Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadInternational Critical Commentary NT - 1 John 2:1 - 2:99
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
(b) 2:1-6. Further statement of the conditions of fellowship. Knowledge and obedience
1, 2 The remedy for sin (in the case of those who acknowledge that they have sinned, in contrast with 1:10).
3-5a. Obedience the sign of knowledge.
5b, 6. Imitation the sign of union.
1. The recognition of the universality of sin, from which even Christians are not actually free, might lead to a misconception of its true character. Men might easily pass too lenient judgments on its heinousness, and ignore the responsibility of those who give way to its promptings. If it is impossible for any one, even the Christian, to escape sin, why condemn with such uncompromising severity failures for which men cannot reasonably be held responsible? Why strive so earnestly against what is inevitable? The writer hastens to warn his readers against such conclusions. Sin is wholly antagonistic to the Christian ideal; his whole object in trying to set out that ideal more clearly is to prevent sin, not to condone it. His aim in writing is to bring about “sinlessness” (ἵαμ ἀάττ). And the Christian scheme includes means by which such an aim may be gradually realized. Whenever any one gives way to any act of sin, such as must interrupt the intercourse and fellowship between men and God, which it is the great aim of Christ’s work to establish, the means exist by which this fellowship may be restored. Christians have an “advocate” with the Father (πό: cf. 1:2), who is able and willing to plead their cause, to present their case truly and completely, to transact their business, to speak for them, if non-legal phrases convey the meaning more clearly. And His mediation is addressed to one who is Father of both Advocate and suppliants, as eager as they can be that the fellowship should be restored, on the only terms on which such fellowship can be restored, the removal of the sin which has interrupted it.τκί μυ The “Elder,” who is perhaps the representative of a generation which has almost passed away, naturally thinks of the younger generation to whom he is speaking as his “children.” And when he wishes to emphasize the importance of the thought which he has to teach, he naturally falls into the language of affectionate endearment. Whether he is thinking of them as his “sons in the faith,” who owe their conversion to Christianity to his ministry, is uncertain. We do not know the historical circumstances of the case with sufficient accuracy to determine.
τῦα must refer to the contents of the whole Epistle, already present to the mind of the writer, rather than to the preceding chapter or any part of it, though to some extent the main teaching of the Epistle has been already declared in outline.
ἵαμ ἁάττ] The aorist suggests definite acts of sin rather than the habitual state, which is incompatible with the position of Christians who are in truth what their name implies. Those who are bathed need not save to wash their feet; cf. Joh_13:10.
κὶἐν The sentence introduced by these words is not contrasted with the preceding, but added to it “as a continuous piece of one message.” The writer’s object is to produce “sinlessness.” And this is not a fruitless aspiration after an ideal which cannot possibly be realized, for the means of dealing with the sin which he desires to combat are at hand.
πρκηο] Most of the information which is of real importance in determining the meaning and usage of this word in the Johannine writings (it is not found elsewhere in the N.T.) is to be found in the notes of Wettstein and Westcott. The article on the word in Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible (iii. 665) gives a very clear summary of the evidence; cf. also Jü’s shorter statement in the Encyclopaedia Biblica (iii. 3567).
The passages where it occurs in the N.T. are Joh_14:16, Joh_14:26, Joh_14:15:26, Joh_14:16:7; 1Jn_2:1. The meaning “advocate” is clearly needed in the Epistle, it is possible in 15:26, and probable in 16:7. In 14:16, 26 it must have the wider and less technical meaning of one called in to help.
As regards the use of the verb πρκλῖ, it has the sense of comfort in the LXX (cf. Gen_37:35, where it is used with reference to Jacob) and in the N.T. (cf. Mat_5:4, ὅιατὶπρκηήοτι where the influence of Isa_61:2, πρκλσιάτςτὺ πνονα, is clear). The use of πρκηι in the sense of comfort is also well established (cf. 2Co_1:3, 2Co_1:4, δὰτςπρκήεςἧ πρκλύεα But its original meaning was to send for, summon to one’s aid, corresponding to the Latin aduocare. The following passages are often quoted: Xen. Anab. i. 6. 5, Κέρο πρκλσ σμολν ὃ …ἐόε τοιηῆα μλσατνἙλνν Aesch. Ctes. 200, τ δῖσ Δμσέη πρκλῖ; ὅα πρκλςκκυγνἄθωο κὶτχίη λγνκέτι τνἀραι. With this corresponds the classical use of the word πρκηο. It is used as an adjective; cf. Dion. Cass. xlvi.20, τνἀοὰ …δύω πρκήω πηώα, but more often absolutely; cf. Demosthenes, de Falsa Legatione, 341, α τνπρκήω ατιδήεςκὶσοδὶτνἰίνπενξῶ ενκ γγοτι Diogenes Laertius, iv. 7, Bion. πὸ τνἀοέχνλπρῦτ ατ σλαέθι τ ἱαό σιπισ, ἐνπρκήοςπμῃ κὶμ ατςἐθς The meaning of the word is thus clearly wider than that of “advocate” in English. Though it is used specially in connection with the law courts, it denotes any friend called upon to give help, either by pleading or giving evidence, or in virtue of his position and power. Its Latin equivalent is “aduocatus,” rather than “patronus,” which corresponds more in meaning to our “advocate.” The distinction is clearly defined by Asconius Pedianus, in a note on Cicero, in Q. Caecilium, “Qui defendit alterum in iudicio, aut patronus dicitur, si orator est, aut aduocatus si aut ius suggerit, aut praesentiam suam commodat amico.”
The form of the word is passive (cf. κηό, ἐλκό, ἀαηό, etc.). It must mean one who is called to the side of the suppliant, not one who comforts or consoles, or exhorts. The meaning “comforter” or “consoler” can attach to the word only in so far as that expresses the good office which he who is called in performs for the friend who claims his help.
The usage of the Septuagint corresponds. In Zec_1:13, πρκηιό is used to translate the Hebrew נחמִם ῥμτ κλ κὶλγυ πρκηιος In Job_16:2, מנחםis translated by πρκήω (πρκήοε κκνπνε). But it should be noticed that two of the later versions (Aquila, Theodotion) render it by πρκηο. Symmachos has πργρῦτς an indication that in later Greek the meaning of πρκηι was beginning to influence that of πρκηο.Philo’s usage corresponds with the classical. The Paraclete is the advocate or intercessor; cf. de Josepho, c. 40, ἀνσίνἁάτνπρχ τνεςἐὲππαμνν μδνςἑέο δῖθ πρκήο: de Vita Moysis, iii. 14, the High Priest is said rightly to bear the symbol of the Logos (τ λγῖνis the LXX expression for the breast-plate), ἀακῖνγρῃ τ͂ ἱρμνντ τῦκσο πτὶπρκήῳχῆθιτλιττ τνἀεὴ υῷπό τ ἀνσεα ἁατμτνκὶχργα ἀθνττνἀαῶ, where the parallel to the Johannine thought is clearly marked, whether the Cosmos or the Logos is to be regarded as the “son perfect in virtue” who is used as Paraclete. In another passage usually quoted, de Opificio Mundi, c. 6, οδν δ πρκήῳ τςγρἦἕεο, μν δ ἑυῷχηάεο ὁθὸ ἔν δῖ εεγτῖ …τν…φσν Jü may be right in saying that the only feasible meaning is something like “instructor,” “adviser,” so far as concerns the duty which the Paraclete is needed to perform; but the point of the sentence is that God confers His benefits on nature Himself, without using the help or services of another. Cf. also In Flaccum, § 3, 4.
The word occurs as a loan-word in the Targum and Talmudic literature, in the sense of helper, intercessor, advocate. It is used in the Targum on Job_16:20 and 33:23 as a paraphrase of מי taken in the sense of “interpreter.” The latter passage is especially interesting, as showing the late Jewish view of the need of angelic agency to “redeem a man from going to the pit.”
In the Talmud, פקי is used for “advocate,” in opposition to קיו (κτγρς cf. Rev_12:10, ὁκτγρ “He who performs one precept has gotten to himself one paraclete, and he who commits one transgression has gotten to himself one accuser” (Pirke Aboth, iv. 15; Taylor, p. 69). “Whosoever is summoned before the court for capital punishment is saved only by powerful paracletes; such paracletes man has in repentance and good works; and if there are nine hundred and ninety-nine accusers, and only one to plead for his exoneration, he is saved” (Shab. 32a). The sin-offering is like the paraclete before God; it intercedes for man, and is followed by another offering, a thank-offering for the pardon obtained (Sifra, Megora iii. 3). These and other passages are quoted in the Jewish Encyclopaedia, s.v. (ix. 515). The same usage is found in early Christian literature, where the use of the word is independent of the Johannine use of the term; cf. 2 Clement. vi. 9, τςἡῶ πρκηο ἔτιἐνμ ερθμνἔγ ἔοτςὅι κὶδκι; Barnabas, c. xx. κτπνῦτςτνθιόεο, ποσω πρκηο, πντνἄοο κια.
The connection of the word with the ordinary meaning of πρκηι is found in Rufinus’ translation of the De Principiis; cf. ii. 7. 3, “Paracletus uero quod dicitur Spiritus sanctus, a consolatione dicitur. Paraclesis enim Latine consolatio appellatur.” He goes on to suggest that the word may have a different meaning when applied to the Holy Spirit and to Christ. “Videtur enim de Saluatore Paracletus dici deprecator. Utrumque enim significat in Graeco Paracletus, et deprecatorem et consolatorem.”
Origen seems to have understood the word in the sense of “intercessor.” Cf. Comm. in Joann. i. 38, τνπρ ἡῶ πὸ τνπτρ ποτσα ατῦδλῖπρκλῦτςὑὲ τςἀθώω φσω κὶἱακμνυ ὡ ὁπρκηο κὶἱαμς Chrysostom it has the sense of “comforter,” Hom. in Jo. 75, ἐεδ γροδπ ατνἐνκτςεκςἦ σόρ ἐιηεντνσνυίνἐενν τ ῥμτ, τνκτ σραατῦπρυίν κὶμδμα δχσα πρμθα ἀότς τ φσν; ἐωήωτνπτρ κὶἄλνπρκηο δσιὑῖ·τυέτν ἄλνὡ ἐέ
In Cyril of Jerusalem the sense is not limited to that of “comforting”; cf. Catechesis, xvi. 20, Πρκηο δ κλῖα, δὰτ πρκλῖ κὶπρμθῖα κὶσννιαβνσα τςἀθνίςἡῶ: Rom_8:26 being quoted in support, with the explanation of ὑεετγάε"δλνδ ὅιπὸ τνθό."
The evidence of the old Latin Version is similar. In the Epistle “aduocatus” is used, in the Gospel either “aduocatus” or “paraclitus.” This is not seriously affected by the evidence adduced by Rö (Itala ü Vulgata, p. 348), that “aduocare” acquired the meaning of “to comfort” (cf. Tertullian, adv. Marc. iv. 14, where the πρκλσιτὺ πνονα of Isa_61:2 is translated “aduocare languentes.” “Advocare” is a natural translation of πρκλῖ (cf. Tert. Pudicit. 13; Iren. III. ix. 3, v. xv. I, and the Vulgate of Isa_40:2, quoted by Rö and owes any connection with the idea of “comforting” that it may have to that fact. Augustine’s “Paracletus, id est Consolator,” throws no light on the meaning and usage of the Greek word. The other versions do not throw much light on the subject. In Syriac, Arabic, Aethiopic, and Bohairic it is transliterated, and in the Sahidic also in the Gospel, while it has “he that prayeth for us” in the Epistle. The Vulgate has “Paracletus” in the Gospel and “Aduocatus” in the Epistle. This, no doubt, influenced the modern versions. Wycliffe renders “Comforter” in the Gospel and “Advocate” in the Epistle; and Luther also has “Trö” in the Gospel and “Fü” in the Epistle.
Thus the evidence of early use supports the evidence of the form of the word, which is naturally passive. Its meaning must be “one called to the side of” him who claims the services of the called. The help it describes is generally assistance of some sort or other in connection with the courts of law; but it has a wider signification also,—the help of any one who “lends his presence” to his friend. Any kind of help, of advocacy, intercession, or mediation may be suggested by the context in which it is used. In itself it denotes merely “one called in to help.” In the Epistle the idea of one who pleads the Christian’s cause before God is clearly indicated, and “advocate” is the most satisfactory translation. This sense suits some of the passages in which it is used in the Gospel; in the others it suggests one who can be summoned to give the help that is needed in a wider sense. There is no authority for the sense of “Comforter,” either in the sense of “strengthener” or “consoler,” which has been so generally connected with it in consequence of the influence of Wycliffe and Luther, except Patristic interpretations of its meaning in S. John.The suggestion of Zimmern (Vater, Sohn, u. Fü in der babylonischen Gottesvorstellung), that its use in Christian and Jewish thought may be connected with the Babylonian myth of the intervention of Nusku (the Fire God), who “acts as the advocate of men at the instance of Ea and Marduk,” has not been favourably received. So far as concerns the Johannine use of the term Paraclete, far simpler explanations are to be found in its use in Philo and Rabbinic Judaism. In reality it hardly needs explanation. It was probably a common word, and the obvious one to use. Moulton and Milligan (Expositor, vol. X., 1910) quote the illustrations of its use, one from “a very illiterate letter” of the second century a.d. where it has been restored (BU 601:12), κὶτνἀαῶατῦΣρπωο πρκο (l. πρκηο) δδκ ατ, where they suggest that it may mean “on being summoned,” and an instance of the use of ἀαάλτς OGIS 248:25 (175-161 b.c.), ἀααλτυ.
Deissmann (Licht von Osten, p. 243, n. 1) lays stress on the use of the word in Aramaic as a proof of its frequency in vulgar Greek. Its use in the Targums and Talmudic Literature is important. The extent of the author’s acquaintance with Rabbinic thought is at last beginning to be recognized.
ἔοε] Augustine’s comment is worth quoting, “Maluit se ponere in numero peccatorum ut haberet aduocatum Christum, quam ponere se pro Christo aduocatum et inueniri inter damnandos superbos.” As frequently the writer identifies himself with the rest of the Christian Body. They actually possess and have experience of the means, which are potentially available for the whole world. And the need is felt by the whole Church, not because any of them might, but whenever any one does fall. The lapse of one is a matter which concerns the whole body (ἐντς…ἔοε).
Ἰσῦ χιτνδκιν As true man (Ἰσῦ), He can state the case for men with absolute knowledge and real sympathy. As God’s anointed messenger to men (Χιτν He is naturally fitted for the task and acceptable to Him before whom He pleads. As δκιςHe can enter the Presence from which all sin excludes. He needs no advocate for Himself. Comp. Book of Enoch 38:2, 53:6, where the Messiah is called “the Righteous One.”
ααττ] αατντ14*. 69. 137 ascr Cyr. Dam.
κι om. boh-codd.
εντςαατ] si peccetis, arm-codd.
πτρ] θο arm. Eus. Did.: deum patrem, Tert. Cels. ad Vigil.
Ισυ Χιτν post δκινIa 192 (318).
Χιτν om. Ib 161* (173): + Dominum nostrum et boh-cod.
δκιν for κι 157 (29): om. Ib 62 (498): suffragatorem Cyp-cod.
2. ατςκτλ “Himself is a propitiation for our sins.” His advocacy is valid, because He can Himself bear witness that the only condition on which fellowship between God and man can be restored has actually been fulfilled, i.e. the removal of the sin by which the intercourse was interrupted. He is not only the High Priest, duly qualified to offer the necessary propitiation, but also the propitiation which He offers. The writer’s meaning is most safely determined by reference to Old Testament theories of sacrifice, or rather of propitiation. In spite of the absence of direct quotations, there can be no doubt that the author of this Epistle is greatly indebted to the Old Testament. If the hand is the hand of a Hellene, it expresses the thought of a Jew. His mind is steeped in the thoughts of the Old Testament. Though he has lived among Greeks and learned to express himself simply in their language, and to some extent has made himself acquainted with Hellenic thought, he is really as much a stranger and a sojourner among them as his fathers were. He may have some acquaintance with Gnostic theories of redemption, which Greek thought had been borrowing from the East from at least the beginning of the century before Christ, his own thoughts on the subject are the outcome of his knowledge of the Scriptures. His views on propitiation therefore, as on all other subjects, must be considered in the light of the Old Testament.The object of propitation in Jewish thought, as shown in their Scriptures, is not God, as in Greek thought, but man, who has estranged himself from God, or the sins which have intervened between him and his God. They must be “covered” before right relations can be restored between the Deity and His worshippers. This is the dominant thought in the sacrificial system of the priestly code. It is the natural outcome of the sufferings of the nation before and during the Exile which had deepened their sense of sin, and of Jehovah’s estrangement from His people. The joyous sacrificial feast which the Deity shares with His worshippers consequently gives place, in national thought and feeling, to the ritual of the day of Atonement and the whole system of sin-, trespass-, and guilt-offering. Both ideas, the sacrificial feast which forms the ground of closer union between God and men, and the propitiatory offering by means of which interrupted relations can be restored, have, of course, their counterpart in Christian thought and teaching. But it is the latter which dominates the writer’s thought here, in an age in which failure and disappointment are fast clouding the clearer vision of God. The dominant idea which is common both to the Old Testament type and the Christian counterpart is that of the absolute holiness of God, who dwells in the light to which no man can approach, till he has put away the sin which cannot enter the presence of God. So far as the means are concerned, the ceremonial has given way to the spiritual. The work of the Christ, who in His life and death freely and voluntarily offered Himself in complete surrender to the will of God and the work of righteousness, has made possible the removal of the sin which keeps men from God. So far as they attach themselves to Him their sins are covered, for the possibility of their final removal is assured.
ατς om. boh-cod.
ιαμς post ετνA 68. 180 vg. syrsch Eus. Or. Cypr. Hil. Aug.
δ τνηεεω] I b 396 (-) I c 116.
δ] om. I c 364 (137) K δ
μνν μννB 1. 21. 33. 37. 66*. 80*. 101* al. pauc. sah. boh-codd. (uid.) Or.
3. The author has stated that his object in writing is to produce sinlessness, and that if sin intervenes to interrupt the fellowship between man and God, there is a remedy (vv. 1, 2). He now proceeds to point out the signs of Christian life, as realized in knowledge of God and union with God. They are to be found in obedience and in Christ-like conduct. Knowledge of God includes, of course, much more than obedience to His commands, but its genuineness and reality can be thus tested. The writer can conceive of no real knowledge of God which does not issue in obedience, wherever the Divine will has been revealed in definite precepts.In the Johannine system, “knowledge” is never a purely intellectual process.1 It is acquired by the exercise of all the faculties of intellect, heart, and will. Fellowship and acquaintance are its cognate ideas. It is developed in the growing experience of intercourse. This conception, which dominates the whole Old Testament idea of “knowing God” and of God “knowing” men (cf. Amo_3:2), is similarly developed in S. Paul’s “knowing God, or rather being known of Him” (Gal_4:9). The stress laid in the Johannine writings on the true knowledge of God is certainly connected with the necessity which the author felt of combating certain stages of Gnostic thought. But to see in the language of this and other similar verses of this Epistle any necessary reference to the particular stage of second-century Gnosticism which immediately preceded the more definite systems of Marcion and Valentinus, is precarious. We know too little about the development of Gnostic ideas before Basilides to say either that the stage of Gnosticism implied in the Fourth Gospel had or had not been reached by the year 100 a.d. or before that date, or that a considerable number of years must have passed before the Church could have demanded so definite a break with opinions of this kind as is suggested in the Second and Third Epistles (cf. Schmiedel, Evangelium, Briefe und Offenbarung Johannis, pp. 38, 19).
ἐ τύῳ points forward, as usually. Cf. note on 1:4.
γνσοε, ἐνκμν The tenses are significant. We learn to perceive more and more clearly that our knowledge is genuine through its abiding results in a growing willingness to obey.
τςἐτλςατῦτρμν The phrase τρῖ τςἐτλς(τνλγν is characteristic of the Johannine books, including the Apocalypse. It occurs in the Gospel 12 times, in the First Epistle 6, and in the Rev_6 (cf. also Rev_1:3, τ ἐ ατ γγαμν). Elsewhere it is found only in Mat_19:17, ε δ θλι εςτνζὴ εσλεν τριτςἐτλς Cf. Mar_7:9 (τνπρδσν 1Ti_6:14, τρσίσ τνἐτλνἄπλν Cf. also Sifre, Deut. 48, quoted by Schlatter (Sprache u. Heimat des 4ten Evangeliums). “When a man keeps the ways of the law, should he sit still and not do them? Rather shouldest thou turn to do them.” As opposed to φλσεν(custodire), τρῖ (obseruare) denotes sympathetic obedience to the spirit of a command, rather than the rigid carrying out of its letter. We may contrast Mar_10:20, τῦαπναἐυαάη ἐ νόηό μυ(= Luk_18:21, ἐύαα As knowledge is not confined to the intellect, so obedience penetrates beyond the latter to the spirit. It may be noticed that the Vulgate has obseruare in this verse, custodire in ver. 4, and seruare in 5, facts which suggest that no Latin rendering was felt to be an exact equivalent, or completely satisfactory rendering, of the Greek word τρῖ. In the Gospel seruare is the regular rendering.
τςἐτλς The various commands, or definite precepts, in which those parts of the whole θλμ which are known to us have found expression.
κι om. Ia 397 fff (96).
γνσοε] γνσωε A: cognoscemus boh-ed.
τρμν φλξμνא τρσμνδ (Φ
4. The test is adequate, and may be applied with certainty; for there is no such thing as knowledge which does not issue in corresponding action. The man who claims to have knowledge of God which does not carry with it as its necessary consequence the attempt to carry out His will, thereby declares himself a liar. There is no room for self-deception. The falsehood, if not conscious and deliberate, is without excuse. For the converse thought, that the doing of the will leads to fuller knowledge, cf. Joh_7:17.ὁλγν The verse is closely parallel to 1:6, 8, 10. The form of expression is more individualized than the conditional sentences used there. It is the direct and definite statement of the writer conscious of the fact that he is dealing with a real danger, and probably with a statement that has been actually made, by men against whose influence he is trying to guard his τκί. If there is no reason to see in it an attack on any particular Gnostic teacher, it clearly deals with statements which they have heard, and to which they have shown themselves ready to listen.
Ψύτςἐτν The falseness of the claim is the point which is emphasized. At the same time the form of expression chosen declares its inexcusableness. Contrast 1:8 (ἑυοςπαῶε). As compared with the verb (1:6, ψυόεα it may perhaps suggest that the statement is a revelation of the character of the man who makes it. “The whole character is false” (Westcott). He who claims knowledge without obedience “has” the sin which he has allowed to gain foothold. If light is seen and not followed, deterioration of character is the inevitable result.
κὶ ἐτν The antithetical clause is not merely a repetition of the positive statement in a negative form. The “truth” is regarded by the writer as an active principle working in a man. It is not concerned with the intellect alone. It corresponds to the highest effort of man’s whole nature. Cf. Joh_8:32.
ἐ τύῳ In such an one. In the Gospel and Epistles of S. John, when οτς back, it always denotes the subject or object, as previously described; cf. Joh_1:2 (οτς the Logos who is θό), v. 38, τύῳὑεςο πσεεε(one sent by God).
οιאA B 18. 25. 27. 33**. 65. 66**. 68. 69. 98. 101. 177. 180 ascr dscr jscr 57lect syrute Clem. Cyp. Lcif. Aug. Amb.] om. C K L P al. plu. cat. aethute Clem. Oec.
κι om. κιA P 13. 27. 29 | ετυτ] in Eo boh-codd.: om. א19.
η om. 21. 34. 56. 100. 192. Oscr Ψ
αηεα τυθο א8. 25 aeth.: + ε ατυ + ε ατ 19 b.
5. Again the thought is carried further in the statement of the opposite. The whole word is substituted for the definite precepts, and knowledge gives way to love. Perfect obedience gains the whole prize. For love is greater than knowledge.
ὃ δ ἂ τρ] The statement is made in its most general form. Contrast the preceding verse, and 1:6 ff. The difference shows that the writer has in view definite “Gnostic” claims. Knowledge is not the possession of a few “pneumatic” individuals. In contrast with the claim of such an one, whose conduct shows the falsity of his claim, is set the possibility of obtaining the higher prize, the perfection of love, open to all who are willing to obey. The “chance o’ the prize of learning love” is not reserved to the few who think that they “know.”
ατῦτνλγν The order of the words throws the emphasis on ατῦ which takes up the ατνof the Gnostic’s claim. The teaching of the God, whom he claims to know, is very different from the views expressed in his claim.
The λγςis the sum of the ἐτλί or rather it is the whole of which they are the parts. Love is not made perfect in a series of acts of obedience to so many definite commands. It reaches its full growth only when God’s whole plan is welcomed and absorbed. The ἐτλίoffer adequate tests of the truth or falsehood of any claim to know God. But something more is needed before Obedience can have her perfect work.
ἡἀάητῦθο] The love of God has been interpreted in three ways, according as the genitive is regarded as subjective, objective, or qualitative; God’s love for us, or our love for God, or the love which is characteristic of Him, which “answers to His nature” and which when “communicated to man is effective in him towards the brethren and towards God Himself.” The second gives the simplest and most natural meaning to the words in their present context. The love for God of which man is capable is only fully realized in absolute obedience. At the same time we must remember that it is the teaching of the author that it is God’s love for men which calls out the response of man’s love for Him. “We love Him, because He first loved us.” Comp. 2:15, 3:17, 4:12, 5:3.
ἀηῶ] The true state of the case as contrasted with the false plea set up by the man who claims to have knowledge without obedience. The emphatic position, however, of the word suggests that it may reasonably be regarded as one of the many signs which are to be found in this Epistle, that the writer feels strongly the need of encouraging his readers with the assurance of the reality of their Christian privileges. Certainty is within their grasp if they will use the means which have been placed at their disposal. Comp. Joh_8:31.
τρ] τριK 13. 100. 142 cscr 57lect: τρσιIa δ (5).
τν om. Ia δ (265).
αηω] om. 27. 29. 66**.
5b, 6. Imitation the sign of Union.
The test of union with God is the imitation of His Son. This is not stated directly, as in the case of knowledge (ver. 3), but the claim to “abide in Him” is said to carry with it the moral obligation to “follow the blessed steps of His most holy life.” See Findlay, p. 149.ἐ ατ μνι] This form of expression is peculiar to the Johannine writings (Gospel and First Epistle). It is the equivalent, in his system of thought, of the Pauline ἐ Χιτ ενι of which it was a very natural modification, if it is to be attributed to the author, and not to his Master. The longer the Lord delayed His coming, the more it came to be realized that union with Christ under the conditions of earthly existence must be an abiding rather than a short tarrying. The idea had taken its new shape before the “last hour” was thought to have struck. Bengel points out a climax: cognitio (ver. 3), communio (5), constantia (6).
ἐενς For the use of ἐενςwith reference to Christ, cf. 1Jn_3:3, 1Jn_3:5, 1Jn_3:7, 1Jn_3:16, 1Jn_3:4:17; Joh_7:11, Joh_7:19:21, Joh_7:9:12, Joh_7:28, and perhaps also 19:35 (Zahn, Einleitung, ii. 481; cf. Introd. p. iv).
πρπτῖ] See note on 1:6. For its use in the Johannine writings, cf. Joh_8:12, Joh_8:11:9 f., Joh_8:12:35; 1Jn_1:6, 1Jn_1:7, 1Jn_1:2:11; 2Jn_1:4, 2Jn_1:6; 3Jn_1:3, 3Jn_1:4.
ε τυω post θο P 31: om. Hδ (א (?) (cf. Tisch. ver. 4) Ic 116* (-).
γνσοε] cognoscemus, boh-ed.
κθς…πρπτι] sic ambulare sicut (+et codd.) ille ambulauit, arm.
κι…πρπτι] om. L.
κιατς post οτς 65 (317) Ic 174 : om. sahd.
οτςאC K P al. pler. cat. cop. syrp arm. Salv. Thphyl. Oec.] om. A B 3. 34. 65. 81. 180 dscr vg. sah. aeth. Clem. Or. Cyr. Cyp. Aug. The omission may possibly be due to the similarity of the preceding word, but the evidence against it is very strong.
2. 2:7-17. Proof of the ethical thesis from the circumstances in which the readers find themselves, and from their previous experience. The old commandment is always new in the growing light of God’s revelation. “Walking in light” and “keeping the commandments” further defined as love of the brethren
(a) 7-11. General. Brotherly love
(b) 12-17. Individual. Warning against love of the world
7-8. The Commandment, old and new.It is hardly necessary to discuss the interpretations which regard the “old” and the “new” as different commandments, the old commandment being the injunction to “walk as He walked,” and the new, the call to brotherly love. But assuming the identity of the old and the new, the commandment has been interpreted in three different ways. (1) With reference to 1:5 ff., to give proof of “walking in light” by the confession of sin and the avoiding of everything sinful. (2) With reference to the verses immediately preceding, to “walk as He walked.” Of these the second is the most natural, but it is not necessary to find a reference to any actual words of the Epistle which have preceded. The expressions which follow, “of which ye were in possession from the beginning,” “the word which ye heard,” make such a reference improbable. (3) The expression ἐτλ κιήrecalls so vividly the language of the Gospel, and the connection with the duty of brotherly love insisted upon in vv. 9 and 10 is so clear, that we are almost compelled to interpret the passage in accordance with Joh_13:34, ἐτλνκιὴ δδμ ὑῖ ἵαἀαᾶεἀλλυ, κθςἠάηαὑᾶ, where the “newness” is to be found in the new standard required, κθςἠάηαὑᾶ, rather than in the duty of mutual love, which was recognized in the Jewish law. In meaning this interpretation is practically identical with (2). “The idea of the imitation of Christ is identical with the fulfilment of love” (Westcott). And it gives the most natural meaning to the description of the commandment as old, and yet new “in Him and in you.” The old commandment, “Thou shalt love thy neighbour,” which was already contained in the Mosaic law, if not also to be found in the conscience of those who “having no law, are a law unto themselves,” received a new meaning and application in the light of Christ’s teaching and example, and in the lives of His followers. And it had lately acquired a deeper meaning in contrast with the loveless intellectualism, which the writer clearly regarded as one of the worst dangers in the teaching and example of his opponents.
ἀαηο] The first occurrence of the writer’s favourite form of address in these Epistles. Cf. 3:2, 21, 4:1, 7; 3Jn_1:2, 3Jn_1:5, 3Jn_1:11. No conclusion can be drawn from its use as to the meaning of the command. The reading of the received text (ἀεφί is found in the vocative only once in these Epistles. Both words are suitable expressions to introduce an appeal to the readers to show their brotherhood in Christ by active brotherly love, whether the writer has primarily in view, as the objects of the love which he inculcates, Christians as Christians, or men as men. The attestation, however, is decisive in favour of ἀαηο. And, on the whole, it is not only more in accordance with his style, but suits his appeal better. The ἀεφίmay have been suggested by the language of vv. 9, 10.ἀʼἀχς The meaning of this expression must, of course, be determined from the context in each case. It is used eight times in the First Epistle, and twice in the Second. In 1:1 it recalls the use of ἐ ἀχ in the first chapter of Genesis and in the Prologue of the Gospel. Its use in 3:8 (ἀʼἀχςὁδάοο ἁατνι is similar. Twice in this present chapter (2:13, 14) it occurs in the phrase, “Ye have known Him who is from the beginning.” The remaining instances in the two Epistles all have reference to the “old” command. The repetition of the words at the end of ver. 7 (ὃ ἠοστ [ἀʼἀχς in the Received Text is almost certainly wrong. They have probably been introduced from the similar phrase in ver. 24.
Where the phrase is used of the “old” command, it may refer either to the early days of the Mosaic legislation, or to the beginning of the education of each convert to whom the writer is speaking, or to the beginning of his life as a Christian. A reference to the teaching of Judaism on the subject of “love” seems, on the whole, to satisfy the conditions best in each case. But it is probably a mistake to attempt to define the meaning of the phrase very rigidly. Long continuance is suggested rather than a definite starting-point. It is not easy to determine whether the writer is thinking of the beginning of the life of each of his readers, or of their religious consciousness, or of their Christian life. The point can be settled only by the more general consideration of the character of the false teaching combated in these Epistles. The real force of the expression is to heighten the contrast of the “newer” teaching which placed knowledge higher than love. The writer has in view the
“Many Antichrists, who answered prompt
‘Am I not Jaspar as thyself art John?
Nay, young, whereas through age thou mayest forget?’”
He is confident that as against the “glozing of some new shrewd tongue” that which was “from the beginning” will prove to be “of new significance and fresh result.”
ὁλγςὃ ἠοστ] “The word which ye heard” must be that which was told them by their teachers, whether Jewish or Christian or both. The command to love one’s neighbour was common to both. ὁλγςmore naturally suggests a whole message rather than one definite command. But it may refer to the new commandment of Joh_13:34, regarded as a rule of life rather than a single precept.
ααηο אA B C Psa_20 cat. vg. sah. cop. syrutr arm. Did. Thphyl. Aug. Bed.] αεφιΚL al. plur. aethutr Oec.: om. jscr: αεφιμυIc δ (-).
εχτ] εεε27. 29. 34. 42. 57lect 58lect ascr kscr: habemus sah: habebamu, arm-ed.
η pr. κι 7.
ηκυαεאA B C P 5. 13. 27. 29. 39. 40. 65. 68. 81. 180 dscr jscr vg. sah. cop. syrutr arm. aeth. Aug. Thphyl.] + α αχςK L al. longe plur. cat. Oec.
8. The command, which is as old as the Law of Moses, even if the writer did not regard it as implicitly contained in the story of Cain and Abel (cf. 3:11, 12, ἵαἀαῶε ἀλλυ·ο κθςΚὶ κτλ becomes new “in Him (i.e. Christ) and in you.” The ἐτλ, “Thou shalt love thy neighbour,” received an altogether new meaning and scope in the light of Christ’s teaching as to “Who my neighbour is,” of His own example shown most clearly in His treatment of Tax-gatherers and Aliens, and of the carrying out of His example by His followers in the admission of Gentiles to the full privileges of Christianity on equal terms with the Jews. In Christ and in Christians the old command had gained “new significance and fresh result.” The verse had, no doubt, a special significance in view of the recent victory gained over the false teaching, and its depreciation of the law of love, which characterized the conduct and the thought of its supporters. The author rightly saw in recent events how the Church had “rescued the law of love” from the darkness which threatened to overwhelm it. The true light was shining more brightly in consequence, and the darkness more quickly passing away. But though these recent events were the occasion, they do not exhaust the meaning of the words, which have a far wider reference. Wurm, who argues with great plausibility for the reference to the victory over the false teachers (see esp. p. 104), apparently confines the reference to that incident too narrowly. Though it affords a fairly adequate explanation of the words ἐ ὑῖ, it is unsatisfactory as an explanation of ἐ ατ. The new significance of the law of love in Christ and in Christians had a far wider application. The light of the true knowledge of God was already shining and dispelling the darkness of exclusiveness by the light of love wheresoever the “darkness overtook it not.”
πλν The word clearly introduces another description of the same commandment, not another command. Cf. Joh_16:28, πλνἀίμ τνκσο, where πλνcannot mean “a second time,” and 1Co_12:21, ο δντιὁὀθλὸ επῖ τ χιί…ἢπλνἡκφλ τῖ πσν Cf. also Joh_19:37; Rom_15:10, Rom_15:11, Rom_15:12; 1Co_3:20; (?) 2Co_10:7, 2Co_10:11:16; Heb_1:5, (?) 6, 2:13, 4:5, 10:30. The use of πλνin the N.T. to introduce another quotation in proof of the same point, or a further thought about the same subject, is fully established.
ὅ The antecedent to the neuter relative is the clause ἐτλνκιὴ γάωὑῖ. “It is a new commandment that I write unto you.” The order lays the emphasis on ἐτλνκιή. It is the “newness” of the old command which is said to be true in Him and in His followers.
ὅι…φίε] The shining of the true light reveals the true character of that which the darkness hid or obscured. The force of the present tense in πργτιand φίε is significant. They must be interpreted as presents. All is not yet clear and known, but the process has already begun. The darkness is passing away. Contrast “It has become bright as the sun upon earth, and the darkness is past” (Book of Enoch 58:5).There are many indications in the Epistle that the writer regards the Parousia as imminent. Cf. especially ver. 18, ἐχτ ὥαἐτν The present verse throws some light on the difficult question of the relation between the teaching of the Gospel and that of the Epistle on the subject of the Parousia. In the Epistle the expectation is more clearly stated and more obviously felt than in the Gospel, though in the earlier work the idea of “the last day” not only receives definite expression, but is something more than an obsolete conception, alien to the author’s real thoughts and sympathy, or a mere condescension to popular Christianity, fed on Apocalyptic expectation and unable to bear a purely spiritual interpretation. A difference of emphasis is not necessarily a change of view. It is doubtful if the two conceptions are really inconsistent. Their inconsistency would not be felt by a writer of the particular type of thought which characterizes the author. Their meeting point lies in the idea of “manifestation,” which is his characteristic expression for the Parousia, as also for the earthly life of the Lord. For him the “Presence” is no sudden unveiling of a man from heaven, who in the twinkling of an eye shall destroy the old and set up the new. It is the consummation of a process which is continuously going on. It is the final manifestation of the things that are, and therefore the passing away of all that is phenomenal. As eternal life “is” now and “shall be” hereafter, as judgment is a process already going on, because men must show their true nature by their attitude to the Christ, while its completion is a final act; so the Parousia is the complete manifestation of that which is already at work. The time of its completion is still thought of as “the last day,” and “the day of judgment.” The true light is already shining, and the darkness is passing away. But He who is coming will come.
κιη] om. I a 1100 (310) K δ
ο…ατ] in qua est ueritas, boh. | ετν μνιH δ (C) Ia 200f.
οετναηε] om. I a 70.
αηε] post ατ A.
ε υι] אB C K L al. longe plur. cat. vg. sah. boh-ed. syrsch etp txt arm. aeth. Thphyl. Oec. Aug. Bed.] ε ηι A P 4. 7. 9. 22. 29. 31. 34. 47. 76* cscr tol. boh-cod. syrp mg Hier.: om. ε H δ (269).
σοι] σι A.9. The true light was already shining and gaining ground. The darkness was passing away. But it had not yet passed. The perfect day had not yet dawned. All had not yet recognized the light. And all who claimed to have done so could not make good their claim. The true light, when once apprehended, leads to very definite results. The claim to have recognized it, if not borne out by their presence, is false. These results are presented in sentences similar to vv. 4 and 6. The writer puts before his readers the cases of typical individuals, he that saith, he that loveth, he that hateth. The falsity of the claim is sharply stated. At the same time the form of expression (ἐτ σοί ἐτνἕςἄτ) would seem to suggest that there is more excuse for self-deception. The claimant is not called ψύτς(v. 4). “It is always easy to mistake an intellectual knowledge for a spiritual knowledge of the Truth” (Westcott). To claim to have knowledge of God, actually realized in personal experience (γνσεν without obeying his commands, is deliberate falsehood. To claim spiritual illumination without love may be due to the fact that we are deceiving ourselves. It may be the result of mistaken notions as to the function of the intellect. Those who put forward such a claim only show that their apprehension of the “light” is not at present so complete as they imagine.
The “light” is, of course, that which illumines the moral and spiritual spheres. Cf. Origen, Comm. in Joann. xiii. 23, φςονὀοάεα ὁθὸ ἀὸτῦσμτκῦφτςμτλφεςεςἀρτνκὶἀώαο φς δὰτνἐ τ φτζι νηοςὀθλοςδνμνοτ λγμνς In virtue of such “light” it is possible for men to go forward in moral duty and spiritual growth, just as the light of the sun makes it possible for them to walk on the earth’s surface without stumbling or tripping up (cf. Joh_11:9 f.).
μσν The writer naturally does not deal with the possibility of intermediate states between love and hatred. In so far as the attitude of any particular man towards his fellow-man is not love, it is hatred. In so far as it is not hatred, it is love. The statements are absolute. The writer is not now concerned with their applicability to the complex feelings of one man towards another in actual life, or how the feelings of love and hatred are mingled in them. It is his custom to make absolute statements, without any attempt to work out their bearing on actual individual cases. His work is that of the prophet, not of the casuist.τνἀεφνατῦ The full meaning of these verses can be realized only in the light of the revelation of the brotherhood of all men in Christ. In spite of the statements which are usually made to the contrary, we are hardly justified in saying that this universalism is beyond the writer’s vision. The Christ of the Fourth Gospel is the Light of the World, but the command to love one another is given to those who have recognized His claims. In the Epistle, Christ is the Propitiation for the whole world. But this is potential rather than actual. The writer has to deal with present circumstances, and polemical aims undoubtedly colour the expression of his views. Prophet and not casuist as he is, he is nevertheless too much in earnest to lose sight of the practical. Vague generalities are not the instruments with which he works. A vapid philanthropy, or a pretentious cosmopolitanism, which might neglect the more obvious duties of love lying closer to hand, would find no favour with him. The wider brotherhood might be a hope for the future, as it is for us. But the idea of brotherhood was actually realized among Christians, though in his own communi