1Jn 2:1. The apostle had considered, in chap. 1Jn 1:7, the blood of Christ, in 1Jn 1:9 the faithfulness and justice of God-and both in reference to the forgiveness and purification of believers; now he comfortingly points to Christ as the Paraclete, whereby the previous thought now obtains its necessary complement. First, however, he mentions the object of his previous statement.
Τεκνία μου] Similarly chap. 1Jn 3:18; without μου, 1Jn 2:12; 1Jn 2:28, 1Jn 3:7. John chooses this form of address: tum propter aetatem suam, tum propter paternam curam, et affectum (Hornejus). In regard to the verbal form, Lorinus rightly says: diminutiva nomina teneri ac blandientis sunt amoris signa. The Apostle Paul, in Gal 4:19, uses the same form of address, with special reference to the spiritual fatherhood in which he stood toward his readers.
ταῦτα γράφω ὑμῖν] ταῦτα is referred by Bengel to what follows, by Grotius to what follows and what precedes, by most commentators (Lücke, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Sander, Düsterdieck, Braune), correctly, to the latter only; it refers, however, not merely to the truth expressed in 1Jn 2:6, normerely to the “exhortation to self-knowledge and penitence” (de Wette) which is contained in the preceding, nor merely to the statement about forgiveness and cleansing; but to the “whole in its vivid harmony” (Düsterdieck, so also Braune).[76]
ἵνα μὴ ἁμάρτητε] Statement of the object for which the apostle wrote what precedes; the direction which Calvin gives it: ne quis putet eum peccandi licentiam dare, quum de misericordia Dei concionatur, which is also found in Augustin, Bede, Calov, Bengel, Hornejus, Düsterdieck, Ewald, etc., is incorrect, since the sternness of the apostle against sin has already been sharply and definitely expressed, and the context, in which the subject previously was the forgiveness of sin, would not permit such a supposition to arise at all.[77]
ΚΑῚ ἘΆΝ ΤΙς ἉΜΆΡΤῌ] ΚΑΊ is neither = “however” (Baumgarten-Crusius), nor = sed (Vulg.); it connects as simple copula a new thought with the preceding one. By ἐάΝ the possibility of sinning is admitted; Calvin incorrectly explains it: Conditionalis particula “si quis” debet in causalem resolvi; nam fieri non potest quin peccemus. Whether it is possible for the Christian not to sin, John does not say. Under the influence of the new spirit of life which is communicated to the believer he cannot sin; but, at the same time, in his internal and external mechanism there lies for him the possibility of sinning-and it is this which the apostle has in view. Socinus perverts the idea of the apostle when he interprets: si quis peccat i. e. post Christum agnitum et professionem nominis ipsius adhuc in peccatis manet, necdum resipuit, etc.; for, on the one hand, the true Christian may indeed sin, but cannot remain in his sins; and, on the other hand, Christ is not the παράκλητος for him who remains in his sins. Besser correctly: “If any man sin-not with wilful doing of sin, but in spite of the will in his mind, which says no to sin.”
παράκλητον ἔχομεν πρὸς τὸν πατέρα] From the 1st pers. plur. it follows that the preceding ΤΙς is used quite generally; the apostle is speaking communicatively, and does not wish himself to be considered excluded.[78] It is unnecessary for the connection of this sentence to supply: “let him know that,” or: “let him comfort himself with the thought that,” or any similar expression; for it is precisely through the ἁμαρτάνειν of believers that Christ is induced to be their Paraclete. The verb ἜΧΕΙΝ indicates that Christ belongs to believers.[79]
The word ΠΑΡΆΚΛΗΤΟς has both a general and a special forensic meaning; in the former, in which it is = “assister,” or “helper,” it is used in Gospel of Joh 14:16; Joh 14:26; Joh 15:26; Joh 16:7, where the Holy Ghost is so called because by His witness He leads the disciples into all truth; see Meyer on Joh 14:16;[80] here, on the other hand, it is used in its forensic meaning = “advocatus, patronus causae,” or even more special = “intercessor,” and is in close connection with the following ἱλασμός, and refers back to the ἀφιέναι and καθαρίζειν of chap. 1Jn 1:9; so that in Christ the typical action of the high priest interceding for the people has reached its complete fulfilment. The idea of the apostle therefore is-as almost all commentators recognise[81]-the same as is expressed in Rom 8:34 (ὃς καὶ ἐντυγχάνει ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν), in Heb 9:24 (ΕἸΣῆΛΘΕΝ Ὁ ΧΡΙΣΤῸς … ΕἸς … ΤῸΝ ΟὐΡΑΝΌΝ, ΝῦΝ ἘΜΦΑΝΙΣΘῆΝΑΙ Τῷ ΠΡΟΣΏΠῼ ΤΟῦ ΘΕΟῦ ὙΠῈΡ ἩΜῶΝ), and in Heb 7:25.[82]
ΠΡῸς ΤῸΝ ΠΑΤΈΡΑ] ΠΡΌς in the same sense as chap. 1Jn 1:2.
God is called ΠΑΤΉΡ, because the ΠΑΡΆΚΛΗΤΟς is the Son of God, and we also (believing Christians) have become through Him ΤΈΚΝΑ ΤΟῦ ΘΕΟῦ, chap. 1Jn 3:1-2.
ἸΗΣΟῦΝ ΧΡΙΣΤῸΝ ΔΊΚΑΙΟΝ] Christ is the Paraclete, not as the Logos, but as the incarnate Logos, who has shed His αἷμα (chap. 1Jn 1:7) for the atonement,-and indeed inasmuch as He is ΔΊΚΑΙΟς; ΔΊΚΑΙΟς is here also neither = lenis et bonus (Grotius), nor = ΔΙΚΑΙῶΝ (see Wolf on this passage); but neither is it = fidelis atque verax, quatenus id praestat quod promisit, se scilicet suis adfuturum (Socinus); according to the usus loquendi, ΔΊΚΑΙΟς could be understood of (judicial) justice (Bede: justus advocatus, injustas causas non suscipit), but then the adjective would have had to be put with ΠΑΡΆΚΛΗΤΟΝ; Ebrard incorrectly explains it = ΔΊΚΑΙΟς ΚΑῚ ΔΙΚΑΙῶΝ; but this explanation is so much the more unwarrantable, as ΔΙΚΑΙΟῦΝ is the very business of the ΠΑΡΆΚΛΗΤΟς; by the epithet ΔΊΚΑΙΟς, Christ is held up before the ἉΜΑΡΤΆΝΟΥΣΙ as one who by His nature is fitted to be the Paraclete of sinners, i.e. as one who perfectly satisfies the will of God; who is “just and stainless, and without sin” (Luther). “Only as the Holy One, in whom the holy ideal of manhood is seen realized, can He intercede for sinners with the heavenly Father” (Neander).
[76] Ebrard refers ταῦτα to the two sentences, 1Jn 1:6-10, in which these thoughts, involving an apparent contradiction, are contained-(1) “That we must by no means walk in darkness,” and (2) “that we must confess that we have and that we commit sin,” and thinks that this apparent contradiction is solved by 1Jn 2:1, in this way, that in contrast to those theoretical statements these two practical conclusions from them are here given, namely, (1) “that we are not to sin;” (2) “that when we have sinned we are to reflect that in Christ we have an Advocate.” But against this it is to be observed-(1) that by such a changing of theoretical statements into practical precepts the problem mentioned above is really not solved; (2) that the ideas expressed in 1Jn 1:6-7, and in 1Jn 1:8-10, do not stand to one another in the relation of co-ordination, but the idea of 1Jn 1:8-10 is subordinated to that of 1Jn 1:6-7; (3) that it is herewith presupposed that the apostle should have written: καὶ ἵνα εἰδῆτε, ὅτι, ἐάν τις ἁμάρτῃ, παρά κλητον ἔχομεν, which, however, is incorrect, as the advocate-office of Christ is not mentioned in the preceding.
[77] Socinus incorrectly renders ἁμαρτάνειν = manere in peccatis; Löffler even more so = “to remain unbaptized.”
[78] Augustin: habemus dixit, non habetis; maluit se ponere in numero peccatorum, ut habeat advocatum Christum, quam ponere se pro Christo advocato et inveniri inter damnandos superbos.-Socinus thinks that the apostle speaks in the first person, non quod revera ipse esset unus ex illis, qui adhuc peccarent, sed ut melius indicet, id quod affirmat pertinere ad omnes, quibus evangelium annunciatum est; clearly erroneous. Grotius arbitrarily: habet ille advocatum, sed ecclesia habet, quae pro lapso precatur. Preces autem ecclesiae Christus more advocati Deo patri commendat.
[79] Besser: “He has made Himself ours, has given our faith an eternally valid claim on Him.”
[80] In the fact that in the Gospel of John the Holy Ghost, but here Christ, is called παράκλητος, there is so much the less a contradiction, as in Joh 14:16 it is expressly put: ἄλλον παράκλητον, by which Christ signifies that He Himself is the proper παράκλητος, and the Holy Ghost His substitute.
[81] Ebrard, who here gives the same explanation, explains the expression in the Gospel of John = “Comforter,” ὅς παρακαλεῖ (more correctly παρακαλεῖται, mid.), according to the Hebrew מְנַחֵם, LXX. Job 16:2; but in this passage it is not παράκλητος, but παρακλήτως, that is used; Hofmann’s explanation is also incorrect (Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 15 ff.) = “Teacher” (comp. Meyer and Hengstenberg on Joh 14:16).
[82] This idea is not, as it might appear, in contradiction with Joh 16:26; for even in this statement a lasting intercession by Christ is indicated, since Christ ascribes the hearing of prayer in His name to Himself (Joh 14:13) as well as to the Father.
REMARK.
How Christ executes His office of Advocate with the Father, John does not say; a dogmatic exposition of it is not in place here, still it is important to mark the chief elements which are the result of the apostle’s statement. These are the following:-1. The Paraclete is Jesus, the glorified Redeemer who is with the Father; therefore neither His divine nature alone, nor His human nature alone, but the Lord in His divine-human personality. 2. The presupposition is the reconciliation of men with God by His blood. 3. His advocacy has reference to believers, who still sin amid their walking in light; and 4. It is a real activity in which He intercedes for His people (that God may manifest in their forgiveness and sanctification His faithfulness and justice) with God, as His (and their) Father. If these points are observed, on the one hand, there is found in the apostolic statement no ground for a materialistic conception, which Calvin opposes in the following words: obiter notandum est, nimis crasse errare eos, qui patris genibus Christum advolvunt, ut pro nobis oret. Tollendae sunt eiusmodi cogitationes, quae coelesti Christi gloriae derogant;-but neither, on the other hand, is there any justification for doing away with the idea, as not a few commentators have been guilty of. Even Bede has not kept himself free from it, when he says that the advocacy consists in this, that Christ presents Himself as man to God, and prays for us non voce, sed miseratione, and therefore considers the intercessio, not as an actio realis, but only as an actio interpretativa. But the idea is even more done away with, when the intercession is viewed only as the permanent effect of the redemptive work accomplished by Christ in the giving up of His life to the death, which is no doubt the opinion of Baumgarten-Crusius when he says: “The apostles certainly did not think of a special oral intercession, but of an intercession by deed, in His work.”[83] Lücke rightly says: “The meaning of this form of representation is no other than this, that Jesus Christ also in His δόξα with the Father continues His work of reconciliation. If Christ were not the eternal Paraclete for us with God, His saving and reconciling work would be limited to His earthly life merely, and in so far could not be regarded as eternal and complete;” but it is not to the point when he further puts it: “Without the eternally active saving and reconciling spirit of Christ, without the πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ, Christ would not be a perfect, a living Christ;” for John is not here speaking of the πνεῦμα of Christ, but of the personal Christ Himself. The explanation of de Wette, that the advocacy of Christ is the combination of the idea of the glorified and of the suffering Messiah, is also unsatisfactory, because it changes the objective reality into a subjective representation. Neander rightly says: “When Christ is described as the Advocate, this is not to be understood as if only the effects of the work once accomplished by Him were transferred to Himself.
John considers the living Christ as personally operating in His work, as operating in His glorified position with His Father, with the same holy love with which He accomplished His work on earth as a mediation for sinful man. It is by Him in His divine-human personality that the connection between man, saved and reconciled to God by Him, and God as the Father, is always brought about.” Comp. also Meyer on Rom 8:34, and Braune in the fundamental dogmatic ideas of the passage.
[83] Similarly Köstlin (p. 61): “Christ is the eternal παράκλητος; He does not however, pray the Father, but the sense of His office of Advocate is simply this, that for His sake the Father also loves those who believe on Him.” Frommann also (p. 472 ff.) finds in the statement of the apostle only a symbolical form of expression, by which the continuation of the atoning work of Christ in His state of exaltation is indicated.
1Jn 2:2. καὶ αὐτός = et ipse, idemque ille; καί is here also the simple copula, and is not to be resolved either into quia (a Lapide) or nam.
αὐτός refers back to Ἰησ. Χριστὸν δίκαιον, and the epithet δίκαιον is not to be lost sight of here; Paulus, contrary to the context, refers αὐτός to God.
ἱλασμός ἐστι] The word ἱλασμός, which is used besides in the N. T. only in chap. 1Jn 4:10, and here also indeed in combination with περὶ τῶν ἁμ. ἡμῶν, may, according to Eze 44:27 (= חַטָּאת), mean the sin-offering (Lücke, 3d ed.), but is here to be taken in the sense of כִּכֻּרִים, Lev 25:9, Num 5:8, and no doubt in this way, that Christ is called the ἱλασμός, inasmuch as He has expiated by His αἷμα the guilt of sin. This reference to the sacrificial blood of Christ, it is true, is not demanded by the idea ἱλασμός in itself,[84] but certainly is demanded by the context, as the apostle can only ascribe to the blood of Christ, in chap. 1Jn 1:7, the cleansing power of which he is there speaking, because he knows that reconciliation is based in it.
[84] In the Septuagint not only does ἱλασμός appear as the translation of the Hebrew סְלִיחָה (Psa 129:4; Dan 9:9), but ἱλάσκεσθαι is also used = to be merciful, to forgive (Psa 65:4; Psa 78:38; Psa 79:9),-quite without reference to an offering.-The explanation of Paulus, however: “He (i.e. God) is the pure exercise of compassion on account of sinful faults,” is not justifiable, because, in the first place, God is not the subject, and secondly, the ἱλασμός of Christ is not the forgiveness itself, but is that which procures forgiveness.
REMARK.
In classical Greek ἱλάσκεσθαι (as middle) is = ἱλεων ποιεῖν; but in scripture it never appears in this active signification, in which God would not be the object; but in all the passages where the Septuagint makes use of this word, whether it is as the translation of כִּפֵּר (Psa 65:4; Psa 78:38; Psa 79:9), or of סָלַם (Psa 25:11; 2Ki 5:18), or of נִחַם (Exo 32:14), God is the subject, and sin, or sinful man, is the object; in Heb 2:17, Christ is the subject, and the object also is τὰς ἁμαρτίας. The case is almost exactly similar with ἐξιλάσκεσθαι, which does not appear in the N. T. at all, but in the O. T., on the other hand, is used as the translation of כִּפֵּר much more frequently than the simple form; it is only where this verb is used of the relation between men, namely Gen 32:21 and Pro 16:14, that the classical usus loquendi is preserved; but elsewhere with ἐξιλάσκεσθαι, whether the subject be God (as in Eze 16:63) or man, especially the priest, the object is either man (Lev 4:20; Lev 4:26; Lev 6:7; Lev 16:6; Lev 16:11; Lev 16:16-17; Lev 16:24; Lev 16:30; Lev 16:33; Eze 45:17) or sin (Exo 32:30; both together, Lev 5:18, Num 6:11), or even of holiness defiled by sin (the most holy place, Lev 16:16; the altar, Lev 16:18; Lev 27:33, Eze 43:22); only in Zec 7:2 is found ἐξιλάσκασθαι τὸν κύριον, where, however, the Hebrew text has לְחַלּוֹת אֶת־פְּנֵי יְהֹוָה. Ἰλασμός, therefore, in scripture does not denote the reconciliation of God, either with Himself or with men, and hence not placatio (or as Myrberg interprets: propitiatio) Dei, but the justification or reconciliation of the sinner with God, because it is never stated in the N. T. that God is reconciled, but rather that we are reconciled to God.[85]
[85] Comp. Delitzsch in his Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, on chap. 1Jn 2:17, p. 94 ff. But it is to be noticed that Delitzsch, while he states correctly the Biblical mode of representation, bases his opening discussion on the idea of the “self-reconciliation of the Godhead with itself,” an idea which is not contained in scripture.-It is observed by several commentators that ἱλασμός, as distinguished from καταλλαγή = “Versöhnung” (reconciliation), is to be translated by “Sühnung” or “Versühnung” (both = Engl. expiation, atonement). It is true, Versöhnung and Versühnung are properly one and the same word, but in the usage of the language the distinction has certainly been fixed that the latter word denotes the restoration of the disturbed relationship by an expiation to be performed; only it is inexact to assert that the idea ἱλασμός in itself contains the idea of punishment, since ἱλάσκισθαι does not include this idea either in classical or in Biblical usage, and ἐξιλάσκεσθαι, though mostly indeed used in the O. T. in reference to a sacrifice by which sin is covered, is also used without this reference (comp. Sir 3:28).
Grotius, S. G. Lange, and others take ἱλασμός = ἱλαστήρ; of course that abstract form denotes the personal Christ, but by this change into the concrete the expression of the apostle loses its peculiar character; “the abstract is more comprehensive, more intensive; comp. 1Co 1:30” (Brückner); it gives it to be understood “that Christ is not the propitiator through anything outside Himself, but through Himself” (Lücke, 2d ed.), and that there is no propitiation except through Him.[86]
The relation of ἰλασμός to the preceding παράκλητον may be variously regarded; either παράκλητος is the higher idea, in which ἱλασμός is contained, Bede: advocatum habemus apud Patrem qui interpellat pro nobis et propitium eum ac placatum peccatis nostris reddit; or conversely: ἱλασμός is the higher idea, to which the advocacy is subordinated, as de Wette thus says: “ἱλασμός does not merely refer to the sacrificial death of Jesus, but, as the more general idea, includes the intercession as the progressive reconciliation” (so also Rickli, Frommann); or lastly, both ideas are co-ordinate with one another, Christ being the ἱλασμίς in regard to His blood which was shed, and the παράκλητος, on the other hand, in regard to His present activity with the Father for those who are reconciled to God through His blood. Against the first view is the sentence beginning with καὶ αὐτός, by which ἱλασμός is marked as an idea which is not already contained in the idea παράκλητος, but is distinct from it; against the second view it is decisive that the propitiation, which Christ is described as, has reference to all sins, but His intercession, on the other hand, has reference only to the sins of the believers who belong to Him. There remains, accordingly, only the third view as the only correct one (so also Braune). The relationship is this, that the intercession of the glorified Christ has as its presupposition the ἱλασμός wrought out in His death,[87] yet the sentence καὶ αὐτός is not merely added, ut causa reddatur, cur Christus sit advocatus noster (Hornejus, and similarly Beza, Lorinus, Sander, etc.), for its independence is thereby taken away; the thought contained in it not merely serves for the explanation or confirmation of the preceding, but it is also full of meaning in itself, as it brings out the relation of Christ to the whole world of sinners.
περὶ πῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν] περί expresses the reference quite generally: “in regard to;” it may here be observed that ἐξιλάσκεσθαι, in the LXX. is usually construed with περί, after the Hebrew כִּפֵּר עַל. The idea of substitution is not suggested in περί.
With τῶν ἁμαρτ. ἡμῶν, comp. chap. 1Jn 1:9; it is not merely the sins of Christians (ἡμῶν, i.e. fidelium; Bengel) before their conversion that are meant, but also those which are committed by them in their Christian life; comp. chap. 1Jn 1:7. Ebrard’s opinion, that these words are added to ἱλασμός merely as a preparation for the following additional thought, is inadmissible; they rather suggest themselves to the apostle-and without regard to what follows-inasmuch as it is only by virtue of them that the idea obtains complete expression.
οὐ περὶ τῶν ἡμετέρων δὲ μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ περὶ ὅλου τοῦ κόσμου] Expansion of the thought, in reference to the preceding περὶ τ. ἁμ. ἡμῶν, in order to mark the universality of the propitiation. It is incorrect to understand by ἡμεῖς the Jews, and by κόσμος the Gentiles (Oecum., Cyril, Hornejus, Semler, Rickli, etc.); ἡμεῖς are rather believers, and κόσμος is the whole of unbelieving mankind; so Spener, Paulus, de Wette, Lücke, Sander, Neander, Düsterd., Braune, etc.
Baumgarten-Crusius agrees with this interpretation, only he understands by κόσμος not mankind together (extensive), but successively (protensive); but this distinction is unsuitable. It would be preferable to say that John was thinking directly of the κόσμος as it existed in his time, without, however, limiting the idea to it. The interpretation of Augustin and of Bede, by which κόσμος is = “ecclesia electorum per totum mundum dispersa,” is clearly quite arbitrary. The propitiatory sacrifice was offered for the whole world, for the whole of fallen mankind; if all do not obtain the blessing of it, the cause of that does not lie in a want of efficacia in it; Düsterdieck therefore rightly says: “The propitiation is of judicial nature; according to this, the propitiation for the whole world has its real efficacia for the whole world; to the believing it brings life; to the unbelieving, death.” Calvin quite improperly asserts: sub omnibus reprobos non comprehendit, sed eos designat, qui simul credituri erant et qui per varias mundi plagas dispersi erant (similarly Beza); against this the statement of Bengel is sufficient: quam late peccatum, tam late propitiatio. The expressly added ὅλου places the matter beyond all doubt.
With regard to the genitive περὶ ὅλ. τοῦ κόσμου, Winer says (p. 509, VII. p. 536): “instead of this, either περὶ τῶν ὅλου τ. κ., or, instead of the first words, περὶ ἡμῶν might have been written; similarly Heb 9:7;” many commentators, on the other hand, supply τῶν directly, as Grotius, Semler, Wilke (Hermeneutik, II. p. 145), de Wette, Düsterdieck; as the Vulg. renders: “pro totius mundi,” and Luther: “für der ganzen Welt.” On behalf of this, appeal is made to passages such as Joh 5:36,[88] Mat 5:20; but the construction which appears in these passages is the well-known comparatio compendiaria, which does not occur here, as there is no comparison here at all; an oratio variata is therefore to be accepted, which was the more natural to the apostle, as the idea κόσμος includes in itself that of sin.[89]
[86] The case is the same with the expression ἱλασμός as with other abstractions by which Christ is described, as ζωή, ὁδός, ἁγιασμός, κ.τ.λ. Who does not feel that by these words something much more comprehensive is expressed than in the concrete forms: ὁ ζωοποιῶν, ὁ ὁδηγῶν, ὁ ἁγιάζων, κ.τ.λ.?
[87] Köstlin incorrectly says (p. 180): “Christ is παράκλητος, while He is ἱλασμός, i.e. high priest, and at the same time sacrifice, a high priest who offers himself; and ἱλασμός, while He is παράκλητος, i.e. a sacrifice which offers itself;” for neither does παράκλ. describe the high-priesthood of Christ, according to its full comprehension, nor does ἱλασμός mean “sacrifice.”
[88] This passage is cited by Ebrard further, in order to prove his assertion: “This abbreviation for περὶ τῶν ὅλου τοῦ κόσμου needs no explanation” (!).
[89] When Braune, who has accepted the explanation which is here given of the verse as a whole and in detail, says in reference to the oratio variata which occurs here: “it has not happened for the sake of the evil which attaches to the κόσμος, for this is true of Christians also (contrary to Huther),” he thereby shows that he has not correctly understood the above remark.
1Jn 2:3. Semler would make a new section begin here: “after the foundation of salvation has been spoken of, there follows the exhortation to preserving the salvation;” incorrectly; 1Jn 2:3 is closely connected with chap. 1Jn 1:5-6, and states in what the Christian’s walk in light consists; therefore also it begins simply with καί.
ἐν τούτῳ γινώσκομεν] ἐν τούτῳ refers to the following ἐάν; the object is stated by ὅτι; the same combination is found in the Gospel of Joh 13:35; similarly in chap. 1Jn 4:13, where, however, the particle ὅτι is used instead of ἐάν, and chap. 1Jn 5:2, where ὅταν is used. A Lapide wrongly weakens the force of γινώσκομεν: non certo et demonstrative, sed probabiliter et conjecturaliter; it is rather the anxiety of the apostle to bring out that the Christian has a sure and certain consciousness of the nature of the Christian life. This certainty is confirmed to him by unmistakeable facts, in which the truth of his knowledge attests itself.
ὅτι ἐγνώκαμεν αὐτόν] αὐτόν seems to refer to the last-mentioned subject in 1Jn 2:2, therefore to Christ; so it is explained by Oecumenius, Erasmus, Grotius, Calov, Spener, Bengel, Semler, Johannsen, Sander, Myrberg, Erdmann, etc.; but the deeper train of thought is opposed to this; John is not continuing the idea of 1Jn 2:2, but is going back to the fundamental thought of the whole section: “He who has fellowship with God walks in the light;” the principal subject is God, and to it, therefore, αὐτόν is to be referred; so Calvin, Beza, Lücke, Baumgarten-Crusius, Ewald, de Wette, Brückner, Ebrard, Düsterdieck, Braune, etc.[90]
On ἘΓΝΏΚΑΜΕΝ, which is not, with Lange and Carpzov, to be interpreted = “love,” the commentators rightly remark that it is not a mere external, purely theoretical knowledge that is to be understood by it;[91] it is the living knowledge that is meant, i.e. a knowledge in which the subject (God) is really received into the inner life, and thought and action are determined by it,[92] so that ἐγνωκέναι is necessarily connected with the κοινωνίαν ἔχειν μετʼ αὐτοῦ (chap. 1Jn 1:6); still it is inexact to render ὅτι ἐγνώκαμεν αὐτόν, with Oecumenius, directly by ὅτι συνεκράθημεν αὐτῷ, or, with Clarius, by societatem habemus cum eo. By ἐγνώκαμεν the element of consciousness in the fellowship, and with this its internal and spiritual side, is brought out.
ἐὰν τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ τηρῶμεν] The expression τ. ἐντολ. τηρεῖν[93] describes the obedience resulting from the internal faithful keeping of the commandments;[94] it is incorrect, with Braune, so to press the idea τηρεῖν here, in its distinction from ποιεῖν, that merely “attention to the commandments” is to be understood by it; it rather includes in itself the actual obedience. This obedience is not here regarded as the means of the knowledge of God, but as the proof of it; rightly Oecumenius: διὰ τῶν ἔργων ἡ τελεία δεδείκνυται ἀγάπη; only he should have said “γνῶσις” instead of ἀγάπη. Between both of those there is the same relationship as between fellowship with God and walking in light; for as the former is related to the knowledge of God, so is the latter related to the observance of the divine commandments, which is the concrete embodiment of ἐν τῷ φωτὶ περιπατεῖν.
[90] The reason brought forward by Ebrard: “it lies also in the idea of the commandments, that they are mentioned as commandments of the Father and not of the Son,” is not valid; comp. Gospel of Joh 14:15; Joh 14:21; Joh 14:23; Joh 15:10. Ebrard, on the other hand, rightly points to ver. 6, where ἐκεῖνος (Christ) is distinguished from αὐτός. From this verse it also follows that John, in this section, is considering Christ not as having given commandments, but as having walked according to the commandments of God.
[91] Lorinus: cognoscere cum quadam voluntatis propendentis approbatione.-A Lapide: cognitione non tantum speculativa, sed et practica, quae cum amore et affectu conjuncta est, ac in opus derivatur.-Spener: “This is not a mere knowing (1Co 8:1), such as may exist without love, but a knowledge which comes into the heart and fulfils His will with trust.”-De Wette: “Knowledge of the heart, not of the mind, wherewith activity is also assumed.”-Lücke: “the knowledge of God in the highest sense; not, however, in so far as it is identical with the love of God, but only in so far as it really impels men practically to fulfilment of the divine commands, and thus reveals itself in growing love to the God who is known as the Light.”
[92] Weiss not unjustly contends against the current view of γινώσκειν in John, in so far as the idea of knowledge is not kept pure in it from confusion with other ideas; but when Weiss says that in John only “the knowledge that rests on immediate contemplation is to be thought of,” and observes that “it lies in the nature of the case, that in this intuition and contemplation the object is received into the entire spiritual being of man as a-nay, as the determining power,” he not only agrees with the explanation given above, but defines the idea in such a way as not to deviate so very far from the commentators whom he opposes as his polemic would lead one to suppose.
[93] It is to be noticed, that to describe the Christian commandments John never uses νόμος (which by him is only used in reference to the Mosaic Law), but generally ἐντολαί (only now and then λόγος Θεοῦ or Χριστοῦ); and as verb, τηρεῖν, never ποιεῖν (except in Rev 22:14).-In the writings of Paul, τηρεῖν ἑντολήν appears only in 1Ti 6:14, and besides in the N. T. in Mat 19:17 (Mat 28:20 : τηρεῖν πάντα ὅσα ἐνετειλάμην ὑμῖν).
[94] The paraphrase of Semler may be given here merely for its curiosity: Si (nos Apostoli) retinemus et magnifacimus hanc ejus doctrinam: Deum esse pariter omnium gentium.
1Jn 2:4. Inference from 1Jn 2:3, expressing the antithetical side.
ὁ λέγων κ.τ.λ.] is used in the same sense as ἐὰν εἴπωμεν, chap. 1Jn 1:6. Without reason, Braune considers that “in the singular there lies a progress in the development of the thought.” The statement that ἔγνωκα is used “with manifest regard to the Gnostics” (Ebrard), is not to be accepted; ὁ λέγων is rather to be taken in a quite general sense, comp. 1Jn 2:6, at the same time referring to the appearance of such a moral indifferentism among the churches, αὐτόν, as in 1Jn 2:3 = Θεόν.
ψεύστης ἐστί] = ψεύδεται, chap. 1Jn 1:6; but in such a way that the idea is more sharply brought out by it (Braune).
καὶ ἐν τούτῳ κ.τ.λ.] as in chap. 1Jn 1:8.
From the connection between the knowledge of God and the observance of His commandments, it follows that he who boasts of the former, but is wanting in the latter, has not the truth in him, but is a liar.
1Jn 2:5. In this verse the apostle confirms the idea of 1Jn 2:3, in the form of an antithesis to 1Jn 2:4, and with the introduction of a new element.
ὃς δʼ ἂν τηρῇ αὐτοῦ (i.e. Θεοῦ) τὸν λόγον] The particle δέ, which refers not to 1Jn 2:3 (Lücke), but to the words καὶ τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ μὴ τηρῶν, 1Jn 2:4, shows that this verse stands in the same relationship to 1Jn 2:4 as chap. 1Jn 1:7 to 1Jn 2:6; “τηρῇ is with emphasis put first, and similarly αὐτοῦ before τὸν λόγον” (Braune).
αὐτοῦ ὁ λόγος is synonymous with αἱ ἐντολαὶ αὐτοῦ, 1Jn 2:3-4 : “the essence of the divine commandments;” a Lapide: Dicit verbum ejus in singulari, quia praecipue respicit legem caritatis; haec enim caeteras omnes in se comprehendit.
The predicate does not run: οὗτος ἔγνωκεν αὐτόν, but: ἀληθῶς ἐν τούτῳ ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ Θεοῦ τετελείωται, whereby “a new side of the thought comes into view” (Ebrard).
ἀληθῶς] “in truth,” opposed to appearance and mere pretence; it is emphatically put first, as in Joh 8:31; with reference to the preceding ἡ ἀλήθεια (de Wette); and serves to bring out not a quality of the τετελείωται (Ebrard), but the actuality of the ἐν τούτῳ … τετελείωται (so also Brückner).
ἐν τούτῳ ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ Θεοῦ τετελείωται] ἡ ἀγάπη τ. Θεοῦ is not here, as in chap. 1Jn 4:9 : “the love of God to us” (Flacius, Calovius, Bengel, Spener, Russmeyer, Sander, Lange, etc.), nor: “the love commanded by God” (Episcopius), nor: “the relationship of mutual love between God and man” (Ebrard: “the mutua amicitia et conjunctio between God and the Christian”);[95] but: “love to God,” as in chap. 1Jn 2:15, 1Jn 3:17, 1Jn 4:12, 1Jn 5:3 (Bede, Oecumenius, Luther, Calvin, Beza, Lorinus, Hornejus, Paulus, de Wette-Brückner, Baumgarten-Crusius, Lücke, Düsterdieck, Erdmann, Myrberg, Braune, etc.). This interpretation is required by the context; for “the love of God” appears here in place of the “knowledge of God,” 1Jn 2:3-4. As in the latter, so in the former also, consists fellowship with God. Both, love and knowledge, are so inseparably connected, and are so essentially one in their principle and nature, that the one is the condition of the other.[96]
The idea ΤΕΤΕΛΕΊΩΤΑΙ is not to be weakened, as in Beza: ΤΕΛΕΙΟῦΝ hoc in loco non declarat perfecte aliquid consummare, sed mendacio et simulationi opponitur, ut hoc plane sit, quod dicimus: mettre en exécution; but it is to be taken in its constant meaning: “has been perfected,” as in chap. 1Jn 4:12; 1Jn 4:17-18.[97] The objection, that nevertheless no Christian can boast of perfect love to God, does not justify an arbitrary change of meaning. The absolute idea τηρεῖν αὐτοῦ τὸν λόγον demands for its counterpart an idea quite as absolute (so also Brückner).[98] Where the word of God is perfectly fulfilled, there love to God is perfect; in perfect obedience perfect love is shown. That the Christian has not attained this perfection at any moment of his life, but is ever only in a state of progress towards it, is no doubt true; but John is not here considering that aspect (so also Braune).[99]
ἐν τούτῳ γινώσκομεν] ἐν τούτῳ refers neither to the thought contained in 1Jn 2:6 (Socinus, Ewald), nor to ἡ ἀγάπη … τετελ., but to the keeping of the commandments (so also Düsterdieck, Ebrard, Brückner, Braune). Obedience is the evidence for the knowledge that we are ἐν αὐτῷ.
ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ ἐσμεν] The expression signifies the inward fellowship of life (differently Act 17:28); it combines the preceding ἐν τούτῳ … τετελ. and the former ἐγνώκαμεν αὐτόν, and is identical with κοινωνίαν ἔχομεν μετʼ αὐτοῦ (chap. 1Jn 1:6), which it defines in its internal character. The knowledge and love of God is being in God (so also Brückner).[100]
Grotius, who understands αὐτῷ of Christ, enfeeblingly explains: Christi ingenii discipuli sumus.
[95] Similarly Besser: “ ‘The love of God in us’ usually embraces both God’s love to us, by which, and our love to God, in which we live. This is the case in this passage also.” This interpretation can be just as little grammatically justified as that of Ebrard; neither a duplicity nor a mutual relationship is expressed in the phrase ἡ ἀγ. τοῦ Θεοῦ.
[96] Grotius, it is true, is not wrong when he says: Amor praesupponit cognitionem; but it is just as correct to say: Cognitio praesupponit amorem.
[97] Even Bengel’s interpretation: perfectum regimen nactus et perfecte cognitus est (viz. amor Dei erga hominem), does not correspond to the idea of the word.
[98] Ebrard, it is true, wants the idea τετελείωται to be retained unweakened, but finds himself compelled by his interpretation of ἡ ἀγ. τ. Θ. to agree with Beza’s explanation, because “in the case of a relationship its perfection is nothing else than its conclusion.” Ebrard’s opinion, that if ἡ ἀγ. τ. Θ. = “love to God,” John must have written τελεία ἐστίν instead of τετελείωται, is-besides being contrary to John’s usus loquendi-without foundation.
[99] In Calvin’s explanation: Si quis objiciat, neminem unquam fuisse repertum, qui Deum ita perfecte diligeret, respondeo: sufficere, modo quisque pro gratiae sibi datae mensura ad hanc perfectionem aspiret, and in that of Socinus: “Est autem perfectio ista earitatis in Deum et obedientia praeceptorum ejus ita intelligenda, ut non omnino requiratur, ne ei quiequam deesse possit, sed tantum ut ejusmodi sit, qua Deus pro sua ingenti erga nos bonitate contentus esse voluit,” limitations are introduced which are foreign to the apostle’s train of thought.
[100] In substantial agreement with this Weiss says: “In vv. 3 and 4 it was stated that in the keeping of God’s commandments we recognise that we have known God. If, therefore, there is a continuous train of thought here, the being in God must only be a new expression for the knowing of God, or must be directly given along with it.”
1Jn 2:6 gives the more particular definition of what the τηρεῖν of God’s commandments, and therefore the Christian’s walk in light, consists in.
ὁ λέγων] as in 1Jn 2:4; here, however, with the infinitive construction.
ἐν αὐτῷ μένειν] ἐν αὐτῷ does not refer to Christ (Augustin, Hornejus, Wolf, Lange, Neander, etc.), but to God.
μένειν] instead of εἶναι, 1Jn 2:5. Both expressions are synonymous, it is true, but not identical (Beza); in μένειν the unchangeableness of the being is brought out. Bengel: Synonyma cum gradatione: ilium nosse, in illo esse, in illo manere. Frommann (p. 187): “The being and abiding in God signifies one and the same fellowship with God. The latter describes it merely as something constant, lasting, which accessory notion is not contained in the former expression.”
ὀφείλει] comp. chap. 1Jn 3:16, 1Jn 4:11, “is in duty bound,” refers back to ὁ λέγων; it is not meant to be indicated here what is demanded in regard to the μένειν ἐν Θεῷ, but what is the duty of him who says that he abides in God-if he does not want to be a liar, in whom the truth is not, 1Jn 2:4.
καθὼς ἐκεῖνος περιεπάτησε, καὶ αὐτὸς [οὕτως] περιπατεῖν] By these words Christ is placed as a pattern before Christians, i.e. in regard to His whole walk (which is elsewhere done in the N. T. only in regard to His self-abasement and to His conduct in suffering; see this commentary on 1Pe 2:21); of what sort this was, John does not here say; from the connection with what precedes, however, it is clear that the apostle points to Him in so far as He kept the commandments of God, and therefore walked in the light.[101] This reference to Christ as an example is frequently found in the same form (καθὼς ἐκεῖνος) in our Epistle; so 1Jn 3:3; 1Jn 3:7; 1Jn 4:17; comp. also Joh 13:15; Joh 15:10, and passim.
περιπατεῖν describes not merely the disposition, but the action resulting from it. In the fact that John brings just this out (comp. especially chap. 1Jn 3:17-18), it is evident how far his mysticism is removed from mere fanaticism.
On οὕτως, see the critical notes.
[101] Semler paraphrases: Si quis gloriatur, se suamque doctrinam semper convenisse cum doctrina ilia Christi, is sane debet etiam in humanae vitae modo non Judaismum praeferre (!).
1Jn 2:7. ἀγαπητοί] Such a form of address does not necessarily indicate the commencement of a new section, but is also used when the subject of the discourse is intended to be brought home to the hearers or readers; this is the case here.
οὐκ ἐντολὴν καινὴν γράφω ὑμῖν] certainly does not mean: “I do not write to you of a new commandment;” neither, however: “I write (set) before you” (Baumgarten-Crusius); for γράφειν has not this signification; it simply means: to write; when connected with an object, as here, it is = to communicate or announce anything by writing; comp. chap. 1Jn 1:4. The subject of his writing the apostle calls an ἐντολή; it is arbitrary to take the word here in a different meaning from that which it always has; thus Rickli: “the whole revelation of divine truth as it has been brought to us in Jesus Christ”[102] (similarly Flacius, Calovius, etc.); and Ebrard: “the announcement, that God is light, chap. 1Jn 1:5;” ἘΝΤΟΛΉ means “commandment;” this idea must not be confounded with any other. Most of the commentators (Augustin, Bede, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Luther, Calvin, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette-Brückner, Neander, Sander, Erdmann, Myrberg, Ewald, etc.) understand by it, according to 1Jn 2:9-11, the commandment of brotherly love; others, on the other hand (Socinus, Episcopius, Calovius, Schott, Lücke, Fritzsche, Frommann, etc.), according to 1Jn 2:6, the commandment of following Christ. These two views seem to be opposed to one another, but they really are so only if we assume that John here wants to emphasize a single special commandment-in distinction from other commandments. This supposition, however, is erroneous; the command to keep the commandments (or the word) of God after the example of Christ, or to walk in the light, is no other than the command to love one’s brother. From chap. 1Jn 1:5 on, John is speaking not of different commandments, but of the one general commandment of the Christian life which results from the truth that God is light. It is to this commandment that reference is made when John, in order to bring it home to his readers, says: ΟὐΚ ἘΝΤΟΛῊΝ ΚΑΙΝῊΝ ΓΡΆΦΩ ὙΜῖΝ, so that by ἘΝΤΟΛΉ he does not indicate a commandment which he then for the first time is about to mention, but the commandment which he has already spoken of in what precedes (only not merely in 1Jn 2:6), but defines more particularly in what follows, namely, in regard to its concrete import.[103] Of this commandment John says, that it is not an ἐντολὴ καινή;[104] in what sense he means this, the following words state: ἈΛΛʼ ἘΝΤΟΛῊΝ ΠΑΛΑΙΆΝ, ἫΝ ΕἼΧΕΤΕ ἈΠʼ ἈΡΧῆς; it is not new, but old, inasmuch as his readers did not first receive it through this writing, but already had it, and indeed ἈΠʼ ἈΡΧῆς, i.e. from the very beginning of their Christian life; comp. chap. 1Jn 3:11; 2Jn 1:5-6; and, for the expression ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς, 1Jn 2:24 (Calvin, Beza, Socinus, Episcopius, Piscator, Hornejus, Lange, Rickli, Lücke, de Wette-Brückner, Sander, Neander, Besser, Düsterdieck, Erdmann, Myrberg, Ewald, Braune, etc.). The imperfect ΕἼΧΕΤΕ, instead of which we should expect the present, either refers back to the time before John had come to his readers, or is to be explained: “which ye hitherto already had.” The latter is the more probable. Some commentators weaken this interpretation, which is demanded by the context, and hold that John calls the commandment (namely, “the commandment of love”) an old one, because it was already given by Moses; thus Flacius, Clarius, etc.; the Greek commentators even go beyond that, and refer it at once to this, that it was written from the very beginning in the heart of man;[105] the latter Baumgarten-Crusius maintains, and says: “here, therefore, the ethics of Christianity are represented as the eternal law of reason,” in which he explains ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς “from the beginning of the history of man,” and regards “ye as men” as the subject of εἴχετε.
ἡ ἐντολὴ ἡ παλαιά ἐστιν ὁ λόγος ὃν ἠκούσατε] This addition serves for a more particular definition of the preceding; ἡ παλαιά is repeated in order to accentuate this idea more strongly. By εἴχετε it was only stated that the readers were in possession of the commandment; now the apostle defines it more particularly in this respect, that it is the word (not: “the chief substance of the word,” de Wette) which they had heard (comp. 1Jn 2:24; 1Jn 3:11; 1Jn 4:3), which, therefore, was proclaimed unto them (comp. chap. 1Jn 1:2-3), namely, by the apostolic preaching. The clause is therefore not to be taken, as Baumgarten-Crusius holds, as a correction of γράφω: “not by him was it first given; it is from the beginning of Christianity, the λόγος, ὃν ἠκούσατε, namely, from Christ;” for ἠκούσατε does not refer directly to γράφω (Bengel), but to εἴχετε.[106] On the addition ἈΠʼ ἈΡΧῆς (Rec.) after ἠκούσατε, which Ewald regards as genuine, see the critical notes.
[102] Ebrard wrongly maintains that ἐντολή is “a truth including directly in itself practical requirements.” Only the practical requirements contained in a truth can be-when regarded as a unity-called ἐντολή, but not the truth which contains them in itself. It is true the demand of faith in the message of salvation may be described as ἐντολή, but not the message of salvation itself; here, however, the context forbids us to take the expression in that sense (as Weiss), since neither in what precedes nor in what immediately follows is there a demand for faith expressed.
[103] This view is in accordance with that of Düsterdieck, who rightly remarks: “The solution of the problem lies in this, that the holy command to walk as Christ walked, fully and essentially resolves itself into the command of brotherly love;” it is also accepted by Braune. The objection of Brückner, that brotherly love is only a principal element, and not the complete fulfilment of following Christ, can only be regarded as valid if brotherly love is not viewed in its full, complete character; comp. Joh 13:34, and also the statement of the Apostle Paul: πλήρωμα νόμου ἡ ἀγάπη, Rom 13:10.-The instances adduced by Ebrard against the reference to brotherly love can only have any force if the commandment which prescribes this is distinguished, as a special one, from the command to walk in light.
[104] Certainly what John here says reminds us of the statement of Christ in Joh 13:34; nor can it be denied that John was here thinking of that, as well as in the passage 2Jn 1:5; but from this it does not follow that οὐκ ἑντολ. καιν. γράφω ὑμῖν does not refer to what precedes, but only to what comes after (ver. 9).
[105] In the scholia of Matthaei it is thus put: εἰ μὲν Ἰουδαίοις ταῦτα γράφει, εἰκότος, τὴν περὶ ἀγάπης ἐντολὴν οὐ καινὴν εἶναι φησί. πάλαι γὰρ αὐτὴν διὰ τῶν προφητῶν ἐπηγγείλατο. Εἰ δὲ οὐκ Ἰουδαῖοι ἦσαν, μήποτʼ οὖν ἐντολὴ παλαιά … ἐστὶν ἡ κατὰ τὰς φυσικὰς ἐννοίας φιλικὴ διάθεσις, πάντες γὰρ φύσει ἥμερα καὶ κοινωνικὰ ζῶα ὄντες ἀγαπῶσι τοὺς πλησίον.-Oecumenius and Theophylact combine the two together, holding that the Epistle was addressed to Jewish and Gentile Christians.
[106] Wolf assumes a peculiar antithesis between the two sentences: Ratio fortassis aliqua reddi possit, cur ἔχειν et ἀκούειν ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς sibi invicem subjungantur. Prius enim ad illos spectaverit, qui ex Judaeis ad Christum conversi erant; illi enim jam ante praeceptum hoc de amore mutuo ex lege Mosis et prophetis cognitum habebant; posterius respiciet ex-Gentiles, qui idem inter prima evangelicae doctrinae praecepta acceperant; this amounts, partly, if not altogether, to what the Greek commentators adduce for explanation of the expression παλαιά. The arbitrariness of such an antithesis is self-evident.
1Jn 2:8. πάλιν ἐντολὴν καινὴν κ.τ.λ.] Almost all commentators hold that the ἐντολὴ καινή is the same ἐντολή as was the subject of 1Jn 2:7; differently Ebrard, who explains as follows: “With 1Jn 2:7 begins a new section which continues to 1Jn 2:29, in which the leading thought is the position of the readers to the light as one which was already shining; by ἐντ. παλαιά is meant the clause, chap. 1Jn 1:5 : ὁ Θεὸς φῶς ἐστι; by ἐντ. καινή, on the other hand, the following clause: ἡ σκοτία παράγεται καὶ τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινὸν ἤδη φαίνει;[107] the relative clause Ὅ ἙΣΤΙΝ ἈΛΗΘῈς Κ.Τ.Λ. belongs, by apposition, to the following sentence: ὍΤΙ Ἡ ΣΚΟΤΊΑ Κ.Τ.Λ., and states to what extent the essential true light has already begun to shine, namely, the fact that the light already shines has a double sphere in which it is ἈΛΗΘΈς, i.e. actually realized, first in Christ, but then also ἐν ὑμῖν, i.e. in the Ephesian readers themselves, and equally in all true Christians.” This explanation is, however, incorrect; for-(1) the truth ἡ σκοτία παράγεται κ.τ.λ. can just as little be called an ἘΝΤΟΛΉ as the sentence Ὁ ΘΕῸς Φῶς ἘΣΤΙ (see on 1Jn 2:7); (2) the relative clause, if it was to be a preceding apposition to Ἡ ΣΚΟΤΊΑ Κ.Τ.Λ., would have had to come after ὍΤΙ; according to the structure of the verse, Ὅ must necessarily be connected with what precedes; (3) it is a false idea, that that which the clause ὍΤΙ Ἡ ΣΚΟΤΊΑ expresses was actually realized in Christ; the incorrectness of this idea is concealed in Ebrard’s interpretation in this way, no doubt, that he gives to ἘΝ ΑὐΤῷ a different relation from that which he gives ἘΝ ὙΜῖΝ, and changes the present ΠΑΡΆΓΕΤΑΙ into the perfect.[108] Nor is the opinion that we are to understand by ἘΝΤ. ΠΑΛ. the commandment of walking in light, and by ἘΝΤ. ΚΑΙΝΉ, on the other hand, that of brotherly love (1Jn 2:9), tenable, because these commandments, according to their import, are not two distinct commandments, but one and the same commandment. Still more unjustifiable is the assumption of S. Schmid, that in 1Jn 2:7 the fundamental law of Christianity, namely, justification by faith, but here the commandment of Christian sanctification, is meant; and that of Weiss, that by ἘΝΤΟΛΉ, 1Jn 2:7, is to be understood the evangelical message of salvation, but here the commandment of love. The apostle, having in view here the same commandment as in 1Jn 2:7, says: “Again a new commandment I write unto you, which thing is true in Him and in you: because the darkness is past, and the true light now shineth.” The relative clause ὅ ἐστιν κ.τ.λ. serves not merely to establish the statement that the commandment is a new one (Socinus, Flacius, Morus, Hornejus, de Wette-Brückner, Lücke, ed. 2 and 3, ed. 1 of this commentary, Erdmann, etc.);[109] but the apostle thereby describes the commandment, yet not in a material way, so that ὅ would be referred to the substance of it (Oecumenius, Luther, Baumgarten-Crusius, Semler, Frommann, Düsterdieck, etc.),[110] but only in a formal way, as that which is actually fulfilled in Christ and in his readers; as the commandment in 1Jn 2:7 was also only defined in a formal way by ἣν εἴχετε ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς.
ὅ ἐστιν … ἐν ὑμῖν is the object belonging to ΓΡΆΦΩ, and ἘΝΤΟΛῊΝ ΚΑΙΝΉΝ is to be taken as the accusative of more particular definition; this construction of it is found in Ewald, only he explains ἘΝ ΑὐΤῷ incorrectly by: “in the last-mentioned (in 1Jn 2:7) word of God;” most recently it has been accepted by Braune with the interpretation here given. The sense accordingly is: that which is already true, i.e. fulfilled, in Christ and in you, namely, the τηρεῖν τὰς ἐντολὰς τοῦ Θεοῦ (comp. Joh 15:10, where Christ says of Himself: ἘΓῺ ΤᾺς ἘΝΤΟΛᾺς ΤΟῦ ΠΑΤΡΌς ΜΟΥ ΤΕΤΉΡΗΚΑ), I write unto you as a new commandment.[111] With this view it is self-evident that the apostle calls the old commandment a new one only in so far as he writes it anew to them. It is true a different reference has usually been given to καινή, by understanding it either of the constant endurance of the commandment of love (Calvin: novum dieit, quod Deus quotidie suggerendo veluti renovat; Joannes negat ejusmodi esse doctrinam de fratribus diligendis, quae tempore obsolescat: sed perpetuo vigere), or to indicate that this commandment first entered into the world along with Christianity-whether emphasis was put more upon the substance of it (Lücke, de Wette, ed. 1 of this comm.), or upon the mere time of it (Düsterdieck);[112] but these constructions, not being indicated in the context, are purely forced.
On πάλιν, Erasmus says: et contrarietatem declarat et iterationem; hic autem non repetitionis sed contrarietatis est declaratio; with this interpretation almost all commentators agree, referring πάλιν to the idea ἐντ. καινήν; but an antithetical construction is foreign to the word; it is = “again, once more,” is to be connected with γράφω, and is explained by the fact that the readers have already heard the commandment, nay, even are already fulfilling it. Lücke and de Wette connect it directly with the verb, but in such a way that even they give to it an antithetical reference.[113]
ἐστὶν ἀληθές] ἀληθής signifies here the actual reality, as in Act 12:9 (see Meyer on this passage).
ἘΝ ΑὐΤῷ] ἘΝ is to be retained in its special meaning, not = “respectu, in reference to,” nor is it used “of the subject in which something true is to be recognized as true (1Jn 2:3)” (de Wette), for there is no mention here of any knowledge. That by αὐτός here not God (Jachmann), but Christ is to be understood, is shown by the context. Socinus incorrectly explains ἘΝ ΑὐΤῷ = per se ac simpliciter. On the point that ἩΜῖΝ is not to be read, see the critical notes. Grotius unjustifiably understands by ἩΜῖΝ the apostles.
Neander has a wrong conception of the relation of ἘΝ ΑὐΤῷ and ἘΝ ὙΜῖΝ when he explains: “it takes place in reference to Christ and in reference to the church, therefore in reference to their mutual relationship to one another.”
ὅτι ἡ σκοτία κ.τ.λ.] ὅτι is not used declaratively, nor in such a way as to be dependent on ἀληθές (“it is true that the darkness,” etc.), or on ἘΝΤΟΛΉΝ (Castellio, Socinus, Bengel, Ebrard),-to both these views the structure of the verse is opposed,-but causally; this is rightly perceived by most of the commentators; but it is incorrect when they connect it with the immediately preceding ὅ ἐστιν ἀληθὲς κ.τ.λ., for the double-membered clause: ὍΤΙ Ἡ ΣΚΟΤΊΑ … ΦΑΊΝΕΙ, being a confirmatory clause, does not stand in a corresponding relationship to the thought: Ὅ ἘΣΤΙΝ ἈΛ.… ὙΜῖΝ, which it is intended to confirm.[114] By ὅτι κ.τ.λ. the apostle rather states the reason why he writes to them as a new commandment that which is true in Christ and in them (Düsterdieck, Braune); this reason is the already commenced disappearance of darkness and shining of the true light. The contrasted words Ἡ ΣΚΟΤΊΑ and ΤῸ Φῶς ΤῸ ἈΛΗΘΙΝΌΝ are to be taken in ethical sense (Braune);[115] the former idea signifies the darkness which consists in error and sin, as it exists outside the fellowship with God; the latter, the light which consists in truth and holiness, as it proceeds from Christ, who Himself is the true light. It is incorrect to understand here by ΤῸ Φῶς ΤῸ ἈΛ., Christ Himself (Bengel, Erdmann), as the contrast with Ἡ ΣΚΟΤΊΑ shows. ἈΛΗΘΙΝΌς is an expression which is almost confined to the writings of John; outside them it is only found in Luk 16:11, 1Th 1:9, and three times in the Epistle to the Hebrews; it describes the light of which the apostle is speaking as the eternal, essential light, of which the earthly light is merely the transitory reflection; see especially Neander on this passage.
ΠΑΡΆΓΕΤΑΙ is translated by the Vulgate as perfect: quoniam tenebrae transierunt; similarly by Luther: “the darkness is past;” and Calvin directly says: Praesens tempus loco Praeteriti. This, however, is arbitrary; the present is to be retained as such; it is used in the same sense as in 1Co 7:31 : ΠΑΡΆΓΕΙ (see Meyer on this passage), so that we must interpret: “the σκοτία is in the state of passing away.” It is unnecessary to take παράγεται, with Bengel, with whom Sander and Besser agree, as passive (Bengel: non dicit ΠΑΡΆΓΕΙ transit, sed ΠΑΡΆΓΕΤΑΙ traducitur, commutatur, ita ut tandem absorbeatur); it is more natural to regard it as the middle form with intransitive meaning. With the meaning: “is in the state of passing,” corresponds the particle ἬΔΗ with ΦΑΊΝΕΙ, which is not = “now” (Luther), but by which the moment is described in which the darkness is retreating before the light, at which therefore neither has the darkness already completely disappeared, nor is the light completely dominant. Most of the commentators, both the older and more recent (Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette-Brückner, Lücke, Sander, Düsterdieck, Erdmann, Ebrard), take this as referring to Christianity in general, in so far as by it, as the true light, the old darkness is being ever more and more overcome; but by the word ἬΔΗ the apostle shows that in these words he is looking forward to a future time at which that victory will have been completely won, and which he regards as close at hand (so also Braune). The moment in which he writes this is in his eyes, therefore, no other than that which immediately precedes the second coming of Christ, and which He Himself in 1Jn 2:18 calls the ἘΣΧΆΤΗ ὭΡΑ,[116] in which it is of the greater importance for Christians, by keeping the commandment, to show themselves as children of the light. The same train of thought essentially occurs here as afterwards in 1Jn 2:15-18; compare also the Pauline ἡ νὺξ προέκοψεν, ἡ δὲ ἡμέρα ἤγγικε, Rom 13:12.
[107] The same view is found in Castellio, Socinus, and Bengel. The latter remarks on ἐντολὴν καινήν: praeceptum novum, quod nobis nunc primum in hac epistola scribitur; and on ὅτι: quod hoc est illud praeceptum, to which he then very strangely adds: amor fratris, ex luce.
[108] Ebrard says: “The eternally existing light is one which has already appeared ἐν αὐτῷ, in so far as in Christ the light objectivized has arisen for the world and has overcome the darkness, and ἐν ὑμῖν in so far as also subjectively to the readers the light of the gospel has arisen, and they also subjectively have been drawn from darkness unto light.” By ἐν ὑμῖν he means, therefore, the readers, in whom, i.e. in whose souls, the transition from darkness to light has taken place; by ἐν αὐτῷ, however, not Christ, in whom, but the world, for which that has happened objectively, inasmuch as Christ entered as the light into the darkness of the world. Quite a different meaning, therefore, is here assigned to ἐν αὐτῷ from that which is given to ἐν ὑμῖν, as the difference in the relation from the antithesis of “objective” and “subjective” clearly shows.-It is not merely the change of the present παράγεται into the perfect that is the cause of this treatment, for it appears elsewhere in the commentary,-thus on p. 148: “that which is true in Christ and in you, that the darkness is past,” etc.; p. 150: “similar to the new announcement, that the darkness is past,” etc.; p. 155: “It is the truth, that the darkness is past;” against which, on the other hand, παράγεται is correctly explained on p. 150: “the darkness is passing by, is in a state of passing away, of disappearing.”
[109] For if ὅ ἐστιν κ.τ.λ. is, according to the intention of the apostle, to be referred to the idea of the newness of the commandment, he would-first, have given this idea a more independent form than he has given it as a simple attribute of the object ἐντολήν depending on γράφω; and, secondly, not have given the confirmation of the statement (that the commandment is a new one) in a sentence which does not so much show the truth of this idea as merely state the sphere in which that statement is true; to which may be added, that the idea so resulting is itself so indistinct, that it requires, in order to be understood, an explanatory circumlocution, such as: “that the commandment is a new one has its truth in Christ, inasmuch as it did not exist before Him,” etc. (ed. 1 of this comm.). Besides, an emphasis unwarranted by the context is placed on the idea of the newness of the commandment, especially if it is thought that the following ὅτι again serves to establish the thought expressed in the confirmatory clause (Lücke, de Wette, Brückner).
[110] Düsterdieck, it is true, approves of Knapp’s paraphrase, which agrees with the above explanation: πάλιν (ὡς) ἐντολὴν καιν. γρ. ὑμῖν τοῦτο ὅ ἐστιν ἀληθές κ.τ.λ.; but, with the idea of a constructio ad sensum, refers ὅ to the preceding ἐντολήν, so that this forms the object of γράφω, which by the relative clause obtains its more particular definition. In opposition to this construction, de Wette has rightly observed that it has grammatical difficulty. When Düsterdieck, in reply to Lücke’s objection, that with that interpretation it would need to run ἥ ἐστιν ἀληθής, says that it is not the ἐντολή itself as such, but its substance in Christ, etc., that has been fulfilled, Ebrard’s observation is a sufficient answer: “That which is required in the ἐντολή is nothing else than just the ἐντολή itself; the requirement itself is fulfilled in Christ when its substance is fulfilled in Him.”
[111] That John places before his readers anew as a commandment that which already has been fulfilled in them, is clearly not more strange than that he declares to them truths of which he himself says that they know them already (comp. ver. 21). Brückner admits that the construction here advocated is simple and clear, but groundlessly thinks that “the strangeness of this form of speech” is not mitigated by the reference to ver. 21.
[112] On the basis of the right view of ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς, ver. 7, we find the nature of the newness of the commandment indicated just in this; this, however, is only the case if the temporal reference is retained in its purity. This Düsterdieck indeed insists on; but this relation has only force if we regard at the same time the substance of the commandment, as Düsterdieck does. But nothing in the context indicates this new substance, and it is therefore very differently defined by the commentators.
[113] Lücke does so when he says: “In ver. 8, John continues correctingly thus: Again a new commandment I write unto you.” (In the edition of 1851, Lücke agrees with the usual acceptation: “Again-in contrast-a new commandment I write unto you;” see ed. 3, p. 249, note 1.)-De Wette does not expressly give his opinion about πάλιν; but when he thinks that John should properly have written: “again a new commandment I call it,” and when he then paraphrases it: “The commandment of love is an old and long-known one to you; but (as it is altogether revealed as a new one by Christ) for you who partake in the newness of life it is in an especial manner a new one,” the antithetical reference is clearly brought out by him also.
[114] With this connection of the thoughts, the double-membered clause: ὅτι ἡ σκοτία … φαίνει, must confirm both ἐστιν ἀλ. ἐν αὐτῷ and also ἐστιν ἀλ. ἐν ὑμῖν. Now, when Lücke makes the apostle to say, as a proof that the commandment to walk in light shows itself in Christ and in his readers as a new one: “Not only in Christ Himself (ἐν αὐτῷ) has the true light appeared, but it has also shed itself abroad, dispelling the darkness in the minds of his readers (ἐν ὑμῖν), and is shining in them,” he attributes the thought really expressed by the apostle (ἡ σκοτία … φαίνει) only to ἐν ὑμῖν; while to ἐν αὐτῷ, on the other hand, he attributes an idea which the apostle has not expressed.-Brückner says: “The ἐν αὐτῷ refers to καὶ τὸ φῶς κ.τ.λ., the ἐν ὑμῖν rather to ἡ σκοτία κ.τ.λ.;” but this reference of the one member of the confirmatory clause to the one element of the thought to be confirmed must be regarded as unjustified, although Brückner thinks “it can easily be imagined that the apostle in the one part of the confirmation had in view rather the latter, and in the other rather the former part of the clause to be confirmed,” for such a different reference is in no way hinted at; besides, ἤδη is here altogether left out of view. Düsterdieck rightly establishes the proposition that the whole sentence: ἀληθ.… ὑμῖν, is to be regarded as confirmed by the whole sentence: ὅτι ἡ σκ.… φαίνει; but when he then, in interpretation, says: “Already the darkness is dispelled by the true light, which shines in truth in Christ and in His believers (in so far, namely, as brotherly love attained its most perfect manifestation in the walk of Christ, and is exercised by believers also),” it is only the second part of the confirmatory clause that is referred by him to ἐν αὐτῷ καὶ ἐν ὑμῖν, but not the first part; and this indeed is quite natural, since in Christ a disappearance of darkness is not imaginable.
[115] It was to be expected that Weiss here also denies to the ideas σκοτία and φῶς the ethical meaning, and wants to be understood by the former only error, by the latter only the knowledge of God. Weiss himself, however, views them both so that they are of ethical-and not merely theoretical-character; and, moreover, as he admits that with the former error sin, and with the latter knowledge holiness, is necessarily connected, it is so much the more arbitrary to allege that John, in the use of these ideas, utterly ignored this necessary connection.
[116] Rickli: “John says this of the time in which they are living, and in which the great work of the Lord had had a wonderful, rapid progress of development. The true Light, the Lord in His perfect manifestation of divine truth, is already shining; … already the great morning is dawning for mankind. When the Lord shall return, then shall be the perfect day of God. Towards this manifestation all believers walk.”
1Jn 2:9-11. Further definition of the life of light as life in love.-1Jn 2:9. ὁ λέγων] the same form as in 1Jn 2:4, to which the structure of the whole verse is very similar. ἐν τῷ φωτὶ εἶναι] stands in close relation to what immediately precedes; although he alone is in the light who lives in fellowship with Christ, and belongs to the church of Christ, yet τὸ φῶς describes neither Christ Himself (Spener, etc.) nor “the church, as the sphere within which the light has operated as illuminating power” (Ebrard). Chap. 1Jn 1:6-7 may be compared.
In contrast with teal καὶ τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ μισῶν is 1Jn 2:10, ὁ ἀγαπῶν ἀδ. αὐτοῦ, in which the apostle states the substance of the τηρεῖν τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ after the example of Christ. As φῶς and σκοτία, so μισεῖν τ. ἀδ. and ἀγαπᾶν τ. ἀδ. exclude each other; they are tendencies diametrically opposed to one another; human action belongs either to the one or to the other; that which does not belong to the sphere of the one falls into that of the other; Bengel: ubi non est amor, odium est: cor non est vacuum. Here also John speaks absolutely, without taking into consideration the imperfect state of the Christian, as is seen in the hesitations between love and hatred.
τὸν ἀδελφόν Grotius interprets: sive Judaeum, sive aliegenam; fratres omnes in Adamo sumus; similarly Calov, J. Lange, etc.; by far the greatest number of commentators understand thereby fellow-Christians. Apart from its exact meaning and the wider meaning = brethren of the same nation (Act 23:1; Heb 7:5), ἀδελφός is used in the N. T. generally, in Acts and in the Pauline Epistles always, to denote Christians; but in many passages it is also = ὁ πλησίον or ὁ ἕτερος; thus in Mat 5:22 ff; Mat 7:3 ff; Mat 18:35; Luk 6:41 ff.; Jam 4:11-12 (in Mat 5:47 it describes our friendly neighbour). In the Gospel of John it is only used in the sense of relationship, except in chap. Joh 20:17, where Christ calls His μαθηταί “οἱ ἀδελφοί μου,” and in Joh 21:23, where οἱ ἀδ. is a name of Christians. If, therefore, according to the usus loquendi of the N. T., ὁ ἀδελφός may certainly be = ὁ πλησίον, yet in the Epistles of John, according to chap. 1Jn 3:11 (comp. Gospel of Joh 13:34; Joh 15:12; besides, especially with chap. 1Jn 3:16, comp. Gospel of Joh 15:13; there: ὑπὲρ τῶν ἀδελφῶν τὰς ψυχὰς τιθέναι; here: ὑπὲρ τῶν φίλων αὐτοῦ), and according to chap. 1Jn 5:1 (where the ἀδ. is specifically called a γεγεννημένος ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ), we must understand by it the Christian brother; so that John, therefore, is speaking, not of the general love towards men, but of the special relationship of Christians to one another; comp. the distinction in 2Pe 1:7; Gal 6:10.
ἕως ἄρτι] “until now,” refers back to ἤδη, 1Jn 2:9; the meaning is: although the darkness is already shining, such an one is nevertheless still (adhuc) in darkness; on this peculiarly N. T. expression, see Winer, p. 418, VII. p. 439; A. Buttmann, p. 275; there is no reason for supplying “even if he were a long time a Christian” (Ewald). “With the ἐν τ. σκ. ἐστίν is contrasted, 1Jn 2:10 : ἐν τῷ φωτὶ μένει; see on this 1Jn 2:6.[117] That the “exercise of brotherly love is itself a means of strengthening the new life” (Ebrard), is not contained in the idea μένει. Even if the idea of 1Jn 2:10-in relation to that of the 9th verse-is brought out more distinctly by ΜΈΝΕΙ, this is much more done by the words: ΚΑῚ ΣΚΆΝΔΑΛΟΝ ἘΝ ΑὐΤῷ ΟὐΚ ἜΣΤΙΝ. ΣΚΆΝΔΑΛΟΝ appears in the N. T. only in the ethical signification = “offence,” i.e. that which entices and tempts to sin; in the case of ἐν αὐτῷ, the preposition ἘΝ is generally either left unnoticed by the commentators (Grotius says, appealing to Psalms 119 : est metonymia et ἘΝ abundat. Sensus: ille non impingit) or changed in meaning; de Wette: “in his case (for him) there is no stumbling; comp. Joh 11:9 ff.;” similarly Baumgarten-Crusius, Neander, etc.; Lücke even says: “ἐν αὐτῷ can here only signify the outer circle of life,” because “the ΣΚΆΝΔΑΛΑ for the Christian lie in the world, and not in him;” with him Sander agrees. For such changes there is no ground, since in the usage of the word the figure (the snare, or rather the wood that falls in the snare) has quite given place to the thing, and it is therefore unnecessary to say, with Düsterdieck, that “in the expression ἘΝ ΑὐΤῷ the thing itself penetrates into the otherwise figurative form of speech;” the offence may be outside a man, but it may be in him also; comp. Mat 5:29-30. The preposition ἐν is here to be retained in its proper meaning (Düsterdieck, Ewald, Braune). The sense is: In him who loves his brother and thus remains in the light, there is nothing which entices him to sin. Some commentators refer ΣΚΆΝΔΑΛΟΝ to the temptation of others to sinning; so Vatablus: nemini offendiculo est; Johannsen: “he gives no offence;” Ebrard: “there is nothing in them by which they would give offence to the brethren,” etc.; but in the context there is no reference to the influence which the Christian exercises upon others, and if John had had this relationship in his mind, he would certainly have expressed it;[118] this is decisive also against Braune, who would retain both references. Paulus quite unwarrantably refers ἘΝ ΑὐΤῷ to ΤῸ ΦΏς: “in that light nothing is a stumbling-block.”
The beginning of the 11th verse repeats-in a form antithetical to 1Jn 2:10-that which was said in 1Jn 2:9; but with further continuation of the ἘΝ Τῇ ΣΚΟΤΊᾼ ἘΣΤΊΝ.
The first subordinate clause runs: ΚΑῚ ἘΝ Τῇ ΣΚΟΤΊᾼ ΠΕΡΙΠΑΤΕῖ. The difference of the two clauses does not consist in this, that the representation passes over from the less figurative (ἘΣΤΊ) to the more figurative (ΠΕΡΙΠΑΤΕῖ) (Lücke); for, on the one hand, ΠΕΡΙΠΑΤΕῖΝ is so often used of the ethical relationship of man, that it is scarcely any longer found as a figurative expression; and, on the other hand, the connection by ΚΑΊ shows that there is a difference of idea between the two expressions; this has been correctly thus described by Grotius: priori membro affectus (or better: habitus, Sander), altero actus denotatur (similarly de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Braune). Both: the being (the condition) and the doing (the result) of the unloving one belong to darkness; comp. Gal 5:25. The second subordinate clause: ΚΑῚ ΟὐΚ ΟἾΔΕ ΠΟῦ ὙΠΆΓΕΙ, is closely connected with ΠΕΡΙΠΑΤΕῖ; ΠΟῦ, properly a particle of rest, is in the N. T. frequently connected with verbs of motion; comp. Joh 7:35; Joh 20:2; Joh 20:13; Heb 11:8; in the Gospel of John especially, as here, with ὙΠΆΓΕΙΝ; see Joh 3:8; Joh 8:14, etc.; in Joh 12:35 it runs exactly as here: Ὁ ΠΕΡΙΠΑΤῶΝ ἘΝ Τῇ ΣΚΟΤΊᾼ ΟὐΚ ΟἾΔΕ ΠΟῦ ὙΠΆΓΕΙ. The translation: “where he is going,” is false, for ὙΠΆΓΕΙΝ is not: “to go,” but: “to go to.” To the unloving one, the goal whither he is going on his dark way, and therefore the direction of his way, is unknown. By this goal it is not exactly the final goal, i.e. condemnation (Cyprian: it nescius in gehennam, ignarus et caecus praecipitatur in poenam), that is to be thought of, for the subject according to the context is not punishment; but by the figurative expression the apostle wants to bring out that the unloving one, not knowing whither, follows the impulse of his own selfish desire: he does not know what he is doing, and whither it tends. As a confirmation of this last idea, the apostle further adds: ὅτι ἡ σκοτία ἐτύφλωσε τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς αὐτοῦ; τυφλοῦν does not mean “to darken,” but “to make blind, to blind;” this idea is to be retained, and is not, with Lücke and others, to be enfeebled by an interpolated “tamquam, as” (“in the darkness they are as if blind”), by which the clause loses its meaning; the apostle wants to bring out that, inasmuch as the unloving one walks in the darkness, the sight of his eyes is taken from him by this darkness, so that he does not know, etc. He who lives in sin is blinded by sin, and therefore does not know whither his sin is leading him; comp. Joh 12:40 and 2Co 4:4.
[117] Köstlin incorrectly finds the reason why he who loves his brother remains in the light, in this, “that the Christian life of the individual requires for its own existence the support of all others.” Of such a support the apostle is not speaking here at all, but the truth of his statement lies rather in this, that love and light are essentially connected with one another.
[118] When Ebrard finds no obstacle in the thought that he who loves his brother does not by any act give offence to others, he should find no obstacle in the thought that there is nothing in him which becomes an offence to himself.
1Jn 2:12-14. After the apostle has depicted the Christian life in its essential features, he passes on to exhortation. To this these verses form the introduction, in which the apostle assures his readers that their Christianity is the ground of his writing. The motive of this, which explains also the form of expression, is the earnest longing which inspires the apostle, that his readers may take home to themselves the following exhortation.
The apostle addresses them under four different names: τεκνία and παιδία, πατέρες, νεανίσκοι. By the two latter names they are distinguished according to the two corresponding degrees of age;[119] in the case of ΠΑΤΈΡΕς the proper meaning is not to be strictly retained, but in contrast to ΝΕΑΝΊΣΚΟΙ it is = ΓΈΡΟΝΤΕς or ΠΡΕΣΒΎΤΕΡΟΙ, the members of the church who are already in advanced age; thus Erasmus, Calvin, Socinus, Morus, Carpzov, Lange, Paulus, de Wette-Brückner, Lücke, Düsterdieck, Braune, etc.
The ΝΕΑΝΊΣΚΟΙ are the younger members of the church; Calvin: tametsi diminutivo utitur, non tamen dubium est, quin sermonem ad omnes dirigat, qui sunt in aetatis flore et statu. The view of Augustine is to be rejected, that under the three names the same persons are addressed, whom the apostle only designates differently in different aspects: filioli, quia baptismo neonati sunt; patres, quia Christum patrem et antiquum dierum agnoscunt; adoleseentes, quia fortes sunt et validi. So also is the opinion that the apostle has in view, not the difference in age, but the difference in the degree, or even in the length of existence of Christian life; a Lapide: triplici hoc aetatis gradu triplicem Christianorum in virtute gradum et quasi aetatum repraesentat; pueri enim repraesentant incipientes et neophytos; juvenes repraesentant proficientes; senes perfectos; similarly Clemens, Oecumenius, further Gagneius, Cajetanus, Russmeyer, Grotius,[120] etc. Some commentators (as Erasmus, Socinus, J. Lange, Myrberg) also refer the two expressions: ΤΕΚΝΊΑ (1Jn 2:12) and ΠΑΙΔΊΑ (1Jn 2:13), to the difference of age, and understand by them children, in the proper sense of the word; but more prevalent is the view that this is true of παιδία only, and that ΤΕΚΝΊΑ, on the other hand, is to be regarded as a form of address to all Christians; Calvin: haec (namely, 1Jn 2:12) adhuc generalis est sententia, mox speciales sententias accomodabit singulis aetatibus; similarly Luther, Beza, Calov, Wolf, Baumgarten-Crusius, Sander, Neander, Besser, Ebrard, etc. With the first view there arises a wrong succession, namely: children, fathers, young men, instead of: children, young men, fathers, or: fathers, young men, children; and, moreover, since τεκνία is in the Epistle frequently the form of address to all readers, and not only with, but also without ΜΟΜ (see on 1Jn 2:1), so it is to be taken here also. Equally, however, by ΠΑΙΔΊΑ the apostle addresses all readers, as Lücke, de Wette-Brückner, Düsterdieck, Gerlach, Erdmann, Ewald, Braune rightly interpret. If we read before παιδία, with the Receptus: γράφω ὑμῖν, there certainly results, if ΠΑΙΔΊΑ is taken as alluding to children, a more accurate succession: fathers, young men, children; but (1) according to almost all authorities we must read, not ΓΡΆΦΩ, but ἜΓΡΑΨΑ, and the former reading can only be explained in this way, that ΠΑΙΔΊΑ was understood in its proper sense, and it was thought that this clause must be brought into the closest connection with the preceding; (2) then in the repetition of the same succession in 1Jn 2:14 one member of it is wanting, as the children are not mentioned again; and (3) in 1Jn 2:18 ΠΑΙΔΊΑ is used as a form of address in reference to all readers; comp. Joh 21:5. Against the two last reasons it might indeed be alleged, with Bengel, Sander, and Besser, that from 1Jn 2:14 to 1Jn 2:17 is still intended for the ΝΕΑΝΊΣΚΟΙς, and that then in 1Jn 2:18 the address to the children comes in, and that the sequel as far as 1Jn 2:27 refers to them. But against this construction is-(1) the dissimilarity in the form of the sentences that thereby results; (2) the absence of an exhortation addressed to the fathers; (3) the unsuitable reference of the warning against false teachers specially to the children, with the additional remark: οἴδατε πάντα, 1Jn 2:20, and Οὐ ΧΡΕΊΑΝ ἜΧΕΤΕ, ἽΝΑ ΤῚς ΔΙΔΆΣΚῌ ὙΜᾶς, even though the warning against false teachers in chap. 1Jn 4:1 ff. is referred without distinction to all readers; and finally, (4) the close connection of 1Jn 2:17 and 1Jn 2:18 : Ὁ ΚΌΣΜΟς ΠΑΡΆΓΕΤΑΙ (comp. 1Jn 2:8 : Ἡ ΣΚΟΤΊΑ ΠΑΡΆΓΕΤΑΙ), and ἘΣΧΆΤΗ ὭΡΑ ἘΣΤΊ.
According to the true construction of the sentences, they fall into two groups; in each group first all Christians, and then specially the older and the younger members of the church, are addressed;[121] the correctness of this construction is shown also by this, that in reference to πατέρες, and equally to νεανίσκοι, in both groups the same thing is expressed, but in reference to all there are different statements. The arbitrary conjecture of Calvin (with whom Wall agrees), that both the clauses of 1Jn 2:14 are spurious, and interpolated temere by ignorant readers, requires no refutation.
The interchange of γράφω with the aorist ἔγραψα is peculiar, and is not to be explained by saying that ἔγραψα points to another writing of the apostle, whether it be the Gospel (Storr, Lange, Baumgarten-Crusius, Schott, Ebrard, Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 2, § 336; Braune[122]), or even an earlier Epistle (Michaelis); both expressions rather refer, as most of the commentators have recognised, to this Epistle; not, however, to the same thing, as some commentators suppose; thus Bengel, who regards the two expressions as synonymous, explains: verbo scribendi ex praesenti in praeterito transposito innuit commonitionem firmissimam, which cannot be grammatically justified;[123] and Düsterdieck, who thinks that the “different import of the present and of the aorist can only be sought for in the representation of the writing itself; that both times the apostle means the whole Epistle lying before him; that by γράφω he represents himself in the immediately present act of writing, and by ἔγραψα, on the other hand, his readers, who have received the completed Epistle;” opposed to this, however, is the fact that such a change of the mere form of representation would certainly be rather trifling. The ἔγραψα must be referred to something else than the preceding γράφω; yet it is not, with Neander and Erdmann,[124] to be referred to that which is expressed in the clauses beginning with γράφω; for, on the one hand, the clauses beginning with ἔγραψα have not the form of confirmation, and, on the other hand, there is no real cause apparent for the addition of such a confirmation; it seems more appropriate when Rickli thinks that γράφω refers to what follows, and ἔγραψα to what precedes;[125] but opposed to this is the fact that ἜΓΡΑΨΑ would then stand more naturally before ΓΡΆΦΩ. The correct view has been taken by de Wette, Brückner, and Ewald, who refer ἜΓΡΑΨΑ to what was already written, and ΓΡΆΦΩ to the immediate act of writing, and hence to the Epistle in general; taking this view, it is quite in order for John to write ΓΡΆΦΩ first, and that he then refers specially by ἜΓΡΑΨΑ to what has been already written is explained in this way, that this contains the principal grounds for the following exhortations and amplifications.[126]
In each part a clause beginning with ὍΤΙ follows the address; this ὍΤΙ is not objective or declarative = “that” (Socinus, Lange, Russmeyer, Bengel, Paulus, Johannsen, Neander, Hilgenfeld, etc.), but causal: “because” (Calvin, Beza, Baumgarten-Crusius, Lücke, de Wette-Brückner, Gerlach, Düsterdieck, Myrberg, Ebrard,[127] etc.). The apostle does not want to say what he is writing, but why he is writing to them; comp. especially 1Jn 2:20, also 1Jn 2:21; 1Jn 2:27; 1Jn 3:5; 1Jn 3:14-15; 1Jn 5:18-20. The particular Christian experiences of his readers form the fundamental presuppositions of the Epistle; it is not anything new that the apostle declares unto them, but he reminds them of what they know, so that they may take it more seriously to heart.
The first thing that the apostle, addressing all, reminds them of is: ὅτι ἀφέωνται ὑμῖν αἱ ἁμαρτίαι διὰ τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ. The forgiveness of sins is the basis of all Christian life; therefore this is put first.
On the form used here, the perfect passive ἈΦΈΩΝΤΑΙ, see Buttmann, Ausf. gr. Gr. § 97, Anmerk. 3, and § 108, note 1; and Winer, p. 74, VII. p. 77. The Vulgate and Luther incorrectly translated it as if it were the present: “are forgiven” (similarly Rickli and others; Paulus strangely interprets, deriving it from ἀφʼ ἑάω = ἈΦʼ ἙῶΝΤΑΙ, dimittuntur).
ΔΙΆ with the accusative is not = “through” (this meaning, as is well known, it has only with the genitive, comp. Act 10:43 : ἌΦΕΣΙΝ ἉΜΑΡΤΙῶΝ ΛΑΒΕῖΝ ΔΙᾺ ΤΟῦ ὈΝΌΜΑΤΟς ΑὐΤΟῦ), but = “for the sake of;” αὐτοῦ = ΧΡΙΣΤΟῦ, not = ΘΕΟῦ (Socinus, Paulus). According to most of the commentators, ΔΙᾺ Τ. ὌΝ. ΑὐΤΟῦ refers to the objective ground of the forgiveness of sins, and ΤῸ ὌΝΟΜΑ ΑὐΤΟῦ signifies Christ Himself; thus Düsterdieck: “Christ who is what His name signifies;”[128] but this is contrary to the Biblical usus loquendi; if by διά Christ is referred to as the author of salvation, the preposition is always construed with the genitive; by ΔΙᾺ ΤῸ ὌΝΟΜΑ ΑὐΤΟῦ, therefore, it is the subjective ground of forgiveness that is stated (de Wette-Brückner, Braune), in this sense: because His name is in you, i.e. because ye believe on His name (comp. 1Jn 2:23 : πιστεύειν τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ). The name is therefore not regarded as empty, but as the form which includes the contents and reveals them; so that the subjective ground embraces in itself the objective.
In the second group it is said, in regard to the readers of the Epistle there called ΠΑΙΔΊΑ: ΓΡ. ὙΜῖΝ … ὍΤΙ ἘΓΝΏΚΑΤΕ ΤῸΝ ΠΑΤΈΡΑ. By Ὁ ΠΑΤΉΡ we are not to understand, with Hornejus, Christ, inasmuch as believers per fidem in nomen ejus renati sunt, for such a designation of Christ has the constant usus loquendi of Scripture against it, but God; for the name ὁ πατήρ is used here without any more particular definition, with clear reference to ΠΑΙΔΊΑ, and so God is here so called, not merely on account of His relationship to Christ, but equally on account of His relationship to those who, by faith in Christ, have obtained the forgiveness of their sins, and are thereby placed in the relationship of children to God. From this it is clear also how exactly ὍΤΙ ἈΦΈΩΝΤΑΙ ὙΜῖΝ ΑἹ ἉΜΑΡΤΊΑΙ and ὍΤΙ ἘΓΝΏΚΑΤΕ ΤῸΝ ΠΑΤΈΡΑ correspond with one another. But in the fact that John ascribes to the believers both of these, he testifies to them that they are in possession of the fulness of divine peace and of divine truth.
In regard to the ΠΑΤΈΡΕς, the apostle brings out the same thing in both groups, 1Jn 2:13-14 : ὍΤΙ ἘΓΝΏΚΑΤΕ ΤῸΝ ἈΠʼ ἈΡΧῆς. If the forgiveness of sins and the knowledge of God are common to all, the knowledge of Him who is ἈΠʼ ἈΡΧῆς is specially appropriate to the older members of the church. When some commentators, as a Lapide, Grotius, (novistis Deum, qui Senex dierum; Dan 7:9; Dan. 13:22), and others, understand by Ὁ ἈΠʼ ἈΡΧῆς God, they ignore the deeper connection which exists between the particular ideas; Ὁ ἈΠʼ ἈΡΧῆς is Christ, but not so called because He is the author of Christianity (Socinus: novi foederis et evangelii patefacti primum initium; Semler: qui inde ab initio auctor fuit hujus melioris religionis), but because He is from all eternity; ἈΠʼ ἈΡΧῆς is used in the same sense as in chap. 1Jn 1:1. John brings out by this designation of Christ the truth that Christ is subject of their knowledge in the quality of His being herein mentioned; it is therefore incorrect to understand ἘΓΝΏΚΑΤΕ of the personal knowledge of Him who was manifest in the flesh (Bengel, Schoettgen, etc.); the word has rather the same meaning as in 1Jn 2:3.[129] John ascribes this knowledge to the fathers, because he might with justice assume that they had not contented themselves with a superficial knowledge of Christ in His appearance according to the sense, but had looked more deeply into the eternal nature of the Lord.
In regard to the young men, it is said in both groups: ὅτι νενικήκαΊατε τὸν πονηρόν; not as if the same were not true also of the older members of the church, but John attributes this eminently to the young men, because they-in accordance with their age-had just recently obtained this victory, and their care therefore must be specially this, not to lose again what had been lately won. That ὁ πονηρός is the devil (comp. Mat 13:19; Mat 13:38-39; Eph 6:16; 1Jn 3:12; 1Jn 5:18-19) the commentators have rightly recognised.[130] Carpzov suitably says: Viris fortibus et robustis tribuiter supra fortissimum et robustissimum victoria. In the second group some further subordinate clauses precede that word, which state the conditions under which the young men have attained their victory: ὍΤΙ ἸΣΧΥΡΟΊ ἘΣΤΕ; ἸΣΧΥΡΟΊ, “strong in spirit,” with special reference to the fight, comp. Heb 11:34; Luk 11:21; Mat 12:29 (Düsterdieck); here also ὅτι is “because,” not: “that,” thus: “because ye are strong,” not: “that ye are to be strong” (Paulus).
This conquering power of the young men is not their “own moral strength” (Baumgarten-Crusius), but the effect of the Word of God; therefore John adds: καὶ ὁ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν ὑμῖν μένει, and only then brings in ΚΑῚ ΝΕΝΙΚΉΚΑΤΕ Κ.Τ.Λ.
The individual sentences are simply placed side by side in order to let each of them appear the more strongly in its own meaning. The train of thought, however, is this, that their strength has its ground in the Word of God, which is permanent in them (ΜΈΝΕΙ), and that it is in this power that they have attained the victory.[131] This relation is correctly stated by Grotius, who explains the first καί by quia, the second by ob id.
ὁ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ is not = Christ, but the word proceeding from God, i.e. the Gospel, of which the personal Christ is no doubt the substance.
[119] That “the distinction between church leaders and church members appears in the distinction between old and young” (Hilgenfeld), is in no way suggested.
[120] Grotius: Partitur Christianos in tres classes, quae discrimina non secundum aetatem, sed secundum gradus diversos ejus profectus, qui in Christo est, intelligi debent, cf. 1Co 13:11-12; Heb 5:13; Eph 4:13-14.
[121] Even Ebrard regards the second triad as beginning with παιδία, although he understands by it children in age; there is a glaring inconsistency in this construction.
[122] To this view the following reasons are opposed:-1. That if the apostle in ἔγραψα had another writing in view than in γράφω, he would have expressed this distinctly; 2. That thereby the train of thought of the Epistle is unduly interrupted, since the assertion of the reason why he had written the Gospel is here introduced without any connecting link; 3. That then the emphasis contained in the threefold repetition of ἔγραψα remains inexplicable, whereas it is perfectly justifiable if the reference to something written in this Epistle is intended to stimulate the readers more earnestly to attend to the following exhortation. The view of Ebrard, that “while the Epistle plainly could only be understood by grown people,” the Gospel “is even for children (παιδία) enjoyable and pleasing food,” scarcely any one will endorse; although even Braune passes this over in silence.
[123] When Buttmann (p. 172) thinks that the change of tense is entirely occasioned by the need for variation in a sixfold repetition of the verb, it may be observed against this, that then ver. 14a would be nothing but a repetition of ver. 13a.
[124] Neander explains: “As John had said: ‘I write unto you,’ so now he resumes confirmingly what has just been written, and says: ‘I have written unto you,’ as if he would say: It is agreed. This that I am now writing to you, I have now written, it is settled, I have nothing else to say to you, this you must always allow to be said to you.” Erdmann: Pertinet hoc (ἔγραψα) neque ad superiorem epistolam, neque ad quidquam in hac ep. supra dictum, sed ad ea, quae modo verbo γράφω notata sunt. Similarly Paulus, who compares with this the expression: “His majesty deerees and has decreed.”
[125] Lücke, following Rickli, thought that with the first part (ὅτι ἀφέωντα κ.τ.λ.) corresponded the section 1Jn 2:15-17 in what follows, and 1Jn 1:5-7 in what precedes; with the second part (ὅτι ἐγνώκατε κ.τ.λ.), in the former 1Jn 2:18-27, and in the latter 1Jn 1:8 to 1Jn 2:2; and with the third part (ὅτι νενικήκατε κ.τ.λ.), in the former 1Jn 2:28 to 1Jn 3:22, and in the latter 1Jn 2:3-11; but he afterwards gave up this artificial, cruciform construction of the clauses, and explained the γράφω with ἔγραψα as belonging to the rhetoric of the author. See 3d ed. p. 265, note.
[126] It is only if the signification of the section chap. 1Jn 1:5 to 1Jn 2:11 for the essentially hortatory Epistle is ignored that it can be said, with Ebrard and Braune, that with this view the antithesis of γράφω and ἔγραψα becomes a mere repetition or play upon words.
[127] Luther varies curiously in his translation; in ver. 12 he translates ὅτι: “that,” in ver. 13 “for,” and in ver. 14 again “that.” Sander thinks that in vv. 14 and 18 ὅτι is used causatively, but that in ver. 12 both “because” and “that” are contained in ὅτι. Erdmann takes ὅτι in the first three sentences objectively, but he leaves it undecided whether in the last three sentences it is to be taken objectively or causally.
[128] Similarly Sander: “God forgives our sins for the sake of the offering which Christ made; both of these-the person and work of Christ-are His name, for the sake of which we receive forgiveness.” Besser: “for the sake of all that Christ is, from the manger to the throne.” Ewald: “because Christ is and is called Christ.”
[129] Neander: “A knowledge of Christ as the One who is from the beginning, which results from the deeper communion with the personality of Christ. This is something else than the statement of a certain formula about the person of Christ.”
[130] Even Semler admits this, but then observes: Est usitata Judaeorum descriptio, quae gravium peccatorum et flagitiorum magistrum diabolum designat, quam descriptionem non opus est ut Christiani retineant, quum non sint ex Judaeis.
[131] Weiss groundlessly finds in what is said above an incorrect expression, and thinks that not the abiding, but the being, of the Word of God in them is the ground of their strength; for to the Apostle John the being is really this only when it is a firm and abiding existence.
1Jn 2:15. μὴ ἀγαπᾶτε τὸν κόσμον] The meaning of ἀγαπᾶν depends on that of the idea κόσμος.
κόσμος is with John eminently an ethical conception = mankind, fallen away from God, and of hostile disposition towards Him, together with all that it lives for and has made its own; comp. on Jam 1:27; Jam 4:4 (similarly Gerlach, Besser, Düsterdieck, Myrberg, Ebrard, Braune[132]). The explanations that deviate from this are divided into three leading classes-(1) Those in which ΚΌΣΜΟς is regarded as a total number of men indeed, but in a limited way; either = “the heathen world” (Lange), or more indefinitely: “the mass of common men” (Oecumenius: Ὁ ΣΥΡΦΕΤῸς ὌΧΛΟς, Ὃς Οὐ ΤῊΝ ΤΟῦ ΠΑΤΡῸς ἜΧΕΙ ἈΓΆΠΗΝ ἘΝ ἙΑΥΤῷ; Calovius: homines dediti rebus hujus mundi), or “the greater part of men” (Grotius: humanum genus, secundum partem majorem, quae in malis actionibus versatur); Storr limits the idea here “to that part of the world which the antichristians constituted.” (2) Those which understand κόσμος not of the human world itself, but of the evil dwelling in it; so says the Scholiast: ΚΌΣΜΟΝ ΤῊΝ ΚΟΣΜΙΚῊΝ ΦΙΛΗΔΟΝΊΑΝ ΚΑῚ ΔΙΆΧΥΣΙΝ ΛΈΓΕΙ, Ἧς ἘΣΤῚΝ ἌΡΧΩΝ Ὁ ΔΙΆΒΟΛΟς; Luther: “the world, i.e. godlessness itself, through which a man has not the right use of the creatures;” to this class belong also the explanations of Calvin, Morus, S. Schmid, Semler;[133] but in this abstract sense the word never appears elsewhere; and besides, taking this view, difficulties appear in the sequel which can only be overcome by arbitrary interpretations. (3) Those explanations in which κόσμος is regarded as the total of perishable (actual) things; these things being regarded as purely physical, there lies in the idea κόσμος, in and by itself, no ethical meaning, but this appears only through the ἀγαπᾷν which is connected with it; the κόσμος as a creature of God is in itself good and irreproachable, but the love to the κόσμος, through which man centres his affections on it, and makes it the single aim of his activity, is to be blamed, because amid all association with earthly things it is not they, but God, that must be loved; thus there results for the command: μὴ ἀγαπᾶτε τὸν κόσμον, certainly an appropriate idea; but what follows in 1Jn 2:16-17 has induced almost all commentators who accept this view to give, nevertheless, to the idea κόσμος itself, more or less distinctly, an ethical reference; thus Lücke indeed says: “ὁ κόσμος is, as the sum total of the temporal and sensuous, in contrast (!) to the πνεῦμα, always only the objective sphere of evil, i.e. to which it tends as ethical direction and disposition,” but immediately afterwards he explains the same idea “as the sum total of all sensuous appearances, which excite the desire of the senses;” still more definitely de Wette says: “the sum total of that which attracts desire, the temporal, sensuous, earthly-regarded in contrast with God;” but this connection of the ethical reference with the idea of actual things is itself rather unsuitable; not in the things, but in man himself, lies the cause of the seductive charm which things exercise upon him; besides, it is not possible to retain this conception of the word without modification to the end of the 17th verse.[134] It is true some commentators[135] distinctly say that John here makes a sort of play upon the word, but such an assumption does too much violence to the clearness and certainty of the thought for us to approve of it. The right view, therefore, is to take ὁ κόσμος here in the same sense that the word prevailingly has throughout John’s works, so that it signifies the world lying ἘΝ Τῷ ΠΟΝΗΡῷ. This ΚΌΣΜΟς, this is the meaning of the apostle’s warning, is not to be the object of the ἈΓΆΠΗ of believers. From this it follows that ἈΓΑΠᾷΝ here means neither “to love too much,” nor “to love with unhallowed sense,” but love in the strictest sense of the word, consisting in a life of inner fellowship.[136]
μηδὲ τὰ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ] As κόσμος is an ethical idea, natural objects as such cannot be meant by τὰ ἐν τ. κ., but only these in so far as they are taken by the ungodly world into its service; or better, the apparently good things which the world pursues, or with which it delights itself, and which therefore belong to it, as riches, honour, power, human wisdom, and such like. Ebrard erroneously understands thereby “the different kinds of sinful impulse, thought, and action, e.g. avarice, ambition, sensuality, and such like,” for either of these is plainly a love (although a false, unholy love) which cannot itself again be regarded as the object of love.
ἐάν τις ἀγαπᾷ τὸν κόσμον, οὐκ ἔστιν κ.τ.λ.] By this sentence the apostle confirms the previous exhortation, expressing the incongruity of love to the κόσμος with the ἀγάπη τοῦ πατρός; Bede: Unum cor duos tam sibi adversaries amores non capit. By ἀγάπη τοῦ πατρός is to be understood neither the love of God to us (Luther II., Calovius), nor the charitas quam Pater praescribit (Socinus); but, as by far the most of commentators (Bede, Beza, Grotius, Vatablus, Spener, etc., and all the modern commentators, even Ebrard, despite his erroneous interpretation of 1Jn 2:5), interpret, love to God.[137]
If πατρός is the correct reading, then the name Father is here to be explained from the filial relationship of Christians to God, and points to their duty not to love the world, but God.
Between the two sorts of ἀγάπη there is the same exclusive contrast as between the Θεῷ δουλεύειν and μαμωνᾷ δουλεύειν, Mat 6:24. Compare also Jam 4:4 : ἡ φιλία τοῦ κόσμου, ἔχθρα τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐστίν.
[132] It might not be incorrect to suppose that John, when he here and afterwards in his Epistle places the κόσμος in sharp contrast with believers, specially understands the sum-total of those who, as the light has come into the world, love the darkness rather than light (Gospel of Joh 3:13), and therefore not unsaved humanity as such, but those of mankind who resist salvation, while by ὅλος ὁ κόσμος (1Jn 2:2) the whole human race, as needing salvation, is to be understood.
[133] Calvin: Mundi nomine intellige, quiequid ad praesentem vitam spectat, ubi separatur a regno Dei et spe vitae aeternae. Ita in se comprehendit omne genus corruptelae et malorum omnium abyssum. Morus explains κόσμος by: malum morale; S. Selimid by: corruptio peccaminosa; Semler by: vulgata consuetudo hominum, res corporeas unice appetentium. Here may be enumerated also the interpretation of Erdmann: totus complexus et ambitus mali, quatenus hoc non solum toti generi humano, verum etiam propter hominum a Deo defectionem omnibus rebus humanis totique rerum naturae inhaeret.
[134] Thus Lücke finds himself compelled in the case of πᾶν ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ to make an abstraction of the things themselves, and to understand thereby their ethical reference; and here results the certainly unjustifiable thought that this ethical reference of things has its origin in the things themselves (ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου). Still more decidedly, de Wette says that in the words ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου ἐστί, ver. 16, “ὁ κόσμος is not regarded as the sum total of earthly things, but as the sensuous life alienated from God, or as the sum total of worldly men who enjoy this;” somewhat differently Brückner: “that the sum total of earthly evil, of the κόσμος, is here regarded rather of real things, is clear from the subordinate clause μηδὲ τὰ ἐν τῷ κ.; in ver. 16 the personal aspect prevails.” Neander, on ver. 16, equally deviates from the explanation which he had given of ver. 15; in the latter he regards ὁ κόσμος as “the world and earthly things,” but in the former as “the predominating tendency of the soul to the world, the growing worldliness of the soul, which blends itself with the world.”
[135] Thus a Lapide says (after he has assigned to the word three meanings, namely (1) homines mundani, in his proprie est concupiscentia; (2) orbis sublunaris, in hoe mundo proprie et formaliter non est eoncupiscentia; sed in eo est concupiscentia materialis i.e. objectum concupiscibile; (3) ipsa mundana vita vel concupiscentia in genere): omnibus hisce modis mundus hic accipi potest et Johannes nunc ad unum, nunc ad alterum respicit; ludit enim in voce mundus.
[136] Lücke groundlessly thinks the idea of love must necessarily be weakened to that of “mere longing for,” if by κόσμος the human world is understood.
[137] A combination of both interpretations: amor patris erga suos et filialis erga patrem (Bengel), is clearly unjustifiable.
1Jn 2:16. Confirmation of the preceding thought that love to the world is inconsistent with love to God.
ὅτι πᾶν τὸ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ] Bede incorrectly explains the neuter here (as it certainly does appear elsewhere in John) as masculine: omnes mundi dilectores non habent nisi concupiscentiam; most commentators regard the expression as identical with the foregoing τὰ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ; even Düsterdieck, who, in reference to the following ἡ ἐπιθυμία κ.τ.λ., thinks that a “change occurs from the representation of the objects of the love of the world to the subjective desire itself and its actual manifestations.” But even apart from the fact that the assumption of such a change in the form is only a makeshift, the expression of the apostle himself is opposed to this; for had he not meant by πᾶν τὸ ἐν τ. κ. something else than by τὰ ἐν τῷ κ., he would have put the neuter plural here also. Besides, it must not be overlooked why the following: ἡ ἐπιθυμία κ.τ.λ. could not be the apposition stating the sense of πᾶν τ. ἐν τ. κ. (Frommann, p. 269).[138] Accordingly, the apostle means by this expression: all that forms the contents, i.e. the substance of the κόσμος; its inner life, which animates it (Braune); in what this consists, the following words state. ἡ ἐπιθυμία τῆς σαρκὸς κ.τ.λ.] Although the ideas ἐπιθυμία and ἀλαζονεία in themselves denote a subjective disposition of man, yet several commentators think that here not this, but the objective things are meant, to which that subjective disposition is directed (Bengel, Russmeyer, Lange, Ewald), or that the otherwise subjective idea disappears into the objective (de Wette), or at least that both the subjective and the objective are to be thought of together (Lorinus, Brückner). But with the correct conception of the ideas κόσμος and πᾶν τὸ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ there is no apparent reason for such an arbitrary explanation, by which violence is done to the words of the apostle.
ἡ ἐπιθυμία τῆς σαρκός] The genitive is here not the genitive of the object, but, as is the case with ἐπιθυμία[139] always in the N. T. (except 2Pe 2:10; on Eph 4:22 comp. Meyer on this passage), the genitive of the subject, hence not: “the desire directed towards the flesh,” but: “the desire which the flesh, i.e. the corrupted sensual nature of man, cherishes, or which is peculiar to the flesh;” comp. Gal 5:17 : ἡ σὰρξ ἐπιθυμεῖ.
Ebrard interprets, describing the genitive as that “of quality and reference,” for which he wrongly appeals to Eph 4:22, 2Pe 2:10 : “the desire which occurs in the sphere of the flesh;” the apostle scarcely conceived the idea so indefinitely. The idea may be taken in a broader or in a narrower sense; the first view in Lücke (“fleshly, sensuous desire in general, in contrast to ΠΝΕΎΜΑΤΙ ΠΕΡΙΠΑΤΕῖΝ and ἌΓΕΣΘΑΙ; comp. Eph 2:3; 1Pe 2:11”), de Wette, Neander, Düsterdieck; in the second, the desire of sensuality and drunkenness is specially understood; Augustine: desiderium earum rerum, quae pertinent ad carnem, sicut cibus et concubitus et caetera hujusmodi; similarly Grotius, Baumgarten-Crusius, Sander, Besser, etc.; Brückner limits the idea to “the lust of the flesh in the narrower sense;” Gerlach specially to every sort of pursuit of enjoyment;[140] and Ebrard to “sexual enjoyments.”[141] The right explanation can be found only on the consideration of the following expression.
καὶ ἡ ἐπιθυμία τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν] i.e. “the desire that is inherent in the eyes, that is peculiar to them;” the expression is explained in this way, that the desire of seeing something is attributed to the sense of sight itself.[142] This idea also is understood in a broader and in a narrower sense. As Lücke calls the eyes “as it were the principal gates of sensual desire for the external world,” he identifies this idea with the preceding one; de Wette does the same, interpreting it (in objective aspect): “what the eyes see, and by what sensual desire is excited.” The connection by καί, however, which is further followed by a second καί, shows that the two ideas are to be definitely distinguished. Accordingly, most commentators justly regard ἐπιθ. τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν as the description of a special sort of ἐπιθυμία; thus (against de Wette) Brückner in subjective and objective view: “the lust of the eyes, and, at the same time, that in which, as sensuous and earthly, the eyes delight.” Two different interpretations are found with a more exact definition. Very many commentators, as Luther, Socinus, Grotius, Hornejus, Estius, Lorinus, Wolf, Clarius, Paulus, Semler, Baumgarten-Crusius, Gerlach, etc.,[143] hold, though with some modifications, the expression to be substantially synonymous with πλεονεξία, avaritia. On behalf of this interpretation, appeal is made principally to several passages of the O. T., and especially to Ecc 4:8; Ecc 5:10, Pro 23:5; Pro 27:20; but erroneously, for even though the eye of the covetous or avaricious man looks with pleasure on his treasures, and eagerly looks out for new ones, still the possession or acquirement of wealth is to him the chief thing; the striving for it, however, is not expressed by the phrase: ἐπιθυμία τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν. Still less justifiable is the explanation of Ebrard, who partly agrees with those commentators, but regards the idea of “avarice” as too narrow; and, with an appeal to passages such as Psa 17:11; Psa 54:6; Psa 91:8; Psa 92:12 Pro 6:17, etc., maintains that by ἡ ἐπιθ. τ. ὀφθ. is meant “the whole sphere of the desires of selfishness, envy, and avarice, of hatred and revenge (!).” Other commentators, on the contrary, retain the reference to the pleasure of mere sight, but limit this too much to dramatic performances, etc.; thus Augustine: omnis curiositas in spectaculis, in theatris; similarly Neander and others. Such a limitation, however, is arbitrary; accordingly, others refer the expression to other objects of sight, thus Calvin: tam libidinosos conspectus comprehendit, quam vanitatem, quae in pompis et inani splendore vagatur; but it is more correct to take the reference to these things in a quite general way, and, with Spener, to interpret: “all sinful desire by which we seek delight in the seeing itself” (so also Braune); besides, it is to be observed that ἡ ἐπιθυμία τ. ὀφθ. is not the desire for wealth, etc., which is excited by the sight (Rickli and others[144]), but the desire of seeing unseemly things, and the sinful pleasure which the sight of them affords.[145] Thus, this idea is quite exclusive of the ἐπιθυμία τῆς σαρκός; if the latter is taken quite generally, then the lust of the eyes is a particular species of it, which the apostle specially mentions in order to meet the idea that the desire of seeing anything can have nothing sinful in it. But, having regard to the simple juxtaposition of the ideas by καί, it is more correct to suppose that John conceived the ἐπιθ. τῆς σαρκός not in that general sense, but in the particular sense of the “lust for wealth and immoderate enjoyment,” so that the two ideas stand to one another in the relation not of subordination, but of co-ordination, both being subordinate to the general idea of ἐπιθυμία.
καὶ ἡ ἀλαζονεία τοῦ βίου] ἀλαζονεία is usually translated by superbia, ambitio (Socinus: ambitio in honoribus quaerendis ac sectandis), and by similar words, and thereby is understood ambition, together with the pride and haughty contempt for others which are frequently associated with it;[146] thus Cyril interprets (Homil. Pasch. xxvii.): ἀλαζονείαν τ. β. φησὶ τῶν ἀξιωμάτων ὑπεροχὴν καὶ τὸ ἠρμένον ὕψος κατά γε τιμὴν καὶ δόξαν. Thereby, however, its peculiar meaning is not assigned to the word. In the N. T. ἀλαζονεία only appears in Jam 4:16 (in the plural); the adjective ἀλάζων in Rom 1:30 and 2Ti 3:2, in close connection with ὑπερήφανος, from which, however, it does not follow that the idea of ambition, thirst for glory, etc., is contained in it, but only that the ἀλαζ. is related to ὑπερηφανία; in James is meant thereby-according to the context-the haughtiness which overlooks the uncertainty of earthly happiness, and ostentatiously relies on its permanence. In the same sense = ostentatious pride in the possession, whether real or pretended, of earthly good things, such as happiness, power, knowledge, etc., the word appears also in the Apocrypha of the O. T.; comp. Wis 5:8; Wis 17:7; 2Ma 9:8; 2Ma 15:6. In classical Greek ἀλαζονεία has almost always the collateral meaning of the unreality of proud ostentation (Theophr. Charact. 23: προσποίησίς τις ἀγαθῶν οὐκ ὄντων πρὸς δόξαν; Plato, Phaedr.: ἕξις προσποιητικὴ ἀγαθοῦ ἢ ἀγαθῶν τῶν μὴ ὑπαρχόντων; antithesis of εἰρωνεία), which has obtained in Hellenistic usage only in so far that the idea here also always refers to something by its very nature worthless and trifling, and in this way certainly includes a delusion or unreality. This meaning is to be retained here also, as is rightly done by Lücke, Sander, Besser, Braune;[147] for examples in the Scriptures, comp. 1Ch 22:1 ff.; Ecc 2:1 ff.; Eze 28:16-17; Dan 4:27; Rev 17:4; Rev 18:7, etc. The genitive τοῦ βίου serves for the more particular definition of the idea; ΒΊΟς signifies in the N. T. either “temporal life” (1Ti 2:2; 1Pe 4:3, Rec.), or more commonly “the support of life, the means” (chap. 1Jn 3:17; Mar 12:44; Luk 8:43; Luk 15:12; Luk 15:30; Luk 21:4); it never has the meaning “conduct of life” (Ebrard). Following polyb. Hist. vi. 576: ἡ περὶ τοὺς βίους ἀλαζονεία καὶ πολυτέλεια, it is appropriate to take ΒΊΟς here in the second meaning, and the genitive as objective genitive (so Lücke); as, however, ΣΑΡΚΌς and ὈΦΘΑΛΜῶΝ are subjective genitives, it is much more correct to take ΒΊΟΥ also as subjective genitive, and accordingly to interpret: “the ἈΛΑΖΟΝΕΊΑ peculiar to the ΒΊΟς;” in the expression ἩΔΟΝΑῚ ΤΟῦ ΒΊΟΥ, Luk 8:14, ΤΟῦ ΒΊΟΥ may also be the objective genitive, thus: “the pleasures which refer to the ΒΊΟς, the temporal good;” but more probably it is the subjective genitive here also, especially if it be connected with the preceding ideas (see Meyer on this passage), thus: “the pleasures peculiar to the present life.”[148]
[138] According to Ebrard, πᾶν τὸ ἐν τ. κ. is a resumption of τὰ ἐν τ. κ.; as, however, he understands by it various kinds of conduct, etc., that idea is rightly interpreted by him. Myrberg agrees with the interpretation given above.
[139] It is arbitrary for Ebrard to say: ἐπιθυμία is here-as in Joh 8:44; Rom 7:8; Gal 5:16, etc.-“that which one lusts after,” which indeed he again cancels by translating the word by “lust.”
[140] Even Bengel takes the expression (while, however, he understands it of the objective things) in a narrower sense: ea quibus pascuntur sensus, qui appellantur truitivi: gustus et tactus.
[141] This explanation results for Ebrard from the fact that he takes σάρξ here = σῶμα, and then describes the idea “sensual” as identical with “sexual” (!).
[142] Ebrard strangely thinks that in this view the genitive ὀφθαλμῶν is regarded as objective genitive = “the desire for eyes, i.e. for enjoyment of the eyes.”
[143] Sander also explains it of avarice, but would not exclude the curiositas in spectaculis, etc., regarding this, however, as merely collateral.
[144] Rickli interprets: “the low, sensual style of thought, in so far as this is excited and fostered by the sight.” Düsterdieck understands by it specially covetousness and avarice; but at the same time observes that every sort of desire may be excited by the eye.
[145] Bengel extends the idea beyond the limit which lies in the expression itself, when he explains: ea, quibus tenentur sensus investigativi: oculus, sive visus, auditus et olfactus.
[146] Calvin: fastus aut superbia, cui conjuncta est ambitio, jactautia, aliorum contemptus, coecus amor sui, praeceps confidentia.
[147] With this view Neander, Gerlach, and Düsterdieck substantially agree also; yet their paraphrases do not keep precisely enough within the definite limits of the extent of the idea, as they include ostentation, ambition, etc.; a definite distinction between this idea and ἐπιθυμία is requisite.-Augustine not inaccurately describes the ἀλάζων thus: jactare se vult in honoribus, magnus sibi videtur, sive de divitiis, sive de aliqua potentia. Ebrard wrongly denies that according to Hellenistic usage the element of pride is contained in the idea ἀλαζονεία; neither in classical nor in Hellenistic usage has the word the meaning “luxury,” which he maintains for it.
[148] The commentators for the most part express themselves somewhat vaguely; de Wette explains: “the enjoyment, combined with pride of (earthly) life (not: of the good things of life);” Braune says that the genitive is to be taken as subjective genitive, and then interprets: “the genitive τ. βίου signifies the side on which ostentatious pride usually appears;” Ewald translates: “swindling in money,” which is not only indefinite, but even unjustifiable.
REMARK.
It has almost become traditional to find the modes of appearance of the evil fully stated in this threefold form, corresponding to the triplicity which appears in the Greek writers, as in Pythag. Clinias: φιληδονία μὲν ἐν ταῖς ἀπολαύσεσι ταῖς διὰ σώματος, πλεονεξία δὲ ἐν τῷ κερδαίνειν, φιλοδοξία δὲ ἐν τῷ καθυπερέχειν τῶν ἴσων τε καὶ ὁμοίων; for other expressions, see Wetstein.[149] This threefold form, it has been thought, is found both in the fall and again in the temptation of Christ; thus Bede, following Augustine, says: Per haec tria tantum cupiditas humana tentatur; per haec tria Adam tentatus est et victus; per haec tentatus est Christus et vicit; while a Lapide finds expressed in it even the contrast with the three Persons in the divine Trinity.[150]
Bengel opposes this view, and makes such a distinction between the ἐπιθ. τὴς σαρκός and the ἐπιθ. τ. ὀφθ., that he refers the former to the sensus fruitivi, the latter to the sensus investigativi, but says of the ἀλαζονεία τ. β.: arrogantia vitae est, quae cupiditatem foras educit et longius in mundum diffundit, ut homo velit quam plurimus esse in victu, cultu, etc.; and then observes: non concidunt cum his tribus tria vitia cardinalia: voluptas, avaritia, superbia; sed tarnen in his continentur. By the last clause Bengel shows, however, “that there is a trace of that scheme to be found even in him” (Düsterdieck).
Lücke has more decidedly expressed himself against it, inasmuch as he finds in that threefold form only “the three chief points of worldly lust” (according to the first edition, only “as examples”); and, moreover, the points “in which it proceeds from the sensual desire to the climax of the ἀλαζονεία.” But Lücke’s own interpretation of the particular ideas is opposed to such a progress, as he makes the first two ideas to coincide in regard to their substance, and thus no progress takes place from the one ἐπιθυμία to the other, nor is it, besides, in any way hinted at by the apostle.
Lücke rightly contends that particular leading vices are the subject here; not individual vices, but the leading forms (Lücke[151]); or, as Brückner says, the leading tendencies of worldly sense are stated by the apostle in that threefold form. But in what relation do these stand to one another? According to Düsterdieck, the ἐπιθυμία τῆς σαρκός forms the superior idea, to which the two other ideas, as mutually co-ordinate, are in subordination: “The first-mentioned lust of the flesh, the most comprehensive and thorough description of the love of the world (1Jn 2:15), embraces both the lust of the eyes and the pride of life.” This is incorrect. For, on the one hand, the ἈΓΆΠΗ to the ΚΌΣΜΟς is not to be identified with the ἘΠΙΘΥΜΊΑ Τῆς ΣΑΡΚΌς, as the latter rather describes the inner nature of the ΚΌΣΜΟς; the apostle warns against that love, because in the ΚΌΣΜΟς the ἘΠΙΘΥΜΊΑ which is not of God dominates; the thought that is to be supplied is this, that love to the ΚΌΣΜΟς necessarily implies an entrance into its nature; and, on the other hand, the apostle’s form of expression is utterly opposed to such a subordination; the two first-mentioned forms of worldly sense are by the same appellation: ἘΠΙΘΥΜΊΑ, closely connected with each other, and distinguished from the third, which is not called ἘΠΙΘΥΜΊΑ, but ἈΛΑΖΟΝΕΊΑ;[152] it is unsuitable, however, to regard the latter as ἘΠΙΘΥΜΊΑ; ἘΠΙΘΥΜΊΑ is the desire directed to the attainment of any good-the lust for something (not exactly: the lust or delight in anything), but the ἀλαζονεία is a definite behaviour in regard to the good which one possesses. The worldly man stands in a double relationship to the perishable good things; on the one hand, he aspires after them, whether he wants to possess and enjoy them or to delight himself with looking at them; on the other hand, he fancies himself great in them when he has them as his own.
That the whole sphere of sinful life is not here surveyed, Luther has noticed when he says: “The following three things are not of the Father, viz.: (1) hatred of the brethren; (2) the three idols of the world; (3) false and seductive teaching.”
Sander also brings out the same trichotomy of sinful corruption, appealing for it to chap. 1Jn 2:2-12, where the subject is the first, to 1Jn 2:15-17, where it is the second, and to 1Jn 2:19 ff., where it is the third. The apostle certainly mentions these different modes of the appearance of sin; but that the organism of the Epistle rests on this, is an assertion that goes too far.
[149] Ebrard justly denies that a division of sin as such is to be sought for here; but his own view, that in that threefold form there is given a distribution of worldly conduct in its entire extent, and in this way, that first the relation of man to his own bodily and sensual nature is expressed, then the egotistical opposition to his fellow-men, and finally, his relation to them and complication with them, is, as resting on a false interpretation of the particular ideas, just as little to be justified.
[150] The counterpart of these three forms of the sinful life is, according to a Lapide, the three primariae virtutes: continentia, charitas, humilitas, which coincide very exactly with the three monastic vows of chastity, poverty, and obedience.
[151] When Lücke calls those three not merely the leading forms, but also the principles and sources of the worldly sense, this is not correct, for the worldly sense does not spring from the ἐπιθυμία κ.τ.λ., but the latter is the living motion of the former.
[152] Frommann (p. 270 ff.) justly remarks that the two leading forms are the ἐπιθυμία and the ἀλαζονεία; that the ἐπιθυμία signifies the desire, and the ἀλαζονεία the action, which in the attainment of the object desired has already found its satisfaction.
The following words: οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς κ.τ.λ.] express the anti-divine character of the worldly nature of the ἐπιθυμία κ.τ.λ.
πατήρ, as in 1Jn 2:15; κόσμος here quite in the same sense as before.
εἶναι ἐκ is, according to Paulus, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, not the description of the origin, but only of the connection and similarity; by this view, however, the depth of John’s conception is ignored; the expression rather embraces both, but the second only as the result of the first (so also Ebrard); comp. Joh 8:44.
By the addition of ἀλλʼ ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου ἐστί the antagonism between God and the world, as the source of the ungodly disposition, is brought out with peculiar distinctness.
1Jn 2:17 adds a new element to the preceding, whereby the exhortation of 1Jn 2:15 is strengthened and confirmed.
καὶ ὁ κόσμος παράγεται] is frequently taken by commentators, with an appeal to 1Co 7:31, as an expression of the transitoriness of the world; either the present being changed into the future (Bede: mundus transibit, quum in die judicii per ignem in meliorem mutabitur figuram, ut sit coelum novum et terra nova), or the peculiar nature of the world being regarded as described in it (Oecumenius: τὰ κοσμικὰ ἐπιθυμήματα οὐκ ἔχει τὸ μένον τε καὶ ἑστώς, ἀλλὰ παράγεται); Düsterdieck combines both; the apostle, according to him, expresses a truth “which holds good with ever present meaning, and which will thereby show itself some time in fact” (so also Ebrard and Braune). But 1Jn 2:8 and the following ἐσχάτη ὥρα ἐστίν make it more than probable that the apostle here also uses παράγεται in the consciousness of the approaching second advent of Christ and the judgment on the κόσμος which is connected with it, thus: “the world is in the state of disappearing;” in 1Co 7:31 : παράγει τὸ σχῆμα τοῦ κόσμου τούτου is said with the same feeling.
καὶ ἡ ἐπιθυμία αὐτοῦ] With the world passes away also the ἐπιθυμία which dwells in it; whereby the apostle briefly refers to the threefold form previously named: αὐτοῦ is not genitive of the object (Lücke, Neander, Sander, Besser), but of the subject (Düsterdieck, Braune); though there is mention previously of an ἀγαπᾷν τὸν κόσμον, yet there is none of an ἐπιθυμία directed towards the κόσμος; the contrary view rests on an erroneous interpretation of κόσμος.
ὁ δὲ ποιῶν τὸ θέλημα τοῦ Θεοῦ] antithesis to ὁ κόσμος, which in its ἐπιθυμία does not do the will of God. It is true, “ὁ πατήρ” is previously put as antithesis to the κόσμος, but it does not follow from this that the antithesis here is not to be taken as fully corresponding, and “ἐπιθυμῶν” to be taken out of ἐπιθυμία (Lücke); the appearance of this arises only from the fact that κόσμος is taken as something concrete. The expression used by the apostle is synonymous with ὁ ἀγαπῶν τὸν Θεόν; for the doing of the divine will is the effect of love to Him.
μένει εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα] antithesis of παράγεται; the expression signifies, as frequently, eternal, infinite endurance, comp. Joh 6:51; Joh 6:58; Joh 8:35, etc. That John regarded this abiding for ever as the eternally happy life in the fellowship of God is certain, but is not contained in the expression.[153] To the ΚΌΣΜΟς is assigned ΘΆΝΑΤΟς, to the children of God ΖΩῊ ΑἸΏΝΙΟς.
[153] Ebrard arbitrarily explains that by αἰών is to be understood “the Aeon which will begin with the visible establishment in glory of Christ’s kingdom on earth,” and that ὁ ποιῶν … εἰς τ. αἰῶνα therefore means: “he who does the will of God shall remain till the establishment of the kingdom of Christ-he will be permitted to see the victory of Christ’s kingdom.”
1Jn 2:18. The appearance of the ἀντίχριστοι shows that the last hour has come.
παιδία] not an address to the children (see on 1Jn 2:12-14), but to all readers.[154]
ἐσχάτη ὥρα ἐστί] ἐσχάτη ὥρα may be the whole Christian era from the incarnation of Christ to His second advent. In the O. T. prophecy the appearance of the Messiah was promised בְּאַחֲרִית הַיָמִים (Isa 2:2; Hos 3:5; Mic 4:1, LXX.: ἘΝ ΤΑῖς ἘΣΧΆΤΑΙς ἩΜΈΡΑΙς; comp. also Act 2:16). Hence arose among the Jews the distinction of the two eras: עוֹלָם הַוֶּה (ΑἸῺΝ ΟὟΤΟς) and עוֹלָם הַבָּא (ΑἸῺΝ ΜΈΛΛΩΝ), the former the time up to the appearance of the Messiah, the latter embracing the Messianic time itself.
In the N. T. are found, partly the former idea that Christ has appeared in the last time (Heb 1:1; 1Pe 1:20), partly also the distinction of these two periods, but in this way, that the αἰὼν οὗτος does not close with the first appearance of Christ, but only with his Parousia, which coincides with the ΣΥΝΤΈΛΕΙΑ ΤΟῦ ΑἸῶΝΟς; comp. Mar 10:30; Luk 20:34-35; Eph 1:21.
Inasmuch as the period which begins with the birth of Christ is now the last preceding the ΣΥΝΤΈΛΕΙΑ, it may be described by the expression ἘΣΧΆΤΗ ὭΡΑ, as Calvin says: ultimum tempus, in quo sic complentur omnia, ut nihil supersit praeter ultimam Christi revelationem. This view is the customary one with the older commentators; Semler agrees with it, but the context is opposed to it; on the one hand, it results from 1Jn 2:8; 1Jn 2:17 that the apostle is writing with a presentiment of the Parousia of Christ; and, on the other hand, the conclusion of this verse: ὍΘΕΝ Κ.Τ.Λ., shows that the apostle cannot here mean the whole period extending from the first appearance of Christ to His second coming, but only a distinct time in it, namely, the time immediately preceding its termination; in favour of this also is the usus loquendi of the N. T.; comp. 2Ti 3:1; Jam 5:3; 1Pe 1:5; 2Pe 3:3; along with which it is to be observed that, especially in the Gospel of John, the day of judgment is called ἡ ἡμέρα ἐσχάτη. Lücke, Neander, Baumgarten-Crusius, Gerlach, Erdmann, Myrberg, Ebrard, etc., have therefore rightly interpreted the expression as a description of this time. The hesitation to admit that the apostle was mistaken in his expectation of the nearness of the advent, has given rise to many a false interpretation. Socinus and Grotius think that ἐσχάτη ὥρα is the time immediately preceding the destruction of Jerusalem; this view approximates to that of Düsterdieck, according to which the last time before the commencement of the ΚΡΊΣΙς is meant, which had its beginning at the destruction of Jerusalem. But the scruple is not overcome by this, for chap. 1Jn 2:28 shows that John regarded the ΠΑΡΟΥΣΊΑ of the Lord as near, and not as distant, just as the other apostles, and especially also Paul, according to 1Th 4:15, in view of which even Düsterdieck finds himself compelled to admit this; Besser urges the want of the article, and translates: “a last time,” i.e. the time before a special revelation of the judicial glory of Christ, in which the last hour before the universal final judgment is prefigured; but it is well known that the article is often wanting just with ideas which are definite in themselves; to which it may be added that the idea of such a succession of different epochs, which are to be regarded as special revelations of the judicial power of Christ, is nowhere found expressed in the N. T.[155] Oecumenius regarded it as likely that ἐσχάτη here is used = ΧΕΙΡΊΣΤΗ; this explanation is found in Schoettgen (tempora periculosa, pessima et abjectissima), Carpzov, and others (similarly Paulus: it is a late, i.e. dark, and ever growing worse, time); whereas the distinction between these ideas is perfectly clear from 2Ti 3:1 : ἐν ἐσχάταις ἡμέραις ἐνστήσονται καιροὶ χαλεποί[156].The result of an impartial exegesis therefore remains, that-as the other apostles
John also expected that the advent of the Lord would soon take place.[157] It was only when the first generation of believers was already dead, without that expectation having been fulfilled, that in the consciousness of Christians the period till the coming of the Lord extended to an indefinitely distant limit, without, however, extinguishing the hope of His speedy advent; comp. 2Pe 3:4 ff.; but that later still the time which began with the appearance of false teachers was regarded as the last, is proved by Ignatius, ep. ad Eph. c. xi.
καὶ καθὼς ἠκούσατε κ.τ.λ.] With the observation that it is the last time the apostle connects the other, that in accordance with what his readers have heard, that the ἀντίχριστος would come, many ἀντίχριστοι have already come. Bengel supplies before καθώς: “et ita est,” and after καί: “adeo” (et ita est, sicut audistis, nempe antichristum venire: atque adeo jam multi, etc.); these supplements are, however, unnecessary, for the καί before νῦν is not the simple copula, but serves to mark the appearance of the ἀντίχριστοι as a fact corresponding to the καθὼς ἠκούσατε κ.τ.λ.: “as ye have heard, etc., so, accordingly, many ἀντίχριστοι are even now actually appearing.”[158] καθὼς ἠκούσατε, namely, by the apostolic declaration, which had been communicated to his readers (comp. 1Jn 2:7; 1Jn 2:24) either by John, or even earlier, by Paul especially, according to Semler by Jewish teachers, who were spreading false rumours of the end of the world (!). ὅτι (ὁ) ἀντίχριστος ἔρχεται καὶ κ.τ.λ.] The present ἔρχεται is put for the future; it marks what is still future as a certainly occurring event; Ebrard incorrectly translates ἔρχεται by “is to come;” even in the passages cited by him: chap. 1Jn 4:3; Mat 11:3; Gospel of Joh 16:13; Rev 1:8 (why not 1Jn 1:4?), ἔρχεσθαι does not express simply the idea of the future; besides, Ebrard interprets correctly: “will one day appear.”
The prophecy that before Christ comes (hence before His Parousia) Antichrist will come, accordingly formed a part of the apostolic preaching, although it is not contained in the last discourses of Christ that have been handed down to us, for the ψευδοπροφῆται and the ψευδόχριστοι, whose appearance Christ foretells, are not to be identified with the ἀντίχριστος.
According to the view which has prevailed from antiquity, the ἀντίχριστος and the πολλοὶ ἀντίχριστοι are to be distinguished in this way, that the latter are only the πρόδρομοι of the former, in which for the first time the antichristian spirit which already animates them will be revealed in his full perfection and energy; Bengel, deviating from this, takes the expression ἀντίχριστος as a collective idea: ubi Joh. antichristum, vel spiritum antichristi, vel deceptorem et antichristum dicit, sub singulari numero, omnes mendaces et veritatis inimicos innuit. Antichristus pro antichristianismo, sive doctrina, et multitudine hominum Christo contraria dicitur; with this interpretation Lange, Baumgarten-Crusius, Besser, and Myrberg agree. But neither here nor in 1Jn 4:1 ff. does John say that Antichrist has already come; here he merely indicates the fact that πολλοὶ ἀντίχριστοι γεγόνασιν as corresponding to the announcement of the coming of Antichrist, and in the other passage it is merely stated that many ψευδοπροφῆται are gone out into the world, and that the πνεῦμα of Antichrist is already in the world. In the passage 2Jn 1:7, “it is true that the explanatory clause οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ πλάνος καὶ ὁ ἀντίχριστος refers so directly to the preceding πολλοὶ πλάνοι,” that it appears that “the identity is thereby indicated” (1st ed.); but this direct connection may, no doubt, be explained in this way, that he who speaks through the many is, according to John, no other than the one Antichrist; and even though John “neither describes the ἀντίχριστοι as the πρόδρομοι, nor the ἀντίχριστος as the one in whom the principle that animates them is concentrated in highest potency,” it is to be remembered that John is speaking of the Antichrist here, not in doctrinal aspect, but only in order to show by the heretics, whom he calls ἀντίχριστοι, that the πνεῦμα of Antichrist is already ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ.[159] The name ἀντίχριστος is not found in the Scriptures outside of the First and Second Epistles of John; only in the later ecclesiastical literature does it appear frequently.
That the prefixed ἀντι does not express the substitutionary reference (as in ἀντιβασιλεύς), but the reference of antagonism, is with justice now commonly recognised; but the prevailing translation: “enemy of Christ,” is grammatically inaccurate, as in substantive compounds formed with ἀντι (in the antagonistic sense) the substantive is an object which by ἀντι is described as standing in opposition to an object of the same kind. Thus, an ἀντιφιλόσοφος is not an “opponent of philosophy” (Ebrard), or of philosophers, but a philosopher who is opposed to other philosophers, a hostile philosopher; comp. ἀντιμαχητής, ἀντιπαλαιστής, ἀντίπολις, ἀντίῤῥησις, ἀντίῤῥοια κ.τ.λ.[160] Accordingly, ὁ ἀντίχριστος does not mean generally: the enemy of Christ, but the “opposition Christ,” i.e. that enemy of Christ who, under the false pretence of being the real Christ, seeks to destroy the work of Christ.[161] Almost all commentators have correctly supposed that John understands by this enemy the same as Paul speaks of in 2Th 2:3; the features which appear in the description of the Apostle Paul and in the statements of John correspond too closely to permit of this being doubted; according to both, his appearance in the Church is preceded by a falling away (John says in 1Jn 2:19 of the antichrists: ἘΞ ἩΜῶΝ ἘΞῆΛΘΟΝ; Paul in 1Jn 2:3 speaks of an ἈΠΟΣΤΑΣΊΑ connected with his ἈΠΟΚΆΛΥΨΙς); both ascribe to him a God-opposing, wicked nature (Paul calls him Ὁ ἌΝΘΡΩΠΟς Τῆς ἉΜΑΡΤΊΑς, Ὁ ἌΝΟΜΟς; John puts the ΠΝΕῦΜΑ ΤΟῦ ἈΝΤΙΧΡΊΣΤΟΥ in antithesis to the ΠΝΕῦΜΑ ΤΟῦ ΘΕΟῦ, and says of the antichrists who are animated by the former, that they are ἘΚ ΤΟῦ ΚΌΣΜΟΥ); both characterize him as a liar, who seeks to establish the lie against the truth; according to both, he appears in the last time before the Parousia of Christ; even the names correspond with each other, for even though the name ἈΝΤΊΧΡΙΣΤΟς contains an important feature which is not expressed in the name Ὁ ἈΝΤΙΚΕΊΜΕΝΟς, yet this very feature comes out so distinctly in the Pauline description, that it is clear how suitable John’s appellation of that enemy is; when, namely, Paul describes him as the ἌΝΘΡΩΠΟς Τῆς ἉΜΑΡΤΊΑς, and afterwards says of him that he ἈΠΟΔΕΊΚΝΥΣΙ ἙΑΥΤΌΝ, ὍΤΙ ἘΣΤῚ ΘΕΌς, this points to the fact that he will represent himself as the incarnate God,-and this is just what is indicated in the name ἀντίχριστος.
[154] For the contrary, Ebrard appeals to the peculiarly childlike character of this section; but plainly this bears no other character than the whole Epistle, of which Ebrard himself says that it could only be understood by adults.
[155] Braune, who speaks of Calvin’s view and that of Besser as “worthy of notice,” expresses himself somewhat vaguely when he says: “The expression ἐσχάτη ὥρα is to be taken prophetically, eschatologically, and has a value connected with the history of the kingdom, even a historical reference to the Parousia of Christ, as the beginning of the second era of the world, but no chronological reference to the date of the commencement of this Paronsia.” Clearly a quite arbitrary assertion.
[156] Peculiar, but artificial, is Bengel’s interpretation, which, moreover, rests on the false opinion that the children are here specially addressed: ultima, non respectu omnium mundi temporum sed in antitheto puerulorum ad patres et ad juvenes. Tres omnino horae erant, quarum una post aliam et inchoavit, et conjunetim continuato cursu ad finem se inclinavit. Patrum itemque juvenum hora statim absoluta fuit. Hinc puerulis Johannes dicit: ultima hora est. Hac ultima hora nos etiamnum vivimus omnes.
[157] In opposition to the “prejudice” that the apostles regarded the advent as so near, Sander thinks that they could not possibly have imagined that “all the great changes, transformations, and developments,” to which 2Th 3:3, Rom 11:25-26, Luk 21:24-26 allude, could be accomplished within a generation. But could not important events take place within a comparatively short period? As it was not the business of the apostles to foresee the course of history, it cannot be any reproach on them if they cherished the hope that the longed-for coming of the Lord would soon occur, especially as they formed out of this hope no peculiar doctrine, and did not venture to determine the time and the hour. The certainly extravagant assertion of Ebrard, that it would have been contrary to the order of God’s economy of revelation if John, at the time when he wrote his Epistle, had not expected the second advent of Christ in the near future, rests entirely on Ebrard’s views of the Apocalypse, from the visions of which, according to him, it could only be clear to the apostle for the first time that the ἔρχομαι of the Gospel of Joh 21:22 is to be understood of the coming of the Lord in a vision.
[158] Düsterdieck: “With the expectation ἕτι ὁ ἀντιχρ. ἔρχ., founded on the apostolic teaching, corresponds the fact already begun: ἀντιχρ. πολλοὶ γεγόνασιν.”
[159] Weiss justly maintains, against Frommann and Reuss, according to whom John has spiritualized or confused the dogma of Antichrist, that he in no way denies the reality of the Antichrist, although Weiss thinks that John regards the prophecy of the Antichrist as fulfilled in this, that the spirit of Antichrist has come into the world, and in the false teachers is denying the fundamentals of Christian truth.
[160] From this it is clear that the rule laid down by Lücke, that “the word compounded with ἀντι is the object of the opposition,” can by no means hold good for all compounds with ἀντι, inasmuch as the examples adduced by Lücke: ἀντίῤῥιον ἄκρον, ἀντιβόρειος, ἁντήλιος, ἀντίθυρος, are not substantives; and, in the second place, ἀντι does not express in them the idea of hostile antagonism.
[161] While Brückner agrees with the explanation given here, it is opposed by Braune; but he does not pay attention to the grammatical vindication. Besides, it is to be observed that the more particular definition of “false pretence” does not lie in the word itself, but certainly in the fact, since there is only one Christ; it is different in the case of the word ἀντιφιλόσοφος.
REMARK.
On the various views of the Antichrist, see Lünemann on 2Th 2:1-12, p. 204 ff., and Düsterdieck on this passage.
The Greek Fathers regard the Antichrist usually as a man who, as an instrument of the devil, imitates the true Christ, comp. Hippolyt. de consummat. mundi, c. vi. 14, c. xlviii.; Cyril, Catech. xv.; yet there is also found the incorrect view that he is the incarnate devil himself (comp. Theodoret, Epit. div. decret. c. xxiii., and Comment, in Dan. ii.; Hippolyt. c. xxii.).
Like the Parousia of Christ, so the appearance of Antichrist also belongs still to the future; of antichrists, as they had appeared in the time of John, there has never since been any lack; but the Antichrist has not yet come, and it was equally arbitrary for Grotius to regard Barkochba, or others Mohammed, or Luther the Pope, or Catholics Luther, and so on, as Antichrist.
Not merely rationalistic writers, but also Lücke, de Wette, Neander, and others, distinguish form and idea in John’s representation of the future appearance of the Antichrist. As the fundamental idea, they regard the thought that, equally with the development of Christianity, the evil will gradually increase more and more in its contest against Christ, until at last, when it has attained its highest summit, it will be completely conquered by the power of Christ. As the Form they regard the representation that this highest energy of the evil will finally appear in one single person. For such a distinction it is difficult, however, to show any justification, as Scripture itself gives no suggestion of it; it is therefore rightly rejected by Düsterdieck, Braune, Brückner.
In the words: καὶ νῦν ἀντίχριστοι πολλοὶ γεγόνασιν, the apostle mentions the fact in which the expectation: ὅτι ὁ ἀντίχριστος ἔρχεται, is beginning to be realized. The ἀντίχριστοι are the heretics who accept the lie described in 1Jn 2:22; but they bear that name because the πνεῦμα τοῦ ἀντιχρίστου animates them, and thus the Antichrist himself is already revealing himself in them, γεγόνασιν is not = coeperunt esse (Erasmus), but: “they have become,” i.e. they are already in existence. By means of the subordinate clause ὅθεν γινώσκομεν κ.τ.λ., the connection between the two first parts of the verse is to be recognised.
1Jn 2:19. Relation of the ἀντίχριστοι to the Christian Church.
ἐξ ἡμῶν ἐξῆλθαν, ἀλλʼ οὐκ ἧσαν ἐξ ἡμῶν] On the form of the second aorist with α, see Winer, p. 68 (VII. p. 71).
By ἡμῶν we are not to understand the Jews (Grotius, Eichhorn, Rickli), nor the apostles (S. Schmid, Spener, Besser, and others), but Christians in general, as the Church of Christ.[162] ἘΞῆΛΘΑΝ is taken by several commentators = prodierunt (Vulgate, Baumgarten-Crusius, Erdmann, and others), finding the idea of origin expressed in it; this is incorrect; the following ΜΕΜΕΝΉΚΕΙΣΑΝ shows that it is rather to be taken in the sense of secessio (so Augustin, Bede, Erasmus; and among the moderns, Lücke, Düsterdieck, Ebrard, Braune, and others). By the emphatic position of ἘΞ ἩΜῶΝ it is brought out that the antichrists were previously ΜΕΘʼ ἩΜῶΝ, and belonged therefore to the Christian Church. How far this separation had been formally accomplished, John does not say; but it is contained in ἘΞῆΛΘΑΝ that they had taken up an antagonistic position, not merely to the apostolic doctrine (Beza: ad mutationem non loci sed doctrinae pertinet), but to those who by their faithful observance of the unadulterated gospel proved themselves to be the children of God (as also Braune).
ἈΛΛʼ ΟὐΚ ἮΣΑΝ ἘΞ ἩΜῶΝ] ἈΛΛʼ expresses the contrast to the preceding thought: although they went out from us (and therefore were connected with us), yet they were not of us. ΕἾΝΑΙ ἘΚ expresses connection in the most complete reality, thus: they were not of us, viz. in such a way that they would have really belonged to us, as common members of one body, in which one soul lives; in contrast to which the εἶναι μετά contained in the following ΜΕΜΕΝΉΚΕΙΣΑΝ ἊΝ ΜΕΘʼ ἩΜῶΝ expresses the outward fellowship as distinguished from the former idea. Even here ἐκ does not depart from its original meaning (see on 1Jn 2:16), for he only truly belongs to the Church of the Lord who in regard to his inner life has proceeded from it, i.e. from the Spirit ruling in it.[163] The imperfect ἮΣΑΝ embraces the whole previous period during which the antichristians were connected with the believers, and does not merely refer to the time immediately preceding their separation (Episcopius, Socinus).
That they were not ἘΞ ἩΜῶΝ, John proves by the words: ΕἸ ΓᾺΡ ἮΣΑΝ ἘΞ ἩΜῶΝ, ΜΕΜΕΝΉΚΕΙΣΑΝ ἊΝ ΜΕΘʼ ἩΜῶΝ. The ἈΝΤΊΧΡΙΣΤΟΙ belonged therefore to the Christians for a while; they were ΜΕΤʼ ΑὐΤῶΝ, although not ἘΞ ΑὐΤῶΝ, for in this case they would also have remained ΜΕΤʼ ΑὐΤῶΝ. Here, too, John proceeds on the idea that the ΜΈΝΕΙΝ is the evidence of the ΕἾΝΑΙ. On the pluperfect without the augment, see Winer, p. 67 (VII. p. 70).
ἈΛΛʼ ἽΝΑ ΦΑΝΕΡΩΘῶΣΙΝ Κ.Τ.Λ.] ἈΛΛΆ refers back to ἘΞῆΛΘΑΝ, or to the thought: Οὐ ΜΕΜΕΝΉΚΑΣΙ ΜΕΘʼ ἩΜῶΝ: “but they have not remained with us.” Less simply Düsterdieck interprets: “they have not remained with us, but (ἀλλά) they have been separated from us, in order that.” Such a double supplement is not necessary, for ἈΛΛΆ is not necessarily the antithesis of a negation.
By ἽΝΑ Κ.Τ.Λ. it is not the result (Paulus), but the purpose that is stated,-the purpose, namely, of their separation or not remaining, which was willed by God; the purpose is that it might be manifest that they are not ἘΞ ἩΜῶΝ. The connection of ΦΑΝΕΡΩΘῶΣΙΝ with the following ὍΤΙ ΟὐΚ ΕἸΣῚ ΠΆΝΤΕς ἘΞ ἩΜῶΝ is not quite regular; Socinus construes Οὐ and ΠΆΝΤΕς together: non omnes = nulli i.e. nemo ex illis est ex nostro numero; this is incorrect, Οὐ ΠΆΝΤΕς is not = nulli, but = nonnulli; de Wette rightly supposes the conjunction of two thoughts, viz. (1) ἽΝΑ ΦΑΝΕΡΩΘῇ, ὍΤΙ ΟὐΚ ΕἸΣῚ ΠΆΝΤΕς ἘΞ ἩΜῶΝ; and (2) ἽΝΑ ΦΑΝΕΡΩΘῶΣΙΝ, ὍΤΙ ΟὐΚ ΕἸΣῚΝ ἘΞ ἩΜῶΝ, only de Wette should have put the second thought first, for John’s immediate intention was, as the plural ΦΑΝΕΡΩΘῶΣΙΝ shows, to speak only of the ἈΝΤΊΧΡΙΣΤΟΙ, but then he extends his idea so as to introduce the new subject ΠΆΝΤΕς; the sense is: it was to be made manifest in the ἈΝΤΊΧΡΙΣΤΟΙ that they were not-and therefore that all who were ΜΕΘʼ ἩΜῶΝ were not
ἘΞ ἩΜῶΝ (so also Braune[164]).
For the work of the Christian Church it is necessary that it shall be manifest who really belongs to it and who does not; this ΚΡΊΣΙς is the purpose for the sake of which God has so arranged it that those ἈΝΤΊΧΡΙΣΤΟΙ should go out; comp. with the idea in 1Co 11:19.
[162] Ebrard finds himself compelled by his interpretation of παιδία not to include in ἡμεῖς those addressed, but to say: “the apostle puts himself and the Church in contrast to the little ones whom he addresses.”
[163] Düsterdieck: “That those antichrists left the fellowship of the believers, follows from μεμενήκ. ἂν μεθʼ ἡμῶν; but the original, inner, ethical relationship of those men who went out from the bosom of Christian fellowship and fell away from it, is indicated by the different meaning in which the same phrase ἐξ ἡμῶν appears, on the one hand, with ἐξῆλθαν, with which μεμενήκ. κ.τ.λ. is to be combined; and, on the other hand, in the expressions οὐκ ἦσαν ἐξ ἡμῶν and εἰ γὰρ ἦσαν ἐξ ἡμ.”
[164] Myrberg interprets: sed (egressi sunt) ut manifesti redderentur; nam non omnes sunt de nobis; but incorrectly, for (1) φανερωθῶσιν requires a more particular definition; and (2) the idea: non omnes sunt de nobis, cannot serve to establish the idea φανερωθῶσιν. According to Hilgenfeld, πάντες is to be referred only to the antichrists: “that they all were not of us;” but this is refuted by the position of πάντες.
REMARK.
In the words: εἰ ἦσαν ἐξ ἠμῶν, μεμενήκεισαν ἂν μεθʼ ἡμῶν, this thought is contained: He who really belongs to the Church never leaves it; he who leaves it shows thereby that he did not really belong to it. This confidence of the apostle in the preserving love of the Lord, and in the faithfulness of those whom He has saved, seems to be opposed to the idea brought out in Heb 6:4 ff., that even those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, etc., may fall away. But, as constantly in his Epistle, so here also John speaks absolutely, without taking into view the state of gradual development, from which, however, it does not follow that he does not recognise it. The one circumstance that he exhorts believers as such to abide in Christ, shows that he would not deny the possibility of their falling away; only it is-justly-certain to him that he who does not abide had not yet with his whole heart entered into the fellowship of the Lord, but, even though touched by His love, and exhibiting the trace of love towards Him, had nevertheless not broken completely with the world. Ebrard thinks that the apostle means only, that temptation by this particular lie (namely, by Gnosticism) is only possible with those who in their inner being were previously strangers to Christianity; but even though John here speaks of particular Antichrists, yet the general thought is at the basis of the words εἰ ἦσαν uttered in reference to them; otherwise the apostle would have definitely pointed out the difference of these apostates from others to whom the word has no reference.
Augustin, Calvin, Beza, etc., find in the words a confirmation of their doctrine of predestination, but only by inserting in them ideas which are foreign to them, since the subject here is neither a donum perseverantiae nor a distinction of the vocati and electi.
1Jn 2:20-21. Testimony that the believers, to whom the apostle writes, know the truth.
καὶ ὑμεῖς χρῖσμα ἔχετε] The apostle writes this neither as a captatio benevolentiae (Lange), nor as a justification of the brevity of his writing on the foregoing subject (a Lapide), nor for the purpose of quieting his readers, “who at the appearance of so many Antichrists might possibly be alarmed for the safety of their own faith” (Lücke), but in order to make the warning contained in his words in reference to the antichristian lie the more forcible; see on 1Jn 2:12.
Most commentators take καί here as particula adversativa (so even de Wette; more cautiously Lücke: “the logical relationship of this verse to 1Jn 2:19 is that of an antithesis, therefore καί becomes logically adversative”); the incorrectness of this view is recognised indeed by Düsterdieck and Ebrard, yet they maintain the antithetical reference of this verse to the preceding one; and of course in itself there is nothing against the supposition of a connection of adversative ideas by the simple copula; but that an adversative relationship occurs here is very much to be doubted, for the apostle did not now need to say to his readers that they, as such as have the χρῖσμα, were in opposition to the antichrists, and, besides, in the sequel that idea is not further followed up.[165] It is more suitable to the context to connect the first part of this verse closely with the second, and in this two-claused sentence to find the presupposition stated for what is said in the following verse (so also Brückner).
ΧΡῖΣΜΑ appears in the N. T. only here and in 1Jn 2:27; according to Greek usus loquendi, it is the anointing oil; as in the O. T., for example Exo 29:7; Exo 30:31. “In the O. T. the holy anointing oil is constantly the type of the Holy Spirit, both where anointing appears as a figurative action (besides the passages quoted, in 1Sa 10:1 ff; 1Sa 16:13-14) as well as where it appears in figurative language (Psa 45:8; Isa 61:1). But that which in the O. T. is presented in type and shadow, in the N. T. has appeared in truth and substance” (Besser); χρῖσμα is therefore a symbolical expression for the Holy Spirit, as χρίειν, moreover, is frequently used of the gift of the Holy Spirit; comp. Act 4:27; Act 10:38; 2Co 1:21. With this most of the commentators agree, only that ΧΡῖΣΜΑ is usually incorrectly explained as the act: “unctio, anointing,” and this is then taken as a description of the Holy Spirit; so by Augustin, and even by de Wette, Ewald, Sander, and Erdmann. It is erroneous to understand ΧΡῖΣΜΑ of the “true tradition about Christ, vividly transmitted, proceeding from the apostles” (Köstlin, p. 243), or of the working of the Holy Spirit (Didymus: charitas, quae diffunditur in cordibus nostris per spiritum sanctum; Socinus: divinum beneficium cognoscendi ipsas res divinas, quatenus homini est opus; Emanuel Sa: christianismus), or of the act in which the Spirit is given to Christians, thus of baptism (Ewald) or of confirmation. Oecumenius wrongly finds here (ἘΛΆΒΕΤΕ ΔΙᾺ ΤΟῦ ΒΑΠΤΊΣΜΑΤΟς ΤῸ ΧΡῖΣΜΑ ΤῸ ἹΕΡΌΝ, ΚΑῚ ΔΙᾺ ΤΟΎΤΟΥ ΤῸ ΕἸς ΠᾶΣΑΝ ΤῊΝ ἈΛΉΘΕΙΑΝ ὉΔΗΓΟῦΝ ὙΜᾶς ΘΕῖΟΝ ΠΝΕῦΜΑ) an allusion to the old custom of anointing the candidate for baptism; this custom does not belong to the apostolic age, but was probably first introduced by this passage, as Bengel has observed.[166] It is, on the whole, less likely that John was here thinking of the communication of the Spirit by means of baptism, as is usually supposed, than that he was thinking of that by means of the preaching of the gospel (Düsterdieck), as in the whole context there is nothing to suggest the former.[167] That John uses just the word χρῖσμα is not without meaning; as in the O. T. not only kings, but also priests and (sometimes) prophets were anointed, he reminds believers thereby “of their high honour, calling, office, and glory” (Sander).[168] If it be the case that there is also an allusion in it to the name of the Antichrist (Bengel, Düsterdieck), then the apostle wanted to bring out that believers in possession of the ΧΡῖΣΜΑ are enabled fully to know the antichristian ψεῦδος in its contradiction to the ἈΛΉΘΕΙΑ; see 1Jn 2:21.
ἜΧΕΤΕ ἈΠῸ ΤΟῦ ἉΓΊΟΥ] For ἜΧΕΤΕ, in 1Jn 2:27, ἘΛΆΒΕΤΕ is put; the possession rests upon a reception, and this, indeed, ἈΠῸ ΤΟῦ ἉΓΊΟΥ; Ὁ ἍΓΙΟς is-following the correct interpretation of ΧΡῖΣΜΑ-not the Holy Spirit (Didymus, Lorinus, Semler), but either God (Rickli, Besser, Neander: “ἀπό indicates the source;” which, however, is not always the case),-comp. Joh 14:16; 1Co 6:19 : ΤΟῦ ἉΓΊΟΥ ΠΝΕΎΜΑΤΟς, ΟὟ ἜΧΕΤΕ ἈΠῸ ΘΕΟῦ,-or more probably, as most commentators think, Christ; comp. Joh 15:26 : ὁ παράκλητος, ὃν ἐγὼ πέμψω ὑμῖν παρὰ τοῦ πατρός; and Joh 6:69, where Christ (according to the overwhelming authorities) is called Ὁ ἍΓΙΟς ΤΟῦ ΘΕΟῦ; in favour of which is the fact that John, in 1Jn 2:29, calls Christ ΔΊΚΑΙΟς, and in chap. 1Jn 3:3, ἍΓΝΟς (comp. also Act 3:14; Rev 3:7).
That the bestower of the ΧΡῖΣΜΑ is called by John Ὁ ἍΓΙΟς (whether it be God or Christ) arises from this, that the anointing with the Spirit is an act of making holy, i.e. of separation from the world; but he only can make holy who himself is holy.
καὶ οἴδατε πάντα] Bengel, according to the sense, explains ΚΑΊ correctly by: et inde; the possession of the ΧΡῖΣΜΑ is the reason of the ΕἸΔΈΝΑΙ ΠΆΝΤΑ.
ΠΆΝΤΑ is not masculine (Syrus: omnes; Bede: discernitis inter probos et improbos), but neuter. Calvin rightly says: omnia, non universaliter capi, sed ad praesentis loci circumstantiam restringi debet; still it must not be restricted merely to those things (quae sunt) necessaria agnoscendis antichristis et cavendis illorum insidiis (Bengel), but it embraces along with these ΤῊΝ ἈΛΉΘΕΙΑΝ in general (1Jn 2:21); comp. Joh 14:26; Joh 16:13 : ΠᾶΣΑΝ ΤῊΝ ἈΛΉΘΕΙΑΝ. In the possession of the whole truth Christians are also enabled to distinguish lies and truth.[169]
[165] By this, however, it is not meant that the apostle, when he turns to his readers with ὑμεῖς, does not contrast them at all with the antichrists, but only that he does not do it in this sense, that he wishes thereby to emphasize a contrast between them. Had the apostle intended this, he would certainly not have used καί, for in such antitheses καί is only suitable when the predicates exactly correspond with one another (e.g. they have τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ ἀντιχρίστου, and ye have τὸ πνεῦμα Θεοῦ); but even then usually δέ is used (comp. Mat 5:21-22, and many other passages), or no particle at all (comp. Joh 3:31, etc.).
[166] As Bengel thinks that this whole section is addressed to the children, he says: Eam unctionem spiritualem habent τὰ παιδία pueruli; namque cum baptismo, quem susceperunt, conjunctum, erat donum Spiritus s., cujus significandi causa ex hoc ipso loco deinceps usu receptum esse videtur, ut oleo corpora baptizatorum ungerentur.-How in modern times this passage is misused as a proof of the post-apostolic origin of the Epistle, see the Introduction, sec. 3.
[167] As quite arbitrary interpretations, we may further mention here that of Semler and that of J. J. Hess (Flatt’s and Susskind’s Magaz. vol. xiv.); the former, on the false assumption that the Epistle is addressed especially to the presbyters also, explains χρῖσμα by: legitima auctoritas docendi, and adds: χρῖσμα est idem ac χάρισμα illud, cujus auctor spiritus s., qui per apostolos impertitur doctoribus; and the latter understands by it the instruction which the Churches of Asia Minor received about Antichrist through the Apocalypse.
[168] Neander: “That which in the Old Covenant was connected only with individuals to whom in some way the guidance of God’s people was entrusted, with individuals who thereby were singled out from the mass of the rest of the people, this under the New Covenant is connected with the people of God in general.… There are therefore no longer among the people of God any such distinctions as there were in the Old Covenant between kings, prophets, priests, and people.… They are one kingly priestly race, whose nobility and high destination all share; all are prophets by virtue of that common enlightenment by the Holy Spirit.”
[169] The genuinely Catholic interpretation of Estius is worthy of notice: habetis episcopos et presbyteros, quorum cura ae studio vestrae ecelesiae satis instructao sunt in iis, quae pertinent ad doctrinae christianae veritatem.
1Jn 2:21. οὐκ ἔγραψα ὑμῖν] does not refer to the whole Epistle (Beza), but to that which is said of the antichrists; comp. 1Jn 2:26.[170]
ὅτι οὐκ οἴδατε τὴν ἀλήθειαν κ.τ.λ.] ὅτι = because (comp. 1Jn 2:12-14); the apostle does not want to teach the anointed Christians for the first time the truth which was revealed in Christ, but he is writing to them because they know it; a Lapide: non ut haec vos doceam, sed ut doctos confirmem.
καὶ ὅτι πᾶν ψεῦδος κ.τ.λ.] This ὅτι is not co-ordinate with the preceding one, but is dependent on οἴδατε. Luther, correctly according to the sense: “but ye know it, and know that,” etc.
πᾶν ψεῦδος, quite generally, though with special reference to the antichristian doctrine; ψεῦδος: “not merely error, but lie” (de Wette)-the absolute antithesis of ἀλήθεια; Lange quite arbitrarily thinks that the abstract is here put for the concrete: “that no false teacher can be a genuine Christian.” It is incorrect to take πᾶν … οὐ as a Hebraism = οὐδέν; οὐ belongs rather to the predicate.
ἐκ τῆς ἀληθείας οὐκ ἔστι] ἐκ here also indicates the source, and does not express merely the connection (de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius). Because the lie is not of the truth, so also it has no connection with it; Lorinus: ex vero non nisi verum sequitur, et verum vero consonat. Whence the lie, which is not ἐκ τῆς ἀληθείας, originates, Christ says in Joh 8:44 : The truth is from God, who is Himself the truth; the lie from the devil, who is not in the truth.
[170] Ebrard refers this ἔγραψα also arbitrarily to the Gospel of John.
1Jn 2:22-23. The existence of the antichrists and their relationship to the Christian Church having been previously stated, there follows now the more particular definition of the antichristian lie.
τίς ἐστιν ὁ ψεύστης;] The interrogative form, with which John addresses his readers who know the truth, is explained by the vividness of the feeling with which the apostle is writing; similarly in chap. 1Jn 5:5. He passes from the abstract (πᾶν ψεῦδος) directly to the concrete (ψεύστης). The definite article: ὁ ψεύστης (Luther incorrectly: a liar), brings out the idea in clearer distinctness: the liar κατʼ ἐξοχήν, i.e. he in whom the lie appears in concrete personality (so also Braune), identical with ὁ ἀντίχριστος, which is denied by Jachmann through mistake of John’s idea. The thought is weakened by the supposition that the apostle is speaking here comparatively (Grotius: quis potest major esse impostor?). Nor is Bengel’s interpretation satisfactory: quis est illius mendacii imposturaeque reus? with which Düsterdieck agrees, when he paraphrases: “What sort of a lie I mean, ye know very well. Who are the liars? Are they not those who deny, etc.?” The apostle certainly has the particular lie of the antichrists of his time in view, but this he regards as the one chief and fundamental lie “in which all ψεῦδος is comprised” (Lücke). The explanation of Baumgarten-Crusius is plainly quite erroneous: “what else is a false doctrine than, etc.?” nor is that of Ebrard less so, as he finds in this catechetical (!) question intended for children this meaning: “on whose side is the lie?” with which he then supplies the corresponding question: “and on whose side is the truth?”
εἰ μὴ ὁ ἀρνούμενος] εἰ μή, often after a negation, may also stand after a question, as in this a negation is contained; comp. Luk 17:18; Rom 11:15; 1Co 2:11; 2Co 2:2; 1Jn 5:5; it corresponds to the German: “als nur” (English: “but only,” “except”), and limits the general thought to a particular one; the sense accordingly is: No other is the liar but he who, etc. According to Ebrard, εἰ μή must here only have the meaning of “than,” because the question here is, which of the two dogmatical tendencies (!) belongs to the lie; that the apostle here has in view two parties, namely, the antichrists and the believing Christians, and asks which of them is in possession of the truth, is a pure fiction, for which there is not the slightest evidence in the text. ὅτι Ἰησοῦς οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ Χριστός] On the construction of the negative idea ἀρνεῖσθαι with the following οὐκ, by which the negation is more strongly emphasized, see Kühner, II. p. 410.
The lie of the Antichrist consists in the denial that Jesus is ὁ Χριστός, i.e. in the denial of the identity of Jesus and Christ, whereby is meant, according to 1Jn 2:19 and chap. 1Jn 4:3, not the Jewish unbelief, that Jesus is not the promised Messiah, but the Gnostic heresy of the distinction between Jesus and Christ, which forms the sharpest contradiction to the apostle’s doctrine that Jesus is the λόγος σὰρξ γενόμενος. It is erroneous to find here a reference to two different kinds of heresy; on the one hand the denial of the divine, on the other the denial of the human, nature of Jesus;[171] for John speaks only of one lie.
οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἀντίχριστος] οὗτος refers back to ὁ ἀρνούμενος: the liar who denies the identity of Jesus and Christ, he is the Antichrist. It is natural to take ὁ ψεύστης and ὁ ἀντιχρ. here in general signification, and to find therein a justification for Bengel’s conception of John’s idea of Antichrist; but as the lie of the antichrists proceeds from the πνεῦμα τοῦ ἀντιχρίστου, it may be ascribed to the Antichrist himself; the individual antichrists are the mouth by which he speaks.
ὁ ἀρνούμενος τὸν πατέρα καὶ τὸν υἱόν] is not to be connected with οὗτος, so that the sense would be: this one, who denies the Father and the Son, is the Antichrist; but as a clause of more particular definition subordinate to ὁ ἀντίχριστος. “John hereby adds a new element which states the full unhappy consequence of that Antichristian lie” (Düsterdieck; similarly Braune). The apostle wants to bring out here that the denial that Jesus is ὁ Χριστός is in its very essence a denial of the Father and of the Son. He who denies the identity of Jesus and Christ, directly denies the Son, for the Son is no other than Ἰησοῦς ὁ Χριστός (neither an Aeon named Christ that did not become man, nor Jesus who is not Christ, or, according to Joh 1:14, the Logos);[172] but he who denies the Son denies also the Father, and not merely inasmuch as Son and Father are logically interchangeable ideas, but because the nature of the Father is only manifested in the Son, and all true knowledge of the Father is conditioned by the knowledge of the Son, so that the God of those who deny the Son is not the true God, but a false image of their own thoughts-an ΕἼΔΩΛΟΝ.[173]
[171] So Tertullian (de Praescript. c. 33): Joh. in ep. cos maxime antichristos vocat, qui Christum negarent in carne venisse et qui non putarent Jesum esse Filium Dei; illud Marcion, hoe Ebion vindicavit. Similarly Besser: “That Jesus was not the Christ, the Christ not Jesus. Either the Word that was from the beginning was separated from this Jesus, or the flesh was denied to the eternal Word.” Comp. Introd. sec. 3.
[172] Weiss correctly brings out the distinction between the ideas Χριστός and υἱός, when he observes that ὁ Χριστός is a historical conception to the apostle, and that it is enough for him that that proposition of the false teachers denies the Messiahship of Christ, from which all belief in Him must take its starting-point, in order to arrive at the recognition that Jesus is the Son of God, and thus in the Son to recognise the Father.
[173] That such commentators as proceed on rationalistic assumptions have not been able to interpret the thought of the apostle is quite natural. But even others have got a more or less indistinct view of it by putting, as Düsterdieck rightly says, “the ideas of John too directly into dogmatic forms (and, indeed, into those defined by the Church);” or by ignoring the realism of the apostle, and regarding what he considered in an objectively real way as a mere element of the subjective consideration; or, finally, by bringing out one-sided references instead of giving the ideas the due force of their entire comprehension.
1Jn 2:23. Confirmation of the last stated thought in two clauses, which express the same idea, only in different form.[174]
Πᾶς Ὁ ἈΡΝΟΎΜΕΝΟς ΤῸΝ ΥἹΌΝ, ΟὐΔῈ ΤῸΝ ΠΑΤΈΡΑ ἜΧΕΙ] ἈΡΝΕῖΣΘΑΙ ΤῸΝ ΥἹΌΝ is in meaning synonymous with ἈΡΝΕῖΣΘΑΙ, ὍΤΙ ἸΗΣΟῦς ΟὐΚ ἜΣΤΙΝ Ὁ ΧΡΙΣΤΌς. The assertion that John here confounds with the idea of Christ that of the Son, i.e. of the eternal Logos (de Wette and others), is erroneous; it is not Christ apart from Jesus that he regards as the Son, but Christ in his identity with Jesus (Düsterdieck, Brückner).
Instead of saying in the second part of the first clause: καὶ ἀρνεῖται, corresponding to the first part, John says: ΟὐΔῈ … ἜΧΕΙ, which has a wider import, for ἜΧΕΙΝ is to be taken emphatically = “to possess in living fellowship” (Düsterdieck); the explanation of Beza is insufficient: nec patrem esse credit (better, a Lapide: habere in mente et fide, in ore et confessione); the thought of the apostle is utterly eliminated when, with Socinus, Episcopius, Grotius, ἔχειν τ. πατέρα is explained by: “to know the will of God;” erroneously Storr also: “to him is the Father not gracious.”
In the following words: Ὁ ὉΜΟΛΟΓῶΝ Κ.Τ.Λ., which are wanting in the Recepta (see the critical notes), ὁμολογεῖν forms the antithesis of ἈΡΝΕῖΣΘΑΙ; it means a confession which is the expression of faith (Mat 10:32; Rom 10:10). In regard to the construction, Ebrard rightly remarks: “That ΤῸΝ ΥἹΌΝ is dependent on ὉΜΟΛΟΓῶΝ, and not along with ΚΑῚ ΤῸΝ ΠΑΤΈΡΑ (as in 2Jn 1:9) on ἜΧΕΙ (in which case ὉΜΟΛΟΓῶΝ would be used absolutely), clearly results from the preceding words, to which these form the antithesis.”
[174] Braune, rightly: “Here is the progress from the denying to the having, and from the particular (ὁ ψεύστης) to the general (πᾶς).”
1Jn 2:24-25. Exhortation to the faithful keeping of the gospel. 1Jn 2:24. ὑμεῖς] By the Recepta ὑμεῖς οὖν the correct relationship of this verse is taken away; it is not a conclusion from what immediately precedes (Düsterdieck, Braune), but with the emphasized ὑμεῖς it is put in contrast with what is said of the false teachers; Theophylact: ἐκεῖνοι μὲν οὖν οὕτως· ὑμεῖς δὲ ἅπερ ἠκούσατε ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς φυλάττετε παρʼ ἑαυτοῖς.
In regard to the construction: ὑμεῖς ὃ ἠκούσατε ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς, ἐν ὑμῖν μενέτω, Beza and Socinus, it is either an attraction (ὑμεῖς ὃ ἠκ. for ὃ ὑμεῖς ἠκούσ., so also Bengel: antitheton est in pronomine; ideo adhibetur trajectio; de Wette: “ὑμεῖς is properly no doubt the subject of the relative clause placed first;” Jachmann)[175] or an ellipsis (ὑμεῖς = quod ad vos attinet); Paulus and Ebrard regard ὑμεῖς as the pure vocative; but it is more correct to admit an anacolouthon which has its natural origin in this, that the apostle’s thought in opposition to the false teachers was first directed to his readers, but equally also to the word which they had heard from the beginning; accordingly the apostle begins with ὑμεῖς, but does not follow it up by μένετε ἐν or a similar expression, but by ὃ ἠκούσατε κ.τ.λ., as a new subject; comp. Winer, p. 506; VII. p. 534; Buttmann, p. 325. The same anacolouthon in 1Jn 2:27.[176] With Ὃ ἨΚΟΎΣΑΤΕ ἈΠʼ ἈΡΧῆς, comp. 1Jn 2:7; thereby, of course, the whole gospel is meant, but here specially the fundamental doctrine of it: that Jesus is the Christ.
ἘΝ ὙΜῖΝ] Theophylact interprets ἘΝ by ΠΑΡΆ; Luther: “among;” but the preposition must be retained in its proper meaning; for upon that it depends that what was heard “abides in the soul as something that determines the life” (Neander; comp. Joh 15:7), because only then does that take place which the apostle expresses in the sequel.
ΚΑῚ ὙΜΕῖς … ΜΕΝΕῖΤΕ] The ΚΑΊ before the concluding clause brings out more clearly its corresponding relationship to the preceding clause; here it is so much the more significant, as in both clauses the same verbal idea ΜΈΝΕΙΝ is used: If the Word remain in you, ye also will remain in the Son, etc.[177] That our remaining in the Son is the immediate result of the Word remaining in us, is explained by the fact that “the words of Christ substantially contain nothing else than a self-revelation or explanation of His person and His appearing, and similarly the evangelical proclamation of the apostles is only the copy of this preaching of Christ Himself” (Weiss). ἐν τῷ υἱῷ is put first, because fellowship with the Father is conditioned by fellowship with the Son.
[175] The idea of an attraction is erroneous, because “ὑμεῖς, if attracted to the relative clause, would be too strongly emphasized in this position” (Winer).
[176] Myrberg’s reply, that ὑμεῖς is rather to be regarded as nominative absolute, is met by the fact that the use of the nominative absolute is precisely an anacolouthon.
[177] Düsterdieck: “By καί before ὑμεῖς John specifies the promised consequence which will correspond to the condition which is stated, while at the same time he brings out the nice point which is contained, in the significant interchange of ἐν ὑμῖν μείνῃ and ὑμεῖς ἐν τῷ υἱῷ … μενεῖτε.”
1Jn 2:25. Καὶ αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ ἐπαγγελία κ.τ.λ.] αὕτη may be referred either to what precedes, or to the concluding words of this verse: τὴν ζωὴν τὴν αἰώνιον. In the first case the meaning is: and this remaining is what He has promised, namely, eternal life. Gagnejus: “Manere in filio et patre promissio est, quam nobis pollicitus est orans pro nobis patrem Dominus Joh 17:20. Bene ergo ait de hoc Johannes: haec est promissio, quam pollicitus est nobis, quae quidem est vita aeterna; vita enim aeterna est manere in Deo eoque frui hic per gratiam, in futuro per gloriam;” τὴν ζωὴν τὴν αἰώνιον then forms an apposition, by which that very remaining is described as happiness; this view in Oecumenius, and among modern commentators in Sander, Besser, Weiss. In the second case the thought is: “and eternal life is the promise which He has given us;” taking this view, a new thought, it is true, enters with 1Jn 2:25, and it requires something to be supplied to connect it with the preceding, perhaps what a Lapide gives: si in ipso maneamus (Spener: that is the promise if we remain in the Word, and consequently in the Father and the Son); but nevertheless it is, in accordance with the analogy of John’s mode of expression, to be preferred; comp. chap. 1Jn 1:5, 1Jn 5:14; similarly also chap. 1Jn 3:23, 1Jn 5:11; in the last two passages the connection with what precedes appears clearly enough by both being connected with the same idea, whereas here there is no previous mention of the ἐπαγγελία; but even here the connection is not to be mistaken, because the ζωὴ αἰώνιος is directly connected with the μένειν ἐν τῷ υἱῷ κ.τ.λ. This second interpretation in a Lapide, Grotius, Lorinus, Russmeyer, Spener, Lücke, de Wette, Düsterdieck, Erdmann, Myrberg, Ebrard, Braune, and others.
καί is not used here αἰτιολογικῶς (Oecumenius), but is the simple copula.
ἡ ἐπαγγελία: “the promise.” Lücke unnecessarily conjectures that instead of this perhaps ἀπαγγελία is probably to be read, or that ἐπαγγελία has here the meaning: “proclamation,” for neither is it the case that the idea of the promise refers only to the distant future life, nor, according to John, that Christ does not bestow any promise.[178]
αὐτός is Christ, who in this whole passage forms the centre round which all the statements of the apostle move.
On the accusative τὴν ζωήν, which has occurred through the attraction of the verb in the relative clause, comp. Winer, p. 552; VII. p. 583; Buttmann, p. 68.
[178] From this passage it is clear that with John ζωὴ αἰώνιος and the knowledge of God are not by any means, as Weiss thinks, identical ideas, for if John here, according to the view of Weiss, describes the abiding in the Son and in the Father as the ζωὴ αἰώνιος, he then mentions what this consists in, as something plainly transcending the idea of knowledge; but if αὕτη is directly connected with τὴν ζ. τ. αἰών., then the abiding in the Son and the Father is considered as the condition of the ζωή; it is impossible, however, for it to be the condition of knowledge, for it rather presupposes the latter.
1Jn 2:26. ταῦτα refers to all that the apostle has written about the antichrists from 1Jn 2:18 down. In calling them here οἱ πλανῶντες ὑμᾶς, he gives it to be understood that their efforts were directed to seduce the Church from the truth of the gospel to their lie; that their purpose had actual effect (Braune) is not indicated by the verb.-1Jn 2:27. In the first part of this verse the apostle testifies to his readers that they do not need any teacher, in which he goes back to what he had already expressed in 1Jn 2:20-21.
καὶ ὑμεῖς] καί is here used just as in 1Jn 2:20.
On the anacolouthon, see on 1Jn 2:24.
τὸ χρῖσμα ὃ ἐλάβετε ἀπʼ αὐτοῦ] τὸ χρῖσμα is, with Braune, to be regarded as the accusative, for the juxtaposition of two nominatives could not be explained; the apostle probably had an ἔχετε in his mind, instead of which, however, he then wrote μένει ἐν ὑμῖν; αὐτοῦ, i.e. Χριστοῦ; so the context demands; αὐτός, 1Jn 2:25. Herein lies a proof that τοῦ ἁγίου in 1Jn 2:20 is to be understood of Christ.
ἐν ὑμῖν μένει] The indicative, instead of which the imperative is used in 1Jn 2:24, expresses the certain confidence of the apostle.
καὶ οὐ χρείαν ἔχετε] This sentence, which by καί is made co-ordinate with the preceding, stands to it in the relation of conclusion; meaning: since, as is not to be doubted, the Spirit is in you-and abiding-you do not need; Bengel describes this relation correctly by: et ideo.
ἵνα τις διδάσκῃ ὑμᾶς] ἵνα is used here, as not unfrequently in the N. T., in an enfeebled signification; only in an artificial way could the original force of purpose of this particle be here retained; while this force sometimes passes over into that of object, this is still further weakened, so that the clause beginning with ἵνα is the object which completes the idea of the verb; so it is here; comp. especially Heb 5:12 : χρείαν ἔχετε τοῦ διδάσκειν ὑμᾶς; in other passages χρ. ἔχειν is used even with the simple infinitive, Mat 3:14; Mat 14:16; 1Th 1:8; 1Th 4:9; with ἵνα as here, Joh 16:30.[179]
Several commentators suppose here a reference to the false teachers, so that in the words of the apostle there lies a warning against those who wish to impose themselves on the Church as teachers; so a Lapide, Spener, (τίς = “who may make pretence of a new revelation”), Sander, Gerlach, Besser, and others. But it is more appropriate (according to 1Jn 2:21) to refer the apostle’s word to a teaching proceeding from himself or other apostolic teachers; so Hornejus, de Wette-Brückner, Lücke, Düsterdieck, Braune, etc.-only we must not restrict the generally expressed thought merely to instruction about the false teachers, even though it is intended with special reference to that.[180] Believers need no human teacher in order that the divine truth may be made known to them. They have received, with the word which was declared unto them (ὃ ἤκουσαν), the χρῖσμα, which leads them εἰς πᾶσαν τὴν ἀλήθειαν; therefore the apostle frequently in this Epistle emphasizes the fact that he does not want to instruct them, but is writing to them what they already know (οἴδατε πάντα, 1Jn 2:20). John thereby assumes believing readers, in whose hearts that which they have heard from the beginning is preserved true and uncorrupted. Nothing new therefore can be proclaimed to the believers, but only that which they already possess in faith may be brought to a clearer consciousness.[181]
ἈΛΛʼ Ὡς ΤῸ ΑὐΤῸ ΧΡῖΣΜΑ Κ.Τ.Λ.] In this second part of the verse the first question is about the construction. Lücke, Ewald, de Wette, Neander, Düsterdieck, Braune (and previously Oecumenius and Theophylact) think that the whole to the end of the verse forms one period, in which the premise ἀλλʼ ὡς … διδάσκει is resumed by the words ΚΑῚ ΚΑΘῺς ἘΔΊΔΑΞΕΝ ὙΜῖΝ, and has its conclusion in ΜΕΝΕῖΤΕ (or ΜΈΝΕΤΕ) ἘΝ ΑὐΤῷ, and in which the words ΚΑῚ ἈΛΗΘῈς … ΨΕῦΔΟς contain a parenthetical adjunct. The difficulty that in the resumed premise ΚΑΊ is put instead of ἈΛΛΆ, ΚΑΘΏς instead of Ὡς, and the aorist ἘΔΊΔΑΞΕΝ instead of the present ΔΙΔΆΣΚΕΙ, can certainly be easily got over by the fact that the apostle wanted not simply to repeat the thought, but at the same time to bring out a new phase of the subject; but the additional ΠΕΡῚ ΠΆΝΤΩΝ, which does not stand in any relationship whatever to the conclusion ΜΕΝΕῖΤΕ (ΜΈΝΕΤΕ), is decidedly opposed to this construction; to this is added that ἈΛΛΆ indicates that the apostle wants to express a contrast to the οὐ χρείαν ἔχετε κ.τ.λ., that is, a clause in which the teaching of the ΧΡῖΣΜΑ is described as such as removes the need of any other (human) teacher; finally, that the subordinate clause ΚΑῚ ΟὐΚ ἜΣΤΙ ΨΕῦΔΟς conjoined with ἈΛΗΘΈς ἘΣΤΙ raises this thought above the level of a mere parenthetical adjunct, and stamps it as a leading thought. For these reasons it is preferable, with Luther, Calvin, Baumgarten-Crusius, Sander, Brückner, Besser, and in general most of the commentators, to divide the whole into two parts, and to regard ΚΑῚ ἈΛΗΘ. ἘΣΤΙ … ΨΕῦΔΟς as the conclusion of the first part; Luther: “but as the anointing teaches you all things, it is true, and is no lie; and,” etc.[182]
ὡς refers not so much to the form and fashion, as to the substance of the teaching.
ΤῸ ΑὐΤῸ ΧΡῖΣΜΑ] ΤῸ ΑὐΤΌ is not idem semper, non aliud atque aliud, sed sibi constans et idem apud sanctos omnes (Bengel; so also Erdmann), but: just the same χρῖσμα, namely Ὁ ἘΛΆΒΕΤΕ. Still the reading ΑὐΤΟῦ might be preferable, for it seems unnecessary to emphasize the fact that the ΧΡῖΣΜΑ is the same that they have received, and no other.
ΠΕΡῚ ΠΆΝΤΩΝ is used in the same sense as ΠΆΝΤΑ, 1Jn 2:20.
ΚΑῚ ἈΛΗΘΈς ἘΣΤΙ Κ.Τ.Λ.] ΚΑΊ before the conclusion, as in 1Jn 2:24 : “then it is also true,” etc.; it brings out prominently the idea ἀληθές; ἀληθές is referred to ΤῸ ΧΡῖΣΜΑ by Lücke, de Wette, Brückner, Düsterdieck, Ebrard, Ewald, Braune, and others; but the substantive ΨΕῦΔΟς is opposed to this connection, for it cannot be referred to ΤῸ ΧΡῖΣΜΑ, inasmuch as it is considered by John as a person (ΔΙΔΆΣΚΕΙ), and must neither be arbitrarily explained, with Beza, by ΨΕΥΔΈς, nor, with Braune, be separated from ἈΛΗΘΈς (“and there is no lie in it”); Oecumenius, Theophylact, Luther, Neander, Besser, Erdmann, and others, have therefore rightly referred ἈΛΗΘΈς Κ.Τ.Λ. to that which the ΧΡῖΣΜΑ teaches. Because this is true, and is no ΨΕῦΔΟς, therefore believers do not need any teacher besides, but they may rely entirely upon the teaching of the ΧΡῖΣΜΑ. To this thought the apostle further adds a new one, in which he goes back to the end of 1Jn 2:24.
ΚΑῚ ΚΑΘΏς] ΚΑΘΏς, as distinct from Ὡς, means: “in proportion as.”
ἐδίδαξεν ὑμᾶς] namely, ἈΠʼ ἈΡΧῆς.
ΜΈΝΕΤΕ (ΜΕΝΕῖΤΕ) ἘΝ ΑὐΤῷ] The Recepta μενεῖτε is taken by Socinus, a Lapide, Lorinus, Semler, and others, in the sense of the imperative; others retain the future meaning, as in 1Jn 2:24; thus Beza says: mihi videtur omnino servanda Futuri propria significatio ut est optime sperantis; as the apostle thereby expresses his good confidence, the future accordingly has the vim consolandi (Bengel). The correct reading, however, is ΜΈΝΕΤΕ, which, corresponding to the preceding ΜΈΝΕΙ and ἜΧΕΤΕ, is not imperative (Ewald, Braune), but indicative (Brückner), and as such it expresses the firm conviction of the apostle that they, according to the constant instruction of the ΧΡῖΣΜΑ, abide ἘΝ ΑὐΤῷ, i.e. in Christ (Erasmus erroneously: = ἐν τῷ χρίσματι, and Baumgarten-Crusius: “in the teaching which the ΧΡῖΣΜΑ communicates to them”). In favour of this view is also the exhortation of 1Jn 2:28 herewith connected.[183]
[179] At the most it may be said that ἵνα is used with the verb χρείαν ἔχειν, because that of which one is in need may be regarded as the object of his need; on the other hand, it is unsuitable when Braune says: “the teaching is here regarded as the object and purpose for the sake of the position of him who is to be taught.”
[180] Lücke paraphrases the passage: “The reason why I do not write any more about the false teachers, is that I assume that that holy unction of the Spirit remains in you; and if that is so, you do not need that any one shall instruct you further on the subject.”
[181] Several commentators rightly remark here, that in the statement of the apostle there is no foundation for the error of the “enthusiasts,” inasmuch as John does not separate the teaching of the χρῖσμα and the apostolic word from one another, but places them in the closest connection.
[182] Ebrard makes ὡς dependent upon ἔγραψα, ver. 26; it is true he himself admits that this gives a “laxe and legere form of speech,” but he thinks that there is “nothing strange” in this, because the apostle is speaking to children in quite childlike language. But what child’s understanding would be capable of supplying with the words: “but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things,” the thought: “sc. I have said to you”?
[183] Myrberg on ver. 28: Sperantis verba illa sunt, quae paullo ante leguntur; haec adhortantis, quod novum quoddam initium dicendi indicat.
1Jn 2:28 concludes the section beginning at 1Jn 2:18, but serves at the same time as an introduction to the following section.
καὶ νῦν] cannot, it is true, be explained, with Paulus, by “even now already,” but neither can it be explained, with most of the commentators, exactly by igitur, or a similar word; here it rather introduces, as it frequently does, the following exhortation as a deduction from the present circumstances. Incorrectly Ebrard: “And now (namely, after I have spoken to the παιδίοις) I turn to you” (namely, to the whole Church): a supplement of that kind cannot be justified from the passages quoted by Ebrard; Joh 17:3; Act 10:5; Act 22:16.
τεκνία] as in 1Jn 2:1.
μένετε ἐν αὐτῷ] quite the same thought as in 1Jn 2:27. Rickli’s view is incorrect, that in 1Jn 2:27 it is “the abiding in the confession that Jesus is the Christ, but here another abiding, namely, the abiding in righteousness,” that is meant.
ἵνα ἐὰν φανερῶθῃ] ἐάν is distinguished from ὅταν (Recepta) in this way, that it describes not the time, but only the actuality of the manifestation of Christ. The φανέρωσις of Christ is His Parousia occurring at the end of the ἐσχάτη ὥρα; comp. Col 3:4. By the same word the first appearance of Christ on earth is also elsewhere described; see chap. 1Jn 3:5; 1Jn 3:8. ἔχωμεν (σχῶμεν) παῤῥησίαν] The communicative form of expression indicates that John tacitly includes himself also under the exhortation: μένετε ἐν αὐτῷ.[184]
ΠΑῤῬΗΣΊΑ: the confidence of the believer at the day of judgment; chap. 1Jn 4:17.
ΚΑῚ ΜῊ ΑἸΣΧΥΝΘῶΜΕΝ ἈΠʼ ΑὐΤΟῦ] Elsewhere also ΠΑῤῬΗΣΊΑ and ΑἸΣΧΎΝΕΣΘΑΙ are contrasted with one another; so Pro 13:5 : ἈΣΕΒῊς ΑἸΣΧΎΝΕΤΑΙ ΚΑῚ ΟὐΧ ἝΞΕΙ ΠΑῤῬΗΣΊΑΝ; comp. also Php 1:20. ΑἸΣΧΥΝΘῶΜΕΝ is either used in the passive sense, in which case the original meaning “to be shamed” passes over into this, “to be put to shame” (see Meyer on Php 1:20); then ἈΠΌ (which is not = ὙΠΌ) describes Christ as the one from whom this ΑἸΣΧΎΝΕΣΘΑΙ comes, namely, by means of His judgment of condemnation; or it is used in the middle sense: “to be ashamed,” in which case ἀπό is not = coram (Luther, Ewald), but = “away from,” thus: “to draw back from Him with shame;” so Calvin, Beza, Episcopius, de Wette, Lücke (who adduces Sir 21:22 : ἄνθρωπος δὲ πολύπειρος αἰσχυνθήσεται ἀπὸ προσώπου), Düsterdieck, Ebrard.[185] The second view deserves the preference, on account of the corresponding contrast with ἔχειν παῤῥησίαν.
ἐν τῇ παρουσίᾳ αὐτοῦ] expresses definitely the reference already implied in φανερωθῇ: “at His (Christ’s) coming;” παρουσία, in John only here, frequently appears in this sense in the N. T.; comp. Mat 24:3; Mat 27:37; Mat 27:39; 1Co 15:23; 1Th 2:19, and elsewhere.
[184] Sander introduces here a foreign reference, when he thinks that John includes himself as if he would also have to be ashamed if on that day his children, whom he begot through the gospel, should come short. Similarly a Lapide: ne pudefiamus utrique, sc. tam vos, si a doctrina Christi aberretis, quam nos Apostoli et Pastores, quod vos in ea non conservaverimus. Lorinus: conjungit seipsum discipulis, spe de illorum gloria adgaudens.
[185] Braune thinks that the passive meaning is to be retained: “For we shall not draw back and tremble, but we shall be rejected and cast out;” but the meaning above stated, and accepted also by Braune, does not suit the passive idea; besides, the correspondence with the idea ἔχειν παῤῥησίαν demands the middle signification of the word.
1Jn 2:29. With this verse the third section begins, which continues to chap. 1Jn 3:22, and consists of two groups: (1) 1Jn 2:29 to 1Jn 3:10 a, and (2) 1Jn 3:10 b-22.
After the apostle has warned them against the love of the κόσμος, and against the false teachers (who are ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου), he shows the obligation of Christians to δικαιοσύνη, in which they reveal themselves as τέκνα Θεοῦ, in contrast to the τέκνα διαβόλου.
1. My little children. It is not only the sum and substance of the preceding doctrine, but the meaning of almost the whole gospel, that we are to depart from sin; and yet, though we are always exposed to God’s judgment, we are certain that Christ so intercedes by the sacrifice of his death, that the Father is propitious to us. In the meantime, he also anticipates an objection, lest any one should think that he gave license to sin when he spoke of God’s mercy, and shewed that it is presented to us all. He then joins together two parts of the gospel, which unreasonable men separate, and thus lacerate and mutilate. Besides, the doctrine of grace has always been calumniated by the ungodly. When the expiation of sins by Christ is set forth, they boastingly say that a license is given to sin.
To obviate these calumnies, the Apostle testifies first that the design of his doctrine was to keep men from sinning; for when he says, that ye sin not, his meaning only is, that they, according to the measure of human infirmity, should abstain from sins. And to the same purpose is what I have already said respecting fellowship with God, that we are to be conformable to him. He is not, however, silent as to the gratuitous remission of sins; for though heaven should fall and all things be confounded, yet this part of truth ought never to be omitted; but, on the contrary, what Christ is ought to be preached clearly and distinctly.
So ought we also to do at this day. As the flesh is inclined to wantonness, men ought to be carefully warned, that righteousness and salvation are provided in Christ for this end, that we may become the holy possession of God. Yet whenever it happens that men wantonly abuse the mercy of God, there are many snarlish men who load us with calumny, as though we gave loose reins to vices. We ought still boldly to go on and proclaim the grace of Christ, in which especially shines forth the glory of God, and in which consists the whole salvation of men. These barkings of the ungodly ought, I repeat it, to be wholly disregarded; for we see that the apostles were also by these barkings assailed.
For this reason he immediately adds the second clause, that when we sin we have an advocate By these words he confirms what we have already said, that we are very far from being perfectly righteous, nay, that we contract new guilt daily, and that yet there is a remedy for reconciling us to God, if we flee to Christ; and this is alone that in which consciences call acquiesce, in which is included the righteousness of men, in which is founded the hope of salvation.
The conditional particle, if, ought to be viewed as causal; for it cannot be but that we sin. In short, John means, that we are not only called away from sin by the gospel, because God invites us to himself, and offers to us the Spirit of regeneration, but that a provision is made for miserable sinners, that they may have God always propitious to them, and that the sins by which they are entangled, do not prevent them from becoming just, because they have a Mediator to reconcile them to God. But in order to shew how we return into favor with God, he says that Christ is our advocate; for he appears before God for this end, that he may exercise towards us the power and efficacy of his sacrifice. That this may be better understood, I will speak more homely. The intercession of Christ is a continual application of his death for our salvation. That God then does not impute to us our sins, this comes to us, because he has regard to Christ as intercessor.
But the two names, by which he afterwards signalizes Christ, properly belong to the subject of this passage. He calls him just and a propitiation. It is necessary for him to be both, that he might sustain the office and person of an Advocate; for who that is a sinner could reconcile God to us? For we are excluded from access to him, because no one is pure and free from sin. Hence no one is fit to be a high priest, except he is innocent and separated from sinners, as it is also declared in Heb 7:26. Propitiation is added, because no one is fit to be a high priest without a sacrifice. Hence, under the Law, no priest entered the sanctuary without blood; and a sacrifice, as a usual seal, was wont, according to God’s appointment, to accompany prayers. By this symbol it was God’s design to shew, that whosoever obtains favor for us, must be furnished with a sacrifice; for when God is offended, in order to pacify him a satisfaction is required. It hence follows, that all the saints who have ever been and shall be, have need of an advocate, and that no one except Christ is equal to undertake this office. And doubtless John ascribed these two things to Christ, to shew that he is the only true advocate.
Now, as no small consolation comes to us, when we hear that Christ not only died for us to reconcile us to the Father, but that he continually intercedes for us, so that an access in his name is open to us, that our prayers may be heard; so we ought especially to beware, lest this honor, which belongs peculiarly to him, should be transferred to another.
But we know that under the Papacy this office is ascribed indiscriminately to the saints. Thirty years ago, this so remarkable an article of our faith, that Christ is our advocate, was nearly buried; but at this day they allow that he is indeed one of many, but not the only one. They among the Papists who have a little more modesty, do not deny that Christ excels others; but they afterwards join with him a vast number of associates. But the words clearly mean that he cannot be an advocate who is not a priest; and the priesthood belongs to none but to Christ alone. In the meantime we do not take away the mutual intercessions of saints, which they exercise in love towards one another; but this has nothing to do with the dead who have removed from their intercourse with men; and nothing with that patronage which they feign for themselves, that they may not be dependent on Christ alone. For though brethren pray for brethren, yet they all, without exception, look to one advocate. There is, then, no doubt but the Papists set up against Christ so many idols as the patrons or advocates they devise for themselves.
We must also notice by the way, that those err very grossly, who imagine that Christ falls on his knees before the Father to pray for us. Such thoughts ought to be renounced, for they detract from the celestial glory of Christ; and the simple truth ought to be retained, that the fruit of his death is ever new and perpetual, that by his intercession he renders God propitious to us, and that he sanctifies our prayers by the odor of his sacrifice, and also aids us by pleading for us.
2. And not for ours only He added this for the sake of amplifying, in order that the faithful might be assured that the expiation made by Christ, extends to all who by faith embrace the gospel.
Here a question may be raised, how have the sins of the whole world been expiated? I pass by the dotages of the fanatics, who under this pretense extend salvation to all the reprobate, and therefore to Satan himself. Such a monstrous thing deserves no refutation. They who seek to avoid this absurdity, have said that Christ (63) suffered sufficiently for the whole world, but efficiently only for the elect. This solution has commonly prevailed in the schools. Though then I allow that what has been said is true, yet I deny that it is suitable to this passage; for the design of John was no other than to make this benefit common to the whole Church. Then under the word all or whole, he does not include the reprobate, but designates those who should believe as well as those who were then scattered through various parts of the world. For then is really made evident, as it is meet, the grace of Christ, when it is declared to be the only true salvation of the world.
(63) “It seems to me that the Apostle is to be understood as speaking only of all those who believe, whether Jews or Gentiles, over the whole world.” — Doddridge. — Ed.
3. And hereby, or by this. After having treated of the doctrine respecting the gratuitous remission of sins, he comes to the exhortations which belong to it, and which depend on it. And first indeed he reminds us that the knowledge of God, derived from the gospel, is not ineffectual, but that obedience proceeds from it. He then shews what God especially requires from us, what is the chief thing in life, even love to God. What we read here of the living knowledge of God, the Scripture does not without reason repeat everywhere; for nothing is more common in the world than to draw the doctrine of religion to frigid speculations. In this way theology has been adulterated by the Sorbonian sophists, so that from their whole science not even the least spark of true religion shines forth. And curious men do everywhere learn so much from God’s word, as enables them to prattle for the sake of display. In short, no evil has been more common in all ages than vainly to profess God’s name.
John then takes this principle as granted, that the knowledge of God is efficacious. He hence concludes, that they by no means know God who keep not his precepts or commandments. Plato, though groping in darkness, yet denied that “the beautiful” which he imagined, could be known, without filling man with the admiration of itself; so he says in his Phaedrus and in other places. How then is it possible for thee to know God, and to be moved by no feeling? Nor does it indeed proceed only from God’s nature, that to know him is immediately to love him; but the Spirit also, who illuminates our minds, inspires our hearts with a feeling conformable to our knowledge. At the same time the knowledge of God leads us to fear him and to love him. For we cannot know him as Lord and Father, as he shews himself, without being dutiful children and obedient servants. In short, the doctrine of the gospel is a lively mirror in which we contemplate the image of God, and are transformed into the same, as Paul teaches us in 2Co 3:18. Where, therefore, there is no pure conscience, nothing can be there but an empty phantom of knowledge.
We must notice the order when he says, We do know that we know him; for he intimates that obedience is so connected with knowledge, that the last is yet in order the first, as the cause is necessarily before its effect.
If we keep his commandments But there is no one who in everything keeps them; there would thus be no knowledge of God in the world. To this I answer, that the Apostle is by no means inconsistent with himself; since he has before shewed that all are guilty before God, he does not understand that those who keep his commandments wholly satisfy the law (no such example can be found in the world;) but that they are such as strive, according to the capacity of human infirmity, to form their life in conformity to the will of God. For whenever Scripture speaks of the righteousness of the faithful, it does not exclude the remission of sins, but on the contrary, begins with it.
But we are not hence to conclude that faith recumbs on works; for though every one receives a testimony to his faith from his works, yet it does not follow that it is founded on them, since they are added as an evidence. Then the certainty of faith depends on the grace of Christ alone; but piety and holiness of life distinguish true faith from that knowledge of God which is fictitious and dead; for the truth is, that those who are in Christ, as Paul says, have put off the old man. (Col 3:9.)
4. He that saith, I know him How does he prove that they are liars who boast that they have faith without piety? even by the contrary effect; for he has already said, that the knowledge of God is efficacious. For God is not known by a naked imagination, since he reveals himself inwardly to our hearts by the Spirit. Besides, as many hypocrites vainly boast that they have faith, the Apostle charges all such with falsehood; for what he says would be superfluous, were there no false and vain profession of Christianity made by man.
5. But whoso keepeth He now defines what a true keeping of God’s law is, even to love God. This passage is, I think, incorrectly explained by those who understand that they please the true God who keephis word. Rather take this as its meaning, “to love God in sincerity of heart, is to keep his commandments.” For he intended, as I have before reminded you, briefly to shew what God requires from us, and what is the holiness of the faithful. Moses also said the same thing, when he stated the sum of the law.
“Now, O Israel, what does the Lord require of thee, but to fear and love him, and to walk in his precepts?”
(Deu 10:12.)
And again he says,
“Choose life, even to love the Lord thy God, to serve him and to cleave to him.” (Deu 30:19)
For the law, which is spiritual, does not command only external works, but enjoins this especially, to love God with the whole heart.
That no mention is here made of what is due to men, ought not to be viewed as unreasonable; for brotherly love flows immediately from the love of God, as we shall hereafter see. Whosoever, then, desires that his life should be approved by God, must have all his doings directed to this end. If any one objects and says, that no one has ever been found who loved God thus perfectly; to this I reply, that it is sufficient, provided every one aspired to this perfection according to the measure of grace given unto him. In the meantime, the definition is, that the perfect love of God is the complete keeping of his law. To make progress in this as in knowledge, is what we ought to do.
Hereby know we that we are in him He refers to that fruit of the gospel which he had mentioned, even fellowship with the Father and the Son; and he thus confirms the former sentence, by stating what follows, as a consequence. For if it be the end of the gospel to hold communion with God, and no communion can be without love, then no one makes a real progress in faith except he who cleaves from the heart to God.
6. He that saith he abideth in him As he has before set before us God as light for an example, he now calls us also to Christ, that we may imitate him. Yet he does not simply exhort us to imitate Christ; but from the union we have with him, he proves that we ought to be like him. A likeness in life and deeds, he says, will prove that we abide in Christ. But from these words he passes on to the next clause, which he immediately adds respecting love to the brethren.
7. Brethren, I write no new commandment This is an explanation of the preceding doctrine, that to love God is to keep his commandments. And not without reason did he largely dwell on this point. First, we know that novelty is disliked or suspected. Secondly, we do not easily undertake an unwonted yoke. In addition to these things, when we have embraced any kind of doctrine, we dislike to have anything changed or made new in it. For these reasons John reminds us, that he taught nothing respecting love but what had been heard by the faithful from the beginning, and had by long usage become old.
Some explain oldness differently, even that Christ now prescribes no other rule of life under the Gospel than what God did formerly under the Law. This is indeed most true; nor do I object but that he afterwards calls in this sense the word of the gospel the old commandment But I think that he now means only, that these were the first elements of the gospel, that they had been thus taught from the beginning, that there was no reason why they should refuse that as unusual by which they ought to have been long ago imbued. For the relative seems to be used in a causative sense. He calls it then old, not because it was taught the fathers many ages before, but because it had been taught them on their new entrance into a religious life. And it served much to claim their faith, that it had proceeded from Christ himself from whom they had received the gospel. (64)
The old commandment The word old, in this place, probably extends further; for the sentence is fuller, when he says, the word which ye have heard from the beginning is the old commandment And as I, indeed, think, he means that the gospel ought not to be received as a doctrine lately born, but what has proceeded from God, and is his eternal truth; as though he had said, “Ye ought not to measure the antiquity of the gospel which is brought to you, by time; since therein is revealed to you the eternal will of God: not only then has God delivered to you this rule of a holy life, when ye were first called to the faith of Christ, but the same has always been prescribed and approved by him.” And, doubtless, this only ought to be deemed antiquity, and deserves faith and reverence, which has its origin from God. For the fictions of men, whatever long prescription of years they may have, cannot acquire so much authority as to subvert the truth of God.
(64) That this view is correct, appears evident from the words, “whichye had from the beginning;” he calls it “old,” because they had been taught it from “the beginning,” that is, of the gospel. Then “new” can mean no other thing than what Calvin states, that it continues still in force, it being, as it were, always new. — Ed.
8. Again, a new commandment Interpreters do not appear to me to have attained the meaning of the Apostle. He says new, because God, as it were, renews it by daily suggesting it, so that the faithful may practice it through their whole life, for nothing more excellent can be sought for by them. The elements which children learn give place in time to what is higher and more solid. On the contrary, John denies that the doctrine respecting brotherly love is of this kind, is one which grows old with time, but that it is perpetually in force, so that it is no less the highest perfection than the very beginning.
It was, however, necessary that this should be added, for as men are more curious than what they ought to be, there are many who always seek something new. Hence there is a weariness as to simple doctrine, which produces innumerable prodigies of errors, when every one gapes continually for new mysteries. Now, when it is known that the Lord proceeds in the same even course, in order to keep us through life in that which we have learnt, a bridle is cast on desires of this kind. Let him, then, who would reach the goal of wisdom, as to the right way of living, make proficiency in love.
Which then is true, or which is truth. He proves by this reason what he had said; for this one command respecting love, as to our conduct in life, constitutes the whole truth of Christ. Besides, what other greater revelation can be expected? for Christ, doubtless, is the end and the completion of all things. Hence the word truth means this, that they stood, as it were at the goal, for it is to be taken for a completion or a perfect state. He joins Christ to them, as the head to the members, as though he had said, that the body of the Church has no other perfection, or, that they would then be really united to Christ, if holy love existed continually among them.
Some give another explanation, “That which is the truth in Christ, is also in you.” But I do not see what the meaning of this is.
Because the darkness is past. The present time is here instead of the past; for he means, that as soon as Christ brings light, we have the full brightness of knowledge: not that every one of the faithful becomes wise the first day as much as he ought to be, (for even Paul testifies that he labored to apprehend what he had not apprehended, (Phi 3:12,) but that the knowledge of Christ alone is sufficient to dissipate darkness. Hence, daily progress is necessary; and the faith of every one has its dawn before it reaches the noonday. But as God continues the inculcation of the same doctrine, in which he bids us to make advances, the knowledge of the Gospel is justly said to be the true light, when Christ, the Sun of righteousness, shines. Thus the way is shut up against the audacity of those men who try to corrupt the purity of the Gospel by their own fictions; and we may safely denounce an anathema on the whole theology of the Pope, for it wholly obscures the true light.
9. He that saith he is in the light He pursues the same metaphor. He said that love is the only true rule according to which our life is to be formed; he said that this rule or law is presented to us in the Gospel; he said, lastly, that it is there as the meridian light, which ought to be continually looked on. Now, on the other hand, he concludes that all are blind and walk in darkness who are strangers to love. But that he mentioned before the love of God and now the love of the brethren, involves no more contrariety than there is between the effect and its cause. Besides, these are so connected together that they cannot be separated.
John says in 1Jo 3:11, that we falsely boast of love to God, except we love our brethren; and this is most true. But he now takes love to the brethren as a testimony by which we prove that we love God. In short, since love so regards God, that in God it embraces men, there is nothing strange in this, that the Apostle, speaking of love, should refer at one time to God, at another to the brethren; and this is what is commonly done in Scripture. The whole perfection of life is often said to consist in the love of God; and again, Paul teaches us, that the whole law is fulfilled by him who loves his neighbor, (Rom 13:8;) and Christ declares that the main points of the law are righteousness, judgment, and truth. (Mat 23:23.) Both these things are true and agree well together, for the love of God teaches us to love men, and we also in reality prove our love to God by loving men at his command. However this may be, it remains always certain that love is the rule of life. And this ought to be the more carefully noticed, because all choose rather almost anything else than this one commandment of God.
To the same purpose is what follows, and there is no occasion of stumbling in him — that is, in him who acts in love; for, he who thus lives will never stumble. (65)
(65) Literally, “and to him there is not a stumblingblock;” that is, nothing that causes him to stumble or fall. He is not like him mentioned in the next verse, who “walks in darkness and knows not whither he goeth.” The sentence seems to have been taken from Psa 119:165, with this only difference, that it is “to them,” instead of “to him.” There is in the Sept no preposition, but in Hebrew the preposition “to” is used; and ἐν has sometimes this meaning in the New Testament. See Col 1:23; 1Th 4:7. — Ed.
11. But he that hateth his brother. He again reminds us, that whatever specious appearance of excellency thou shewest, there is yet nothing but what is sinful if love be absent. This passage may be compared with 1. o 13:1, and no long explanation is needed. But this doctrine is not understood by the world, because the greater part are dazzled by all sorts of masks or disguises. Thus, fictitious sanctity dazzles the eyes of almost all men, while love is neglected, or, at least, driven to the farthest corner.
12Little children This is still a general declaration, for he does not address those only of a tender age, but by little children he means men of all ages, as in the first verse, and also hereafter. I say this, because interpreters have incorrectly applied the term to children. But John, when he speaks of children, calls them παιδία, a word expressive of age; but here, as a spiritual father, he calls the old as well as the young, τεκνία He will, indeed, presently address special words to different ages; yet they are mistaken who think that he begins to do so here. But, on the contrary, lest the preceding exhortation should obscure the free remission of sins, he again inculcates the doctrine which peculiarly belongs to faith, in order that the foundation may with certainty be always retained, that salvation is laid up for us in Christ alone.
Holiness of life ought indeed to be urged, the fear of God ought to be carefully enjoined, men ought to be sharply goaded to repentance, newness of life, together with its fruits, ought to be commended; but still we ought ever to take heed, lest the doctrine of faith be smothered, — that doctrine which teaches that Christ is the only author of salvation and of all blessings; on the contrary, such moderation ought to be presented, that faith may ever retain its own primacy. This is the rule prescribed to us by John: having faithfully spoken of good works, lest he should seem to give them more importance than he ought to have done, he carefully calls us back to contemplate the grace of Christ.
Your sins are forgiven you Without this assurance, religion would not be otherwise than fading and shadowy; nay, they who pass by the free remission of sins, and dwell on other things, build without a foundation. John in the meantime intimates, that nothing is more suitable to stimulate men to fear God than when they are rightly taught what blessing Christ has brought to them, as Paul does, when he beseeches by the bowels of God’s mercies. (Phi 2:1.)
It hence appears how wicked is the calumny of the Papists, who pretend that the desire of doing what is right is frozen, when that is extolled which alone renders us obedient children to God. For the Apostle takes this as the ground of his exhortation, that we know that God is so benevolent to us as not to impute to us our sins.
For his name’s sake The material cause is mentioned, lest we should seek other means to reconcile us to God. For it would not be sufficient to know that God forgives us our sins, except we came directly to Christ, and to that price which he paid on the cross for us. And this ought the more to be observed, because we see that by the craft of Satan, and by the wicked fictions of men, this way is obstructed; for foolish men attempt to pacify God by various satisfactions, and devise innumerable kinds of expiations for the purpose of redeeming themselves. For as many means of deserving pardon we intrude on God, by so many obstacles are we prevented from approaching him. Hence John, not satisfied with stating simply the doctrine, that God remits to us our sins, expressly adds, that he is propitious to us from a regard to Christ, in order that he might exclude all other reasons. We also, that we may enjoy this blessing, must pass by and forget all other names, and rely only on the name of Christ.
13I write unto you, fathers He comes now to enumerate different ages, that he might shew that what he taught was suitable to every one of them. For a general address sometimes produces less effect; yea, such is our perversity, that few think that what is addressed to all belongs to them. The old for the most part excuse themselves, because they have exceeded the age of learning; children refuse to learn, as they are not yet old enough; men of middle age do not attend, because they are occupied with other pursuits. Lest, then, any should exempt themselves, he accommodates the Gospel to all. And he mentions three ages, the most common division of human life. Hence also, the Lacedemonian chorus had three orders; the first sang, “What ye are we shall be;” the last, “What ye are we have been;” and the middle, “We are what one of you have been and the other will be.” Into these three degrees John divides human life.
He, indeed, begins with the old, and says that the Gospel is suitable to them, because they learnt from it to know the eternal Son of God. Moroseness is the character of the old, but they become especially unteachable, because they measure wisdom by the number of years. Besides, Horace in his Art of Poetry, has justly noticed this fault in them, that they praise the time of their youth and reject whatever is differently done or said. This evil John wisely removes, when he reminds us that the Gospel contains not only a knowledge that is ancient, but what also leads us to the very eternity of God. It hence follows that there is nothing here which they can dislike. He says that Christ was from the beginning; I refer this to his Divine presence, as being co-eternal with the Father, as well as to his power, of which the Apostle speaks in Hebrews, that he was yesterday what he is today; as though he had said,
“If antiquity delights you, ye have Christ, who is superior to all antiquity; therefore his disciples ought not to be ashamed of him who includes all ages in Himself.” (Heb 13:8)
We must, at the same time, notice what that religion is which is really ancient, even that which is founded on Christ, for otherwise it will be of no avail, however long it may have existed, if it derives its origin from error.
I write unto you, young men Though it be a diminutive word, νεανίσκοι, (66) yet there is no doubt but that he directs his word to all who were in the flower of their age. We also know that those of that age are so addicted to the vain cares of the world, that they think but little of the kingdom of God; for the rigor of their minds and the strength of their bodies in a manner inebriate them. Hence the Apostle reminds them where true strength is, that they might no more exult as usual in the flesh. Ye are strong, he says, because ye have overcome Satan. The copulative here is to be rendered causatively. And, doubtless, that strength is what we ought to seek, even that which is spiritual. At the same time he intimates that it is not had otherwise than from Christ, for he mentions the blessings which we receive through the Gospel. He says that they had conquered who were as yet engaged in the contest; but our condition is far otherwise than that of those who fight under the banners of men, for war is doubtful to them and the issue is uncertain; but we are conquerors before we engage with the enemy, for our head Christ has once for all conquered for us the whole world.
I write unto you, young children They needed another direction. That the Gospel is well adapted to young children the Apostle concludes, because they find there the Father. We now see how diabolical is the tyranny of the Pope, which drives away by threats all ages from the doctrine of the Gospel, while the Spirit of God so carefully addresses them all.
But these things which the Apostle makes particular, are also general; for we should wholly fall off into vanity, except our infirmity were sustained by the eternal truth of God. There is nothing in us but what is frail and fading, except the power of Christ dwells in us. We are all like orphans until we attain the grace of adoption by the Gospel. Hence, what he declares respecting young children is also true as to the old. But yet his object was to apply to each what was most especially necessary for them, that he might shew that they all without exception stood in need of the doctrine of the Gospel. The particle ὅτι is explained in two ways, but the meaning I have given to it is the best, and agrees better with the context.
(66) The diminutive termination often expresses affection; hence νεανίσκοι may properly be rendered, “dear youth,” or “dear young men;” and so τεκνία μου, in the first verse, may be rendered, “My dear children.” — Ed
14I have written unto you, fathers These repetitions I deem superfluous; and it is probable that when unskillful readers falsely thought that he spoke twice of little children, they rashly introduced the other two clauses. It might at the same time be that John himself, for the sake of amplifying, inserted the second time the sentence respecting the young men, (for he adds, that they were strong, which he had not said before;) but that the copyists presumptuously filled up the number. (67)
(67) There are no different readings that can justify the supposition of an interpolation. The only reading that Griesbach considers probable is ἔγραψα for γράφω at the end of the 13th verse. If that be adopted, then the three characters are twice mentioned, and in regular order. The objection that τεκνία in ver. 12, is παιδία in ver. 13, is not valid, for he uses the latter in the same sense as the former in ver. 18, as denoting Christians in general; while here, in connection with “fathers” and “young men,” they must mean those young in years or in the profession of the gospel. The repetition is for the sake of emphasis. — Ed
15Love not He had said before that the only rule for living religiously, is to love God; but as, when we are occupied with the vain love of the world, we turn away all our thoughts and affections another way, this vanity must first be torn away from us, in order that the love of God may reign within us. Until our minds are cleansed, the former doctrine may be iterated a hundred times, but with no effect: it would be like pouring water on a ball; you can gather, no, not a drop, because there is no empty place to retain water. (68)
By the world understand everything connected with the present life, apart from the kingdom of God and the hope of eternal life. So he includes in it corruptions of every kind, and the abyss of all evils. In the world are pleasures, delights, and all those allurements by which man is captivated, so as to withdraw himself from God. (69)
Moreover, the love of the world is thus severely condemned, because we must necessarily forget God and ourselves when we regard nothing so much as the earth; and when a corrupt lust of this kind rules in man, and so holds him entangled that he thinks not of the heavenly life, he is possessed by a beastly stupidity.
If any man love the world He proves by an argument from what is contrary, how necessary it is to cast away the love of the world, if we wish to please God; and this he afterwards confirms by an argument drawn from what is inconsistent; for what belongs to the world is wholly at variance with God. We must bear in mind what I have already said, that a corrupt mode of life is here mentioned, which has nothing in common with the kingdom of God, that is, when men become so degenerated, that they are satisfied with the present life, and think no more of immortal life than mute animals. Whosoever, then, makes himself thus a slave to earthly lusts, cannot be of God.
(68) It is considered by many, such as Macknight and Scott, that the three former verses are connected with this — that the particulars stated with regard to little children, fathers, and young men, are adduced as reasons to enforce this exhortation, “Love not the world,” etc. And this no doubt is the best view of the passage. — Ed.
(69) There are two things, the world, and the things that are in the world. The world, thus distinguished from what is in it, means, according to Macknight, the wicked and unbelieving, the men of the world, as when our Savior says, “the world,” that is, the unbelieving Jews, “hateth you,” Joh 15:19. According to this view, the contrast in verse 17 appears very suitable, “The world (the ungodly men of the world) passeth away, and its lust, (their lust;) but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.” Others think that the blessings of the world are meant, the good things necessary for the support of man, and that these are not to be loved, though they may be rightly used. In this case, “in the world” must have a different meaning, a thing not unusual in Scripture; it must mean in the present state of things. But the most consistent view is the first, that is, to take “the world” throughout as signifying the ungodly men of the world. What prevail among them are the lusts here mentioned, — sensual gratification, avarice, and ambition, the three gods who rule and reign in mankind. — Ed.
16The lust of the flesh, or, namely, the lust of the flesh. The old interpreter renders the verse otherwise, for from one sentence he makes two. Those Greek authors do better, who read these words together, “Whatever is in the world is not of God;” and then the three kinds of lusts they introduce parenthetically. For John, by way of explanation, inserted these three particulars as examples, that he might briefly shew what are the pursuits and thoughts of men who live for the world; but whether it be a full and complete division, it does not signify much; though you will not find a worldly man in whom these lusts do not prevail, at least one of them. It remains for us to see what he understands by each of these.
The first clause is commonly explained of all sinful lusts in general; for the flesh means the whole corrupt nature of man. Though I am unwilling to contend, yet I am unwilling to dissemble that I approve of another meaning. Paul, when forbidding, in Rom 13:14, to make provision for the flesh as to its lusts, seems to me to be the best interpreter of this place. What, then, is the flesh there? even the body and all that belongs to it. What, then, is the lust or desire of the flesh, but when worldly men, seeking to live softly and delicately, are intent only on their own advantages? Well known from Cicero and others, is the threefold division made by Epicurus; for he made this difference between lusts; he made some natural and necessary, some natural and not necessary, and some neither natural nor necessary. But John, well knowing the insubordination (ἀταξία)of the human heart unhesitantly condemns the lust of the flesh, because it always flows out immoderately, and never observes any due medium. He afterwards comes gradually to grosser vices.
The lust of the eyes He includes, as I think, libidinous looks as well as the vanity which delights in pomps and empty splendor.
In the last place follows pride or haughtiness; with which is connected ambition, boasting, contempt of others, blind love of self, headstrong self-confidence.
The sum of the whole is, that as soon as the world presents itself, our lusts or desires, when our heart is corrupt, are captivated by it, like unbridled wild beasts; so that various lusts, all which are adverse to God, bear rule in us. The Greek word, βὶος rendered life, (vita ,) means the way or manner of living.
17And the world passeth away As there is nothing in the world but what is fading, and as it were for a moment, he hence concludes that they who seek their happiness from it, make a wretched and miserable provision for themselves, especially when God calls us to the ineffable glory of eternal life; as though he had said, “The true happiness which God offers to his children, is eternal; it is then a shameful thing for us to be entangled with the world, which with all its benefits will soon vanish away.” I take lust here metonymically, as signifying what is desired or coveted, or what captivates the desires of men. The meaning is, that what is most precious in the world and deemed especially desirable, is nothing but a shadowy phantom.
By saying that they who do the will of God shall abide for ever, or perpetually, he means that they who seek God shall be perpetually blessed. Were any one to object and say, that no one doeth what God commands, the obvious answer is, that what is spoken of here is not the perfect keeping of the law, but the obedience of faith, which, however imperfect it may be, is yet approved by God. The will of God is first made known to us in the law; but as no one satisfies the law, no happiness can be hoped from it. But Christ comes to meet the despairing with new aid, who not only regenerates us by his Spirit that we may obey God, but makes also that our endeavor, such as it is, should obtain the praise of perfect righteousness.
18It is the last time, or hour. He confirms the faithful against offenses by which they might have been disturbed. Already many sects had risen up, which rent the unity of faith and caused disorder in the churches. But the Apostle not only fortifies the faithful, lest they should falter, but turns the whole to a contrary purpose; for he reminds them that the last time had already come, and therefore he exhorts them to a greater vigilance, as though he had said, “Whilst various errors arise, it behooves you to be awakened rather than to be overwhelmed; for we ought hence to conclude that Christ is not far distant; let us then attentively look for him, lest he should come upon us suddenly.” In the same way it behooves us to comfort ourselves at this day, and to see by faith the near advent of Christ, while Satan is causing confusion for the sake of disturbing the Church, for these are the signs of the last time.
But so many ages having passed away since the death of John, seem to prove that this prophecy is not true: to this I answer, that the Apostle, according to the common mode adopted in the Scripture, declares to the faithful, that nothing more now remained but that Christ should appear for the redemption of the world. But as he fixes no time, he did not allure the men of that age by a vain hope, nor did he intend to cut short in future the course of the Church and the many successions of years during which the Church has hitherto remained in the world. And doubtless, if the eternity of God’s kingdom be borne in mind, so long a time will appear to us as a moment. We must understand the design of the Apostle, that he calls that the last time, during which all things shall be so completed, that nothing will remain except the last revelation of Christ.
As ye have heard that antichrist will come He speaks as of a thing well known. We may hence conclude that the faithful had been taught and warned from the beginning respecting the future disorder of the Church, in order that they might, carefully keep themselves in the faith they professed, and also instruct posterity in the duty of watchfulness. For it was God’s will that his Church should be thus tried, lest any one knowingly and willingly should be deceived, and that there might be no excuse for ignorance. But we see that almost the whole world has been miserably deceived, as though not a word had been said about Antichrist.
Moreover, under the Papacy there is nothing more notorious and common than the future coming of Antichrist; and yet they are so stupid, that they perceive not that his tyranny is exercised over them. Indeed, the same thing happens altogether to them as to the Jews; for though they hold the promises respecting the Messiah, they are yet further away from Christ than if they had never heard his name; for the imaginary Messiah, whom they have invented for themselves, turns them wholly aside from the Son of God; and were any one to shew Christ to them from the Law and the Prophets, he would only spend his labor in vain. The Popes have imagined an Antichrist, who for three years and a half is to harass the Church. All the marks by which the Spirit of God has pointed out Antichrist, clearly appear in the Pope; but the triennial Antichrist lays fast hold on the foolish Papists, so that seeing they do not see. Let us then remember, that Antichrist has not only been announced by the Spirit of God, but that also the marks by which he may be distinguished have been mentioned.
Even now are there many antichrists. This may seem to have been added by way of correction, as they falsely thought that it would be some one kingdom; but it is not so. They who suppose that he would be only one man, are indeed greatly mistaken. For Paul, referring to a future defection, plainly shows that it would be a certain body or kingdom. (2Th 2:3.) He first predicts a defection that would prevail through the whole Church, as a universal evil; he then makes the head of the apostasy the adversary of Christ, who would sit in the temple of God, claiming for himself divinity and divine honors. Except we desire willfully to err, we may learn from Paul’s description to know Antichrist. That passage I have already explained; it is enough now touch on it by the way.
But how can that passage agree with the words of John, who says that there were already many antichrists? To this I reply, that John meant no other thing than to say, that some particular sects had already risen, which were forerunners of a future Antichrist; for Cerinthus, Basilides, Marcion, Valentinus, Ebion, Arrius, and others, were members of that kingdom which the Devil afterwards raised up in opposition to Christ. Properly speaking, Antichrist was not yet in existence; but the mystery of iniquity was working secretly. But John uses the name, that he might effectually stimulate the care and solicitude of the godly to repel frauds.
But if the Spirit of God even then commanded the faithful to stand on their watch, when they saw at a distance only signs of the coming enemy, much less is it now a time for sleeping, when he holds the Church under his cruel and oppressive tyranny, and openly dishonors Christ.
19They went out from us He anticipates another objection, that the Church seemed to have produced these pests, and to have cherished them for a time in its bosom. For certainly it serves more to disturb the weak, when any one among us, professing the true faith, falls away, than when a thousand aliens conspire against us. He then confesses that they had gone out from the bosom of the Church; but he denies that they were ever of the Church. But the way of removing this objection is, to say, that the Church is always exposed to this evil, so that it is constrained to bear with many hypocrites who know not Christ, really, however much they may by the mouth profess his name.
By saying, They went out from us, he means that they had previously occupied a place in the Church, and were counted among the number of the godly. He, however, denies that they were of them, though they had assumed the name of believers, as chaff though mixed with wheat on the same floor cannot yet be deemed wheat.
For if they had been of us He plainly declares that those who fell away had never been members of the Church. And doubtless the seal of God, under which he keeps his own, remains sure, as Paul says, (2Ti 2:19.) But here arises a difficulty, for it happens that many who seemed to have embraced Christ, often fall away. To this I answer, that there are three sorts of those who profess the Gospel; there are those who feign piety, while a bad conscience reproves them within; the hypocrisy of others is more deceptive, who not only seek to disguise themselves before men, but also dazzle their own eyes, so that they seem to themselves to worship God aright; the third are those who have the living root of faith, and carry a testimony of their own adoption firmly fixed in their hearts. The two first have no stability; of the last John speaks, when he says, that it is impossible that they should be separated from the Church, for the seal which God’s Spirit engraves on their hearts cannot be obliterated; the incorruptible seed, which has struck roots, cannot be pulled up or destroyed.
He does not speak here of the constancy of men, but of God, whose election must be ratified. He does not then, without reason declare, that where the calling of God is effectual, perseverance would be certain. He, in short, means that they who fall away had never been thoroughly imbued with the knowledge of Christ, but had only a light and a transient taste of it.
That they might be made manifest He shews that trial is useful and necessary for the Church. It hence follows, on the other hand, that there is no just cause for perturbation. Since the Church is like a threshing-floor, the chaff must be blown away that the pure wheat may remain. This is what God does, when he casts out hypocrites from the Church, for he then cleanses it from refuse and filth.
20But ye have an unction. The Apostle modestly excuses himself for having so earnestly warned them, lest they should think that they were indirectly reproved, as though they were rude and ignorant of those things which they ought to have well known. So Paul conceded wisdom to the Romans, that they were able and fit to admonish others. He at the same time shewed that they stood in need of being reminded, in order that they might rightly perform their duty. (Rom 15:14.) The Apostles did not, however, speak thus in order to flatter them; but they thus wisely took heed lest their doctrine should be rejected by any, for they declared what was suitable and useful, not only to the ignorant, but also to those well instructed in the Lord’s school.
Experience teaches us how fastidious the ears of men are. Such fastidiousness ought indeed to be far away from the godly; it yet behooves a faithful and wise teacher to omit nothing by which he may secure a hearing from all. And it is certain that we receive what is said with less attention and respect, when we think that he who speaks disparages the knowledge which has been given us by the Lord. The Apostle by this praise did at the same time stimulate his readers, because they who were endued with the gift of knowledge, had less excuse if they did not surpass others in their proficiency.
The state of the case is, that the Apostle did not teach them as though they were ignorant, and acquainted only with the first elements of knowledge, but reminded them of things already known, and also exhorted them to rouse up the sparks of the Spirit, that a full brightness might shine forth in them. And in the next words he explained himself, having denied that he wrote to them because they knew not the truth, but because they had been well taught in it; for had they been wholly ignorant and novices, they could not have comprehended his doctrine.
Now, when he says that they knew all things, it is not to be taken in the widest sense, but ought to be confined to the subject treated of here. But when he says that they had an unction from the Holy One, he alludes, no doubt, to the ancient types. The oil by which the priests were anointed was obtained from the sanctuary; and Daniel mentions the coming of Christ as the proper time for anointing the Most Holy. (Dan 9:24.) For he was anointed by the Father, that he might pour forth on us a manifold abundance from his own fullness. It hence follows that men are not rightly made wise by the acumen of their own minds, but by the illumination of the Spirit; and further, that we are not otherwise made partakers of the Spirit than through Christ, who is the true sanctuary and our only high priest. (70)
(70) “From the Holy One,” from the Father, say some; from the Son, say others; from the Holy Spirit, according to a third party. By comparing this verse with 1Jo 2:27, we see reason to conclude that the “Holy One” is Christ, who had promised the Spirit to teach his people. The unction, or the anointing, is the act of the Spirit by which the truth is taught. — Ed.
21And that no lie is of the truth. He concedes to them a judgment, by which they could distinguish truth from falsehood; for it is not the dialectic proposition, that falsehood differs from truth, (such as are taught as general rules in the schools;) but what is said is applied to that which is practical and useful; as though he had said, that they did not only hold what was true, but were also so fortified against the impostures and fallacies of the ungodly, that they wisely took heed to themselves. Besides, he speaks not of this or of that kind of falsehood; but he says, that whatever deception Satan might contrive, or in whatever way he might attack them, they would be able readily to distinguish between light and darkness, because they had the Spirit as their guide.
22Who is a liar He does not assert that they alone were liars who denied that the Son of God appeared in the flesh, lest no one in unloosing the knot should above measure torment himself; but that they surpassed all others, as though he had said, that except this be deemed a lie, no other could be so reckoned; as we are wont commonly to say, “If perfidy towards God and men is not a crime, what else can we call a crime?” (71)
What he had generally said of false prophets, he now applies to the state of his own time; for he points out, as by the finger, those who disturbed the Church. I readily agree with the ancients, who thought that Cerinthus and Carpocrates are here referred to. But the denial of Christ extends much wider; for it is not enough in words to confess that Jesus is the Christ, except he is acknowledged to be such as the Father offers him to us in the gospel. The two I have named gave the title of Christ to the Son of God, but imagined him to be man only. Others followed them, such as Arius, who, adorning him with the name of God, robbed him of his eternal divinity. Marcion dreamt that he was a mere phantom. Sabellius imagined that he differed nothing from the Father. All these denied the Son of God; for not one of them really acknowledged the true Christ; but, adulterating, as far as they could, the truth respecting him, they devised for themselves an idol instead of Christ. Then broke out Pelagius, who, indeed, raised no dispute respecting Christ’s essence, but allowed him to be true man and God; yet he transferred to us almost all the honor that belongs to him. It is, indeed, to reduce Christ to nothing, when his grace and power are set aside.
So the Papists, at this day, setting up freewill in opposition to the grace of the Holy Spirit, ascribing a part of their righteousness and salvation to the merits of works, feigning for themselves innumerable advocates, by whom they render God propitious to them, have a sort of fictitious Christ, I know not what; but the lively and genuine image of God, which shines forth in Christ, they deform by their wicked inventions; they lessen his power, subvert and pervert his office.
We now see that Christ, is denied, whenever those things which peculiarly belong to him, are taken away from him. And as Christ is the end of the law and of the gospel, and has in himself all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, so he is the mark at which all heretics level and direct their arrows. Therefore the Apostle does not, without reason, make those the chief impostors, who fight against Christ, in whom the full truth is exhibited to us.
He is Antichrist He speaks not of that prince of defection who was to occupy the seat of God; but all those who seek to overthrow Christ, he puts them among that impious band. And that he might amplify their crime, he asserts that the Father, no less than the Son, is denied by them; as though he had said, “They have no longer any religion, because they wholly cast away God.” And this he afterwards confirms, by adding this reason, that the Father cannot be separated from the Son.
(71) Taking this view of the passage, we may give this rendering, — “Who is a liar, except it be he who denies that Jesus is the Christ?” — Ed.
Now this is a remarkable sentence, and ought to be reckoned among the first axioms of our religion. yea, when we have confessed that there is one true God, this second article ought necessarily to be added, that he is no other but he who is made known in Christ. The Apostle does not here treat distinctly of the unity of essence. It is, indeed, certain, that the Son cannot be disunited from the Father, for he is of the same essence, (ὁμοούσιος;) but another thing is spoken of here, that is, that the Father, who is invisible, has revealed himself only in his Son. Hence he is called the image of the Father, (Heb 1:3,) because he sets forth and exhibits to us all that is necessary to be known of the Father. For the naked majesty of God would, by its immense brightness, ever dazzle our eyes; it is therefore necessary for us to look on Christ. This is to come to the light, which is justly said to be otherwise inaccessible.
I say, again, that there is not here a distinct discussion respecting the eternal essence of Christ, which he has in common with the Father. This passage is, indeed, abundantly sufficient to prove it: but John calls us to this practical part of faith, that as God has given himself to us to be enjoyed only in Christ, he is elsewhere sought for in vain; or (if any one prefers what is clearer) that as in Christ dwells all the fullness of the Deity, there is no God apart from him. It hence follows, that Turks, Jews, and such as are like them, have a mere idol and not the true God. For by whatever titles they may honor the God whom they worship, still, as they reject him without whom they cannot come to God, and in whom God has really manifested himself to us, what have they but some creature or fiction of their own? They may flatter themselves as much as they please, with their own speculations, who, without Christ, philosophize on divine things; it is still certain that they do nothing but rave and rant, because, as Paul says, they hold not the Head. (Col 2:19.) It is obvious, hence, to conclude how necessary is the knowledge of Christ.
Many copies have the opposite sentence, “He who confesses the Son,” etc. But as I think that a note by some copyist has crept into the text, I hesitated not to omit it. (72) But if its insertion be approved, the meaning would be, that there is no right confession of God except the Father be acknowledged in the Son.
Were any one to object and say, that many of the ancients thought rightly of God, to whom Christ was not known: I allow that the knowledge of Christ has not been always so explicitly revealed, nevertheless, I contend that it has been always true, that as the light of the sun comes to us by its rays, so the knowledge of God has been communicated through Christ.
(72) The words are found in most of the MSS., and in most of the versions, and in many of the Fathers. Besides, they wholly comport with the usual style of the Apostle, whose common practice it was to state things positively and negatively, and vice versa. Sec especially 1Jo 5:12. — Ed.
24Let that therefore abide in you He annexes an exhortation to the former doctrine; and that it might have more weight, he points out the fruit they would receive from obedience. He then exhorts them to perseverance in the faith, so that they might retain fixed in their hearts what they had learnt.
But when he says, from the beginning, he does not mean that antiquity alone was sufficient to prove any doctrine true; but as he has already shown that they had been rightly instructed in the pure gospel of Christ, he concludes that they ought of right to continue in it. And this order ought to be especially noticed; for were we unwilling to depart from that doctrine which we have once embraced, whatever it may be, this would not be perseverance, but perverse obstinacy. Hence, discrimination ought to be exercised, so that a reason for our faith may be made evident from God’s word: then let inflexible perseverance follow.
The Papists boast of “a beginning,” because they have imbibed their superstitions from childhood. Under this pretense they allow themselves obstinately to reject the plain truth. Such perverseness shews to us, that we ought always to begin with the certainty of truth.
In that which ye have heard Here is the fruit of perseverance, that they in whom God’s truth remains, remain in God. We hence learn what we are to seek in every truth pertaining to religion. He therefore makes the greatest proficiency, who makes such progress as wholly to cleave to God. But he in whom the Father dwells not through his Son, is altogether vain and empty, whatever knowledge he may possess. Moreover, this is the highest commendation of sound doctrine, that it unites us to God, and that in it is found whatever pertains to the real fruition of God.
In the last place, he reminds us that it is real happiness when God dwells in us. The words he uses are ambiguous. They may be rendered, “This is the promise which he has promised to us, even eternal life. ” (73) You may, however, adopt either of these renderings, for the meaning is still the same. The sum of what is said is, that we cannot live otherwise than by nourishing to the end the seed of life sown in our hearts. John insists much on this point, that not only the beginning of a blessed life is to be found in the knowledge of Christ, but also its perfection. But no repetition of it can be too much, since it is well known that it has ever been a cause of ruin to men, that being not content with Christ, they have had a hankering to wander beyond the simple doctrine of the gospel.
(73) This, which is our version, is, no doubt, the best construction. “Promise ” is a metonymy for what is promised: “This is the promise, which he hath promised to us, even eternal life.” “Eternal life” is in apposition with “which.” — Ed.
26These things have I written unto you The apostle excuses himself again for having admonished them who were well endued with knowledge and judgment. But he did this, that they might apply for the guidance of the Spirit, lest his admonition should be in vain; as though he had said, “I indeed do my part, but still it is necessary that the Spirit of God should direct you in all things; for in vain shall I, by the sound of my voice, beat your ears, or rather the air, unless he speaks within you.”
When we hear that he wrote concerning seducers, we ought always to bear in mind, that it is the duty of a good and diligent pastor not only to gather a flock, but also to drive away wolves’ for what will it avail to proclaim the pure gospel, if we connive at the impostures of Satan? No one, then, can faithfully teach the Church, except he is diligent in banishing errors whenever he finds them spread by seducers. What he says of the unction having been received from him, I refer to Christ.
27And ye need not Strange must have been the purpose of John, as I have already said, if he intended to represent teaching as useless. He did not ascribe to them so much wisdom, as to deny that they were the scholars of Christ. He only meant that they were by no means so ignorant as to need things as it were unknown to be taught them, and that he did not set before them anything which the Spirit of God might not of himself suggest to them. Absurdly, then, do fanatical men lay hold on this passage, in order to exclude from the Church the use of the outward ministry. He says that the faithful, taught by the Spirit, already understood what he delivered to them, so that they had no need to learn things unknown to them. He said this, that he might add more authority to his doctrine, while every one repeated in his heart an assent to it, engraven as it were by the finger of God. But as every one had knowledge according to the measure of his faith, and as faith in some was small, in others stronger, and in none perfect, it hence follows, that no one knew so much, that there was no room for progress.
There is also another use to be made of this doctrine, — that when men really understand what is needful for them, we are yet to warn and rouse them, that they may be more confirmed. For what John says, that they were taught all things by the Spirit, ought not to be taken generally, but to be confined to what is contained in this passage. He had, in short, no other thing in view than to strengthen their faith, while he recalled them to the examination of the Spirit, who is the only fit corrector and approver of doctrine, who seals it on our hearts, so that we may certainly know that God speaks. For while faith ought to look to God, he alone can be a witness to himself, so as to convince our hearts that what our ears receive has come from him.
And the same is the meaning of these words, As the same anointing teaches you of all things, and is truth; that is, the Spirit is like a seal, by which the truth of God is testified to you. When he adds, and is no lie, he points out another office of the Spirit, even that he endues us with judgment and discernment, lest we should be deceived by lies, lest we should hesitate and be perplexed, lest we should vacillate as in doubtful things.
As it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him, or,abide in him. He had said, that the Spirit abode in them; he now exhorts them to abide in the revelation made by him, and he specifies what revelation it was, “Abide,”he says, “in Christ, as the Spirit hath taught you.” Another explanation, I know, is commonly given, “Abide in it,” that is, the unction. But as the repetition which immediately follows, cannot apply to any but to Christ, I have no doubt but that he speaks here also of Christ; and this is required by the context; for the Apostle dwells much on this point, that the faithful should retain the true knowledge of Christ, and that they should not go to God in any other way.
He at the same time shews, that the children of God are for no other end illuminated by the Spirit, but that they may know Christ. Provided they turned not aside from him, he promised them the fruit of perseverance, even confidence, so as not to be ashamed at his presence. For faith is not a naked and a frigid apprehension of Christ, but a lively and real sense of his power, which produces confidence. Indeed, faith cannot stand, while tossed daily by so many waves, except it looks to the coming of Christ, and, supported by his power, brings tranquillity to the conscience. But the nature of confidence is well expressed, when he says that it can boldly sustain the presence of Christ. For they who indulge securely in their vices, turn their backs as it were on God; nor can they otherwise obtain peace than by forgetting him. This is the security of the flesh, which stupefies men; so that turning away from God, they neither dread sin nor fear death; and in the meantime they shun the tribunal of Christ. But a godly confidence delights to look on God. Hence it is, that the godly calmly wait for Christ, nor do they dread his coming.
29. If ye know that he is righteous He again passes on to exhortations, so that he mingles these continually with doctrine throughout the Epistle; but he proves by many arguments that faith is necessarily connected with a holy and pure life. The first argument is, that we are spiritually begotten after the likeness of Christ; it hence follows, that no one is born of Christ but he who lives righteously. It is at the same time uncertain whether he means Christ or God, when he says that they who are born of him do righteousness. It is a mode of speaking certainly used in Scripture, that we are born of God in Christ; but there is nothing inconsistent in the other, that they are born of Christ, who are renewed by his Spirit. (74)
(74) It is the character of John’s style that he often passes as it were abruptly from the Son to the Father, and from the Father to the Son; and often the antecedent is not the next preceding word, but one at some distance: we find this to be the case by what the sentence contains, as in the present instance; the new birth is never ascribed to the Son, referred to in the foregoing verse, but to the Father or to the Spirit. Hence we must conclude that the righteous one spoken of here, who together with the Son is mentioned in the 2. d verse, is the Father. As the intervening verses, with the exception of the 2. d, which is only explanatory of the previous verse, apply to the Son, so this verse seems to refer to the Father, consistently with a mode of writing common in Scripture. — Ed.
