a sin not unto death is a humble and trusting petition in the direction of God’ s will, and prompted by brotherly love: the other, the ἐρωτᾷν for a sin unto death, would be, it is implied, an act savouring of presumption— a prescribing to God, in a matter which lies out of the bounds of our brotherly yearning (for notice, the hypothesis that a man sees a brother sin a sin unto death is not adduced in words, because such a sinner would not truly be a brother, but thereby demonstrated never to have deserved that name: see ch. 2:19), how He shall inflict and withhold His righteous judgments. And these latter considerations bring us close to the question as to the nature of the sin unto death. It would be impossible to enumerate or even classify the opinions which have been given on the subject. Dü sterdieck has devoted many pages to such a classification and discussion. I can do no more than point out the canons of interpretation, and some of the principal divergences. But before doing so, ver. 17 must come under consideration). 17. All unrighteousness is sin (in the words πᾶσαἀδικία we have a reminiscence of ch. 1:9, ἐὰνὁμολογῶμεντὰςἁμαρτίαςἡμῶν , πιστόςἐστινκαὶδίκαιος , ἵναἀφηἡμῖντὰςἁμαρτίαςκαὶκαθαρίσῃἠμᾶςἀπὸπὰσηςἀδικίας , and also, but not so directly, of ch. 3:4, which is virtually the converse proposition to this. Here the Apostle seems to say, in explanation of what be has just written, “ Sin is a large word, comprehending all unrighteousness whatever: whether of God’ s children, or of aliens from Him.” The thoughts which have been brought into these words,— that ἀδικία is a mild word, meant to express that every slight trip of the good Christian falls under the category of sin, and so there may be a sin not unto death,— or, on the other hand, that it is a strong word, as Grot., “ ἀδικίαν vocat non quamvis ignorantiam aut obreptionem subitam, sed quicquid peccatur aut cum deliberatione aut dato ad deliberationem spatio,” — or thirdly, as Beza, that “ peccata omnia hactenus paria sunt, ut vel minima minimi peccati cogitatio mortem æ ternam millies mereatur … ” and “ omnia per se lethalia esse peccata,” — are equally far from the meaning of the words, whose import is, as above, to account for there being a sin not unto death as well as a sin unto death); and there is a sin not (in this case not μή , because no hypothetical case is put, nor one dependent on judgment, but an objective fact) unto death (not having death for its issue: within the limit of that ἀδικία , from all of which God cleanseth all those who confess their sins, ch. 1:9). Our first canon of interpretation of the ἁμαρτίαπρὸςθάνατον and οὐπρὸςθάνατον is this: that the θάνατος and the 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, as Schö ttgen,— or by sickness inflicted by God, as our Whitby and Benson; or of which there will be no end till the death of the sinner, which Bede thinks possible (“ Potest etiam peccatum ad mortem, p. usque ad mortem, accipi.” But he rejects this himself), and Lyra adopts. This last is evidently absurd, for how is a man to know whether this will be so or not? Our 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 ver. 12, ὁἔχωντὸνυἱὸνἔχειτὴνζωήν · ὁμὴἔχωντὸνυἱὸντοῦθεοῦτὴνζωὴνοὐκἔχει . 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 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 ch. 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 shewn, 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-lap., Tirinus, Baumg.-Crus., Lü cke, Huther, Dü sterd. Our 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 that which is opposed to it in the same kind, as being not unto death, is described by ἐάντιςἴδῃἁμαρτάνοντα . So that all interpretations which make it to be a state of apostasy,— all such as, e. g. Bengel’ s “ peccatum ad mortem est peccatum non obvium, neque subitum, sed talis status animæ in quo fides et amor et spes, in summa, vita nova, exstincta est,” — 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, ch. 2:19, who are called ἀντίχριστοι , who not only “ have not” Christ, but are Christ’ s enemies, denying the Father and the Son (2:22), whom we are not even to receive into our houses nor to greet (2 John 1:10, 2 John 1:11). These seem to be the persons pointed at here, and this 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 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 ver. 12: and it is an appreciable act of sin, one against which the readers have been before repeatedly cautioned (ch. 2:18 ff., 4:1 ff., vv. 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; viz. Matthew 12:31 ff., and, so far as the circumstances there dealt with allow common ground, with the more ethical passages, Hebrews 6:4 ff., Hebrews 10:25 ff. 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. 18-20. Three solemn maxims of the Epistle regarding sin, and the children of God and the world, and our eternal life in Christ, are repeated as a close of the teaching of the Apostle. Ver. 18 seems to be not without reference to what has just been said concerning sin. In actual life, even our brethren, even we ourselves, born of God, shall sin, not unto death, and require brotherly intercession: but in the depth and truth of the Christian life, sin is altogether absent. It is the world, not knowing God, which lies under the power of the wicked one: God’ s new-begotten children he cannot touch: they are in and they know the True One, and in Him have eternal life. These maxims are introduced with a thrice-repeated οἴδαμεν , the expression of full persuasion and free confidence. They form a triumphant repetition of and anticipation of the attainment of the purpose expressed in ver. 13, ἵναεἴδητεὅτιζωὴνἔχετεαἰώνιον . 18. We know that every one who is born of God, sinneth not (see on ch. 3:9, from which place our words are almost repeated. As explained there and in our summary of these verses there is no real inconsistency with what has been just said. And that there is none the second member of the verse shews): but he that hath been born of God (γεννηθείς , aor. this time. The perf. part. expresses more the enduring abidance of his heavenly birth, and fits better the habitual οὐχἁμαρτάνει : the aor. part., calling attention to the historical fact of his having been born of God, fits better the fact that the wicked one toucheth him not, that divine birth having severed his connexion with the prince of this world and of evil. So Dü sterd. and Huther. See also the construction according to the true reading below. Sander, in apparent ignorance of the force of the tenses, has curiously taken them exactly vice versa: and Bengel has failed to hit the difference when he says, “ Præ teritum grandius quiddam sonat quam Aoristus: non modo qui magnum in regeneratione gradum assecutus, sed quilibet qui regenitus est, servat se.” The distinction is ingenious, but is not contained in the tenses) it keepeth him (“ it,” viz. the divine birth, pointed at in the aor. part. γεννηθείς . So the vulg., but omitting the pendent nom., “ sed generatio Dei conservat eum.” It is this, and not the fact of his own watchfulness, which preserves him from the touch of the wicked one: as in ch. 3:9, where the same is imported by ὅτισπέρμααὐτοῦἐναὐτῷμένει , κ . οὐδύναταιἁμαρτάνειν , ὅτιἐκτοῦθεοῦγεγέννηται . The rationalistic Commentators insist on τηρεῖἑαυτόν , as shewing, as Socinus, “ aliquid præ stare eum atque efficere, qui per Christum regeneratus fuerit:” and the orthodox Commentators have but a lame apology to offer. Dü sterd. compares ἁγνίζειἑαυτόν ch. 3:3. But the reference there is wholly different— viz. to a gradual and earnest striving after an ideal model; whereas here the τηρεῖσθαι 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. There is a possible construction of the clause which I do not remember to have seen suggested, but which should hardly be left out of account. ὁγεννηθεὶςἐκτοῦθεοῦ might be taken as meaning the Son of God: “ He that was begotten of God keepeth him.” But this would hardly suit the analogy of the Epistle: see e. g. ver. 1 and note), and the wicked one (Satan: see reff. and notes) doth not touch him . 19. Application of that which is said ver. 18, to the Apostle and his readers; and that, in entire separation from ὁπονηρός , the ruling spirit of this present world. We know (see summary above) that we (not emphatic: no ἡμεῖς as set over against ὁκόσμος . It is not the object now to bring out a contrast, but to reassert solemnly these great axioms of the Christian life) are of God (i. e. born of God: identifying us with those spoken of ver. 18), and the whole world lieth in the wicked one , Socinus, Schlichting, Episcopius , Grotius , al., and E. V. . This neuter sense can hardly stand after comparing ch. 2:13, 14, 3:8, 10, 14, 4:4: John 17:14 f., and above all after the preceding verse here. For κεῖσθαιἐν in this sense, there is, as in reff., no other example. That in Polybius, vi. 14. 6, ἐντῇσυγκλήτῳκεῖται , “ lies in the power or determination of the Senate,” is an approximation, but not quite the same sense. θεῶνἐνγούνασικεῖται , so common in Homer, is another. The idea in the power of, and the local idea, seem to be combined. ὁπονηρός is as it were the inclusive abiding-place and representative of all his, as, in the expressions ἐνκυρίῳ , ἐνχριστῷ , ἐνχριστῷἸησοῦ , ἐσμὲνἐντῷἀληθινῷ , ver. 20, the Lord is of His. And while we are ἐκτοῦθεοῦ , implying a birth and a proceeding forth and a change of state, the κόσμος , all the rest of mankind, κεῖταιἐντ . π ., remains where it was, in, and in the power of, ὁπονηρός . Some Commentators have been anxious to avoid inconsistency with such passages as ch. 2:2, 4:14, and would therefore give κόσμος a different meaning here. But there is no inconsistency whatever. 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 do 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). 20. Yet another οἴδαμεν : and that in general, as summing up all, the certainty to us of the Son of God having come, and having given us the knowledge of God, and of our being in Him: and the formal inclusion, in this one fact, of knowledge of the true God here, and life everlasting hereafter. Moreover (δέ closes off and sums up all: cf. 1 Thessalonians 5:23; 2 Thessalonians 3:16; Hebrews 13:20, Hebrews 13:22, al. fr. This not being seen, it has been altered to καί , as there appeared to be no contrast with the preceding) we know that the Son of God is come , and hath given (the subject to δέδωκεν is ὁυἱὸςτοῦθεοῦ , not, as Bengel, “ Deus” understood. It is the Son of God who is to us the bestower of this knowledge, see ver. 13: it is He who is here at the end of the Epistle made prominent, as it is He who is to us eternal life, and he who hath Him hath the Father) to us (an) understanding (διάνοια , the divinely empowered inner sense by which we judge of things divine: see Beck, Umriss der biblischen Seelenlehre, p. 58. It is not the wisdom or judgment itself, but the faculty capable of attaining to it. Compare John 1:12, John 1:18, John 1:17:2 f., John 1:6 f., John 1:25 f.; 2 Corinthians 4:6; Ephesians 1:18) that we know (with the indic. as in the other places where it occurs, or seems to occur, in the N. T., ἵνα must bear a sort of pregnant sense, of a purpose accomplished or at least secured. See note on ἵνα with the future indicative Galatians 2:4, and cf. Revelation 3:9, Revelation 6:4, Revelation 13:12, Revelation 14:13, and for the present indicative, reff.: and see the whole discussed and examples given from later Greek writers, in Winer, edn. 6, § 41, b. 1. b, c) the true One (i. e. God: cf. John 17:3, ἵναγινώσκωσίν (-ουσιν al.) σετὸνμόνονἀληθινὸνθεόν . The adjective ἀληθινόν is not subjective, = ἁληθῆ , but objective, in its usual sense of genuine, in distinction from every ‘ deus fictitius.’ So Calvin: “ verum Deum intelligit non veracem, sed cum qui revera Deus est eum ab idolis omnibus discernat. Ita verus fictitio opponitur.” And thus the way is prepared for the warning against all false gods, ver. 21): and we are in (see above on κεῖταιἐν , ver. 19) the true One (viz. God, as above), in His Son Jesus Christ (i. e. by virtue of our being in His Son Jesus Christ: this second ἐν is not in apposition with, but as αὐτοῦ shews, is epexegetic of the former). This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/alfordgnt/