Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadInternational Critical Commentary NT - 1 John 3:1 - 3:99
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
The gift of Divine kinship carries with it the obligation to self-purification.1. This verse is closely connected with the preceding. It is a meditation on the last words of that verse, ἐ ατῦγγνηα. The writer is trying to restore the waning enthusiasm of his readers, and to recall them to their first love. He therefore reminds them of their high privilege and position. God has given them proof of His love. He has bestowed on them the rank and title of His children, sharers in His nature. And it is no mere title. It corresponds to real facts, if they will but realize them, and respond to them. And these facts are the cause of the hostile attitude of the world. Those who do not know God have no sympathy with those who share His nature.
An interesting parallel to this passage is found in Pirqe Aboth, iii. 22 (ed. Taylor, 1897), “Beloved are Israel that they are called children of God; greater love (was it that it) was made known to them that they are called children of God, as it is said, Ye are the children of the Lord your God” (Deu_14:1). We may also compare and contrast (cf. Windisch, ad loc.) Philo, de confusione ling. 146 f. (Cohn, ii. p. 257) κὶγρε μπ ἱαο θο πῖε νμζσα γγνμν ἀλ τιτςἀιοςεκνςατῦ λγυτῦἱρττυ The emphasis on the direct relation of Christians to God is characteristic of the Epistle, though the writer conceives of this relationship as realized in and through Christ.
ἴεεπτπν Cf. Gal_6:11, ἴεεπλκι ὑῖ γάμσνἔρψ: and for the combination with πτπς Mar_13:1, ἴεπτπὶλθι In the N.T. πτπςgenerally suggests surprise, and very often something of an admirable character (qualem, Latt. verss.). Cf. Mat_8:27; Luk_1:29, Luk_7:39. Luk_7:2 P. 3:11 (πτπὺ δῖὑάχι ὑᾶ ἐ ἁίι ἀατοας ). The Latt. verss. never use cujas, πτπςhaving lost its reference to place.
ἀάη] Love, not token of love. “The Divine love is, as it were, infused into them, so that it is their own, and becomes in them the source of a divine life.”
δδκν is better supported than the aorist, and is intrinsically superior. The results of what they have received are permanent and abiding. Nowhere else in N.T. does ἀάηδ δνι
ὁπτρ suggested by the following τκαθο. Cf. Rev_21:7.
ἵατκαθο κηῶε] Another instance of the definitive ἵα It is difficult to find any “full telic” force here. God did not give His love to men in order that they might be called sons. The greatness of His love to them was manifested in this, that He allowed Himself to be called their Father. Cf. ver. 11, ατ ἐτνἡἀγλα …ἵαἀαῶε. According to the general usage of this Epistle and the Fourth Gospel, τκα66θο emphasizes the community of nature as distinguished from the dignity of heirship. The “being called” includes the “being,” but it is not synonymous with it. It lays special stress on the dignity of the Christian title and position.κὶἐμν An awkward parenthesis, which scribes naturally dropped, as in the Receptus, or adapted to the sentence, as in the Latin Versions, et simus. But it is in the author’s style. Cf. the true text of Joh_1:15, κκαε λγνοτςἦ ὁεπν Ὁὀίωμυἐχμνς and also Rev_1:6; 2Jn_1:2. And it also adds force to the sentence. “It is no mere empty title. It is a realized fact, though some are in danger of forgetting it.” Justin seems to have known this verse; Dial. c. Try. 123 (353 B), οτςκὶἡεςἀὸτῦγνήατςἡᾶ εςθὸ Χιτῦ —κὶθο τκαἀηιὰκλύεακὶἐμν ο τςἐτλςτῦΧιτῦφλσοτς
δὰτῦο Because they knew not God. As usual, the reference of τῦοis to what follows. They do not recognize us, because they did not know God. Those who failed to know God (οκἔν) in creation, in history, in the revelation made by Jesus Christ, naturally fail to know those who are of like nature.
ααη] post πτρH δ (Ψ
δδκνאB C K L P al. longe plu. Thphyl. Oec.] εωεA L 13, 27 cscr dscr.
ηι] υι B K * 22, 31*, 80, 100: post πτρH 257 (33).
τκαθο κηωε] κηηετκαθ Ia δ (?).
κιεμν κιετνH 162 (61) Ia 397f, 205, 106, 261 (96): om. K L al. plu. armzoh.
ηα] υα א K L P al. 40 arm-codd. Thphyl. Oec.
εν] ενκτP 192: εντ100 al. pauc.
ατν + οκσο Ic 174 (252).
2. The thought of τκαθο is expanded in connection with the thought of the Parousia. Here and now they have attained to the position of “children of God.” Their present dignity is as nothing compared with the glory which shall be revealed. The exact conditions of their future state have not yet been made clear. What has already become matter of common knowledge is that, the more fully Christ is revealed, the closer will be their likeness to Him. What they have seen of Christ incarnate has raised them to the position of God’s children. If He is fully made manifest, those who see Him as He is “will be consummated in the divine likeness to which it was the divine purpose that they should attain” (Westcott). Cf. Gen_1:26. All is not yet made manifest, but they have so learned the Christ that they know that it is “God’s task to make the heavenly period Perfect the earthen.”
ἀαηο] Cf. 3:21, 4:11, and contrast 2:7, 4:1, 7. The word is used here, not to introduce a new section, but to call attention to a further meditation on what has preceded. The writer uses the term which reminds his readers of their and his common share in the gift which God has given.
νντκαθο ἐμν Cf. κὶἐμνof the preceding verse. What they have at present justifies their full confidence for the future, which will bring the complete unfolding of that which is even now present, though its manifestation is hindered by the circumstances in which they are placed.οπ ἐαεώη For οπ with the aorist, where the writer is not looking back on a time separated by an interval from that of writing or speaking, cf. Mar_11:2 (οδὶ οπ ἐάιε); 1Co_8:2 (ε τςδκῖ οπ ἔν); Heb_12:4 (οπ μχι αμτςἀτκτσηε Rev_17:10 (ὁἄλςοπ ἦθν 12 (βσλινοπ ἔαο). The statement denies that there has ever yet been a moment at which it could be said ἐαεώη where the aorist would be either timeless, or expressive of what has just happened. There is no necessary reference to any occasion “on which the revelation might have been expected,” such as the manifestation of the Risen Lord (Westcott).
οδμν We know enough to justify confidence even if no complete revelation has as yet been made. Great as are our privileges now, how far greater then! Nothing short of being like God in Christ. Contrast γνσοε (2:3, 18, 3:24, etc.): here no progress in knowledge is suggested: we are aware of the future likeness.ἐνφνρθ] May mean either (1) if it shall be revealed, i.e. our future condition (τ ἐόεα or (2) “if He shall be revealed,” i.e. Christ. The first is the more natural interpretation so far as grammar is concerned. It connects the words naturally with the preceding οπ ἐαεώη And it gives an adequate meaning to the words. “If our future glory is revealed, it will be found to be not less than likeness to God, the open vision of whose glory shall transform us.” In favour of (2) is the use of φνρθ of Christ in ver. 28 of the preceding chapter, and the general sense of the passage. Throughout the passage the writer’s thoughts are turned to the revelation of Christ in His glory at His Parousia. If He be manifested in His true glory, the vision will change us to His likeness. Cf. 2Co_3:18, τνδξνΚρο κτπρζμνιτνατνεκν μτμρομθ ἀὸδξςεςδξν Col_3:4, ὁὰ ὁΧιτςφνρθ…ττ κὶὑεςσνατ φνρθσσεἐ δξ. And if the use of φνρῦθιin 2:28 partly suggests this interpretation, in spite of the intervening οπ ἐαεώη where the τ ἐόεαdetermines the meaning of the verb, it must also be remembered that the language of soliloquy and meditation has to some extent its own rules. To one pondering over the future glory of the Son of God, in the light of the present revelation of the Risen Lord, which suggests so much more than it actually reveals, the words ἐνφνρθ could probably have but one meaning. To us it would have been clearer if the subject had been definitely expressed. It does not follow that the same is true of the writer, or of those for whose sakes he is giving written form to his meditations. Very possibly they had often heard him meditate on the theme ἐνφνρθ. He uses the word φνρῦθιeighteen times, and in twelve Christ is the subject, though most of them refer to His manifestation in the flesh.
ὅοο] Contrast Php_2:6, τ ενιἴαθῷ And for the thought, cf. Plato, Theaetetus, 176 B, φγ δ ὁοωι τ θῷκτ τ δντν Greg. Thaum. Paneg. in Origenem, c. 12, τ γ πνω τλςοχἕεό τ ομιἢκθρ τ ν ἐοοωέτ ποεθῖ τ θῷκὶμνι ἐ ατ. Rev_22:4, κὶὄοτιτ πόωο ατῦ Similes, quia beati, says Bede.
ὅι “Because we shall see Him as He is.” What men saw of Jesus of Nazareth, when He manifested His glory under the limitations of human life, raised them to the position of τκαθο, in the case of all who received Him (Joh_1:13). How much greater transforming power shall there be in the vision of Him as He is, no longer veiled by the conditions of earthly life!
It is possible to take ὅικτλ as giving the proof of the knowledge (οδμν We know that we shall be like Him, for we know that we shall see Him; and only the pure in heart shall see God. He is visible only to those who share His nature. Like is perceived by like alone. But if the writer had meant this he surely would have expressed himself differently. He often leaves not a little for his readers to supply. But he demands from them the use of spiritual insight rather than of mental acuteness. Weiss’ explanation is too ingenious for its context.
τκα post θοP 31.
τ] οιIa 270 (54) K 559 (415).
οδμν + δK L al. pler. cat. syrsch cap. sahd aeth. Or. Dam. Thphyl.
οι(? 2:0)] pr. κιIa 397f, 205, 106, 201 (96): κιIa 158 (395).
οοεα οωεα31 Rev_2 scr: uidemus, boh-ed.
3. The possession of such a hope is the strongest incentive to absolute purity. The hope is not really grasped except by those whose striving towards this goal is eager and constant. The hope is not stated to be the necessary condition of the purity, but the purity is the necessary result of the hope. It is not denied that other causes may produce a similar result. But where such a hope really exists the striving after purity must follow. The Christian hope is incompatible with moral indifference. No one, not even the “Gnostic,” is raised by it above the moral obligations. And the purity aimed at is absolute. The standard is nothing less than the perfected human life of the glorified Christ.πς The use of πςin this Epistle and in the Gospel is instructive. It generally sets aside the claims of some party or other who claimed special privileges or exemptions for themselves. ὁἔω …ἐʼατ] The form of expression emphasizes the thought of hope possessed and enjoyed as a sure possession (ἔενἐπδ being stronger than the simple verb), and which rests on the Christ, and is therefore surely and securely grounded. Contrast Act_24:15, ἐπδ ἔω εςτνθό, reaching as far as (Westcott). Cf. 1Ti_4:10, 1Ti_5:5. See Introduction, p. iv; also 1Ti_6:17; 1Ti_1 P. 1:13, 21. ἐʼατ must, of course, refer to Christ.
ἁνζι Cf. Exo_19:10 f.; Num_8:21; Jos_3:5; Jos_1 Est_7:10, and also Joh_11:55. Those who appeared before God at the Jewish feasts were required first to purify themselves from all Levitical and ceremonial uncleanness. The hope of appearing before the presence of God, and of seeing Christ as He is, necessarily inspires its possessors with the desire of putting away every defilement which clouds the vision of God, even as the human nature of the Christ, made perfect through the discipline and suffering of earthly life, has even now been exalted to the unveiled presence of the Father.
κθς He has attained, and those who hope to attain likewise will naturally spare no effort to follow the same path. But κθςsuggests a pattern, rather than introduces a motive.
ἐενς For the change of pronoun, cf. Joh_5:39, and perhaps 19:35. Throughout the Epistle ἐενςused absolutely refers to Christ. Cf. 2:6 (note).
ἁνς For the difference between ἁνςand κθρς see Westcott’s note. Κθρςseems to state the objective fact, ἁνςemphasizes the subjective feeling. The Vulg. commonly has castus for ἁνς but here has sanctus.
τνεπδ] fidem, sahd
τυη] om. Ia 70, 367 (505).
ε ατ] ε ατν2. 25. 30.
post ευο boh-sah. (in eo): ε ατ 31.
ευο] ατν31* oscr.
4. πς Cf. ver. 3 (note). In contrast with those who seek to cleanse themselves from all defilement, are set those who continue to do the sin which defiles and separates from God. There is no special class of illuminati, superior to the obligation to keep the moral law. The test of progress is obedience. Those who fail to do the will of God, to work out the best of which their nature is capable, are breaking the law of God, which is the law of their being. All sin is law-breaking; all falling short of the highest possible is disobedience to God’s law for men, the law of self-realization after the pattern of the Christ. He that fails to do righteousness breaks the law.τνἀοίν ἀοί here is, of course, not the antinomianism of the “Gnostic.” The condemnation of that would have required the converse of the statement here made, “All ἀοί is sin.” But the writer is undoubtedly thinking of the claim made by the superior “Gnostic,” that he is at liberty to follow the leading of his own desires, without being under any obligation to the moral law, which is only binding on the ignorant and the inferior. The sins of which the writer is thinking are failures to fulfil the law of love, rather than grosser sins of the flesh, which are hardly, perhaps never, referred to in this Epistle. But whatever form they take, sinful acts are not matters of indifference. In the case of all men, even the most intelligent, they are transgressions of a valid law. He who stoops to them shows himself thereby to be no true τκο θο.
κὶἡἁατακτλ The κίadds a clause which carries the thought a step further. Not only is “doing sin” a violation of law, but sin in its very nature is a transgression of the law of God. It is the self-assertion of the finite against the eternal will of Him who has the right to claim absolute obedience.
τν1o] om. 31.
η2o] pr. κιא (?) om. I a 200 (83).
ετν + δ H δ (א
5. κὶοδτ κτλ Not only does he who commits sin break a Divine law, but he stultifies the whole purpose of the Incarnation. Christ was manifested to men in His earthly life in order to take away sin, to destroy and remove it. And being sinless Himself, it was in His power to do so. To these two great incentives to self-cleansing, the purpose of the Incarnation, and the power of the Incarnate Christ, the writer can appeal as to part of the normal Christian consciousness, whether he includes himself (οδμν or speaks only of his readers (οδτ).
ἐενς Cf. ver. 3. The writer apparently sees no difficulty in using ἐενςand ατςin the same verse with reference to the same subject: though, of course, the case where ἐενςstands first is not strictly parallel to those in which it follows the use of ατς as in ver. 3.
ἐαεώη The word is used more frequently, as here, by the writer with reference to Christ’s first coming, or manifestation, in the flesh. Cf. 1Ti_3:16; 1Ti_1 P. 1:20.
ἄῃ Take away, i.e. destroy. The Hebrew נׂ is used in both senses of taking away and bearing. But it is differently translated into Greek in the two cases. Αρι expresses the former, φρι the latter. Cf. Isa_53:11, τςἁατα ατνὐὸ ἀοσιτςἁατα] whether used absolutely, or with the addition of ἡῶ, denotes the many acts in which the sin of humanity is expressed. The concrete expression is more forcible than the absolute (τνἁατα).
ἁαταἐ ατ οκἔτν cf. Joh_7:18, ἀιί ἐ ατ οκἔτν The statement is made of the whole human life of the Christ (ἔτν and is not confined to the earthly part of it. In virtue of His sinlessness He can accomplish the purpose of the Incarnation; and the thought also suggests the means by which it can be accomplished, a thought which is further developed in the next verse. Cf. Augustine, “In quo non est peccatum ipse uenit auferre peccatum. Nam si esset in illo peccatum, auferendum est illi, non ipse auferret.”
οδτ A B C K L al. pler. vg. boh-codd. syr. aeth. Tert. Aug.] οδμνא40, 98 tol. sah. arm. boh-ed. Fulg.
τςαατα A B P 5. 13. 27. 66**, 81 am. fu. demid. harl. tol. cop. syr. aeth. Tert. Aug. Fulg.] + ηω אC K L al. pler. cat. vg. sah. syr. Ath. Thphyl. Oec.
ε ατ] post ετνאsah. cop. aeth.
6. In so far as union with the Sinless is realized, sin ceases to be. The doing of sin shows that the Christ has never been fully seen or known. The statements are made absolutely, after the writer’s wont. They must, of course, be interpreted in the light of 1:8 ff., where the writer makes it clear that he does not mean that those who have realized their union with Christ have actually attained as yet to a state of complete sinlessness. Where sin is, the vision of the Christ has not yet been made perfect. There is nothing to show that the writer is describing the general character of the Christian, which remains unchanged by separate sinful acts, inasmuch as they are foreign to it and do not affect it as a whole. The statement is made absolutely without reference to the modifications necessary when it is applied to the individual case.
ἐ ατ μνι] As contrasted with ενι μνι perhaps suggests in this context the necessity of human effort.
οχἁατνι Augustine has supplied the necessary modification, “In quantum in ipso manet, in tantum non peccat,” a sentence which Bede has incorporated in his Commentary (cf. Westcott’s note).ἑρκν…ἔνκν The vision and the knowledge have their abiding results. ὁᾶ is used by the writer of spiritual vision. It cannot be restricted here (as by Weiss) to those who had actually seen the Lord in the flesh, ἔνκνbeing added to meet the case of later disciples. Cf. Bede, “Visionem dicit et cognitionem fidei, qua iusti etiam in hac uita deum uidere delectantur, donec ad ipsam speciem apertae visionis eius in futuro preueniant, de qua supra dicitur, Quoniam uidebimus eum sicuti est,” a passage which is also based on Augustine’s comment, “est illuminatio per fidem, est illuminatio per speciem.” If the two words are to be distinguished here, ὁᾶ lays stress on the object, which appears and is grasped by the mental vision, γνσενon the subsequent subjective apprehension of what is grasped in the vision, or it is unfolded gradually in experience.
πς2o] pr. κι38. 67 (mg.). 95. 96**. 97 (mg.) hscr vg. syr. aeth. arm. Or. Thphyl. Aug. (senel): pr. δο 258 (56).
ενκν εν Ib 365. 472 (214) Ic 208, 116 (307) K δ (479).
2. 3:7-18. Elucidation of the thesis (ethical), and earnest warning against those who would lead them astray
(a) 7-10. Further meditation on the Divine Birth. The opposite statement. He that sinneth is of the Devil.
(b) 10-17. Clearer definition of sin as failure to love the brethren, and of its opposite, love.
7. The views of the false teachers were plausible, and there was imminent danger of some of the faithful being seduced. But the facts were clear. He, and he only, who shows the fruits of righteousness in what he does, is righteous. Righteousness is always known by its fruits. There are no heights of knowledge, or superior kinds of nature, for which action is a matter of indifference.
τκί] If this is the true reading, the appeal is again made to their common (spiritual) nature. There is some authority for the reading πιί, which would be equally suitable. The danger would have been less imminent, if they had used their own powers, and shown themselves less dependent on the moral guidance of others.
μδὶ παάω Cf. 2:26. They must yield to the seductions of no one, however prominent his position or plausible his arguments. It is, of course, possible that the writer is thinking of some particular opponent.
ὁπιν Cf. 1:6, 3:4, etc. If the character is true, the whole life will be an expression of it, even as the whole of Christ’s life was a continuous expression of the character and person in whom God could be well pleased.
ἐενς Cf. vv. 3, 4 (notes). Righteousness was fully realized in Him who set the Christian standard. No lower ideal would prove a sufficient incentive to holiness, i.e. the highest self-realization of which the nature of man is capable, who was created in order to grow into the likeness of God.
τκι אB K L al. pler. cat. Thphyl. Oec. m vg. syr. Tert. Aug.] πιι A C P 5. 13. 27. 29 arm. (uid.) cop. syrp mg Lcif.: + μυ15. 26. 36. 68 cat. sah. syrsch aeth.
μδι] μ τςA.
πινδκισνν(? ? cf. v. Soden, p. 1856)] δκιςω H δ (Ψ
δκις(? 2o)] om. H δ (33.)
τν2o om. א
8. ὁπιντνἁατα] The contrast to 7b. He whose whole course of action is the expression of “sin,” belongs to the Devil, from whom the life which animates him is derived, as the higher life which issues in righteousness proclaims its possessor a τκο θο.
ἐ τῦδαόο ἐτν Cf. Bede, “Non carnis originem ducendo ex diabolo sicut Manichaeus impurissime de cunctis credit hominibus: sed imitationem uel suggestionem peccandi sumendo ab illo, quomodo et nos filii Abrahae sumus facti, imitando fidem Abrahae,” a suggestive note, though it ignores the nearer illustrations of the context.
ἀʼἀχς The meaning of ἀʼἀχςhas been variously interpreted. It has generally been understood either of (1) the beginning of “sinning,” i.e. the Fall of Adam, or events which preceded the first sin of man; or (2) the beginning of the existence of the Devil. His first act was one of sin. The uncertainty of both these interpretations has led Rothe and others to give the phrase a logical rather than a temporal meaning. “Satan sins, the author would say, ‘par principe,’ for the sake of sinning. Other sinners sin for the sake of another. In contrast to him all human sin is derived.” Whether the actual phrase can bear such an interpretation or not, the point of view of the readers has surely been overlooked. The writer must have intended a meaning which the words could suggest to them. The phrase must therefore be interpreted in accordance with Joh_8:44, Joh_8:1:1; Gen_1:1, etc. The attempt to assign a definite date, so to speak, is a mistake. “The earliest times spoken of Genesis” would perhaps be the nearest popular paraphrase. “From the first” would give its meaning with fair accuracy. It denotes the earliest events which have any bearing on the point at issue. From the very first, long before the first actual sin of any man, “the devil sinneth,” and the course begun from the first has been continued ever since. All human sin, therefore, has its origin in what is external to the man who sins. It comes from an external source. It is not self-originated or part of man’s nature. As Westcott has said elsewhere, “There is no view of human nature so inexpressibly sad as that which leaves out the Fall.” As also F. D. Maurice has said, “There has been no period of the existence of human beings in which they have not been liable to the assaults of this Tempter.”
There is nothing in the passage to suggest that the writer held a “dualistic” view of the origin of evil, considering the Devil “an originally evil being”; but it is manifest that he believed in a personal Tempter. Cf. Joh_8:44.εςτῦοἐαεώηκτλ All such action is in direct opposition to the purpose of the Incarnation of the Son of God, who was manifested in the flesh in order to destroy the works of the Devil, i.e. the sins which he has introduced into the lives of men.
λσ] “destroy.” The word generally includes the suggestion of destroying, undoing or dissolving, that which forms the bond of cohesion. Cf. Joh_2:19, Joh_5:18, Joh_7:23 (the Lord “dissolved” the Jewish sabbatical tradition by applying to the question the higher principle of the duty of restoring man to his true self). Windisch aptly quotes the λγο of the Egyptian Gospel, ἦθνκτλσιτ ἔγ τςθλίς
ο1o] + δ A 25, 68 kscr tol. boh-ed. arm. aeth. Lcif.
λσ] λσίB 100: λθ P.
9. He who is begotten of God must be in character like God who begat him. Sin, which is of the Devil, finds no place in him.
ὁγγνηέο] Compare and contrast Joh_1:13, ἐ θο ἐενθσν Here the writer emphasizes not only the initial act, or the single act, but its permanent results.
ἁατα ο πιῖ Anarthrous and therefore qualitative. He does not do that which is sinful in character. But the absence of the article should not be pressed.
ὅισέμ] The seed which produces the new life in him (cf. Joh_1:13), as a permanent and abiding factor.1 The interpretation which equates σέμ with the Word of God (“semen dei, id est uerbum dei,” Bede, from Augustine, who adds, “unde dicit Apostolus, Per Euangelium ego uos genui, 1Co_4:15) receives some support from 1 P. 1:23; Jam_1:18, but is hardly in accordance with the Johannine teaching, in which the Spirit is the author of the new birth (cf. Joh_3.). Wohlenberg in an interesting paper has pleaded for the interpretation which identifies σέμ θο with God’s children scollectively (cf. Joh_8:33, σέμ Ἀρά). It has the advantage of referring ατῦand ἐ ατ to the same person (God’s children abide in Him), but it makes the following clause, ο δντι…γγνηα, very difficult both in grammar and sense. As Law has pointed out, the last clause must then have run (“and they cannot sin, because they abide in Him”). Still less can be said for Karl’s interpretation of the words as referring to Christ. Cf., however, Justin, Apol. i. 32, where we perhaps have an echo of this.2ο δντικτλ The fact that he has been begotten of God excludes the possibility of his committing sin as an expression of his true character, though actual sins may, and do, occur, in so far as he fails from weakness to realize his true character. Cf. Joh_8:33, Joh_8:39. Every τκο must reproduce the works of his father. In so far as any man is a τκο θο he “cannot” do the works of the Devil. The writer speaks, however, here as elsewhere, in the absolute language of the prophet rather than with the circumspection of the casuist. On the N.T. doctrine of Birth from God, see Windisch, p. 118.
πς pr. δοααηο Ic 258 (56).
γγνηεο] γγνμνςK 99. 100. 177 * jscr oscr al. pauc.
τυ(? 1o)] om. H δ (33) Ia 106 (179).
αατα ο πιι non peccat sah. boh.
σεμ] pr. τ Ic 551 (216) O46 (154).
ατυ dei sahd: om. Ia 382 (231).
αατνι] αατα πισιIa 158 (395).
οι οτςIa 264 (233).
10. ἐ τύῳ This may possibly refer to what has preceded, the not-doing or the doing of sin, which are the distinguishing characteristics of the classes into which the writer divides mankind. But it is more probable, and more in accordance with the writer’s usual custom, that the reference is to what follows, the achievement of, or the failure to achieve, righteousness and love (cf. 2:3). For the construction, cf. the note on 1:4.
φνρ] The writer is striving to give his readers a distinguishing test which can be easily applied. It is, of course, to the judgment of men, not the judgment of God, that the two clues become manifest.
τκατῦδαόο] cf. Act_13:10, υὲδαόο, and Joh_8. The teaching of this section of the Epistle can hardly be understood without reference to the 8th chapter of the Gospel, with which it is intimately connected.
πς There are no exceptions on the ground of superior knowledge or “pneumatic” nature; cf. notes on vv. 3, 4.
κὶὁμ ἀαῶ] The doing of righteousness might be too vague and general a test. The writer therefore narrows it down to one special form of righteousness which is in fact the basis of the whole, and in the exercise of which the false teachers had apparently shown themselves particularly lacking. Cf. Rom_13:9, ε τςἑέαἐτλ, ἐ τ λγ τύῳἀαεααοτι ἐ τ·ἀαήεςτνπηίνσυὡ σατντνἀεφνατῦ The writer is obviously thinking of members of the Christian Society, not thereby excluding the wider duty on which the Sermon on the Mount and the Parables insist. The object of the Epistle is to suggest practical tests. They must be practical and such as are easily applied. No statement is made to the effect that he who confines his love to his Christian brethren has completely fulfilled the law of Christ. The writer has a special object in what he says, and he writes in view of the failure in this respect of showing love to fellow. Christians, which was conspicuous in the case of the false teachers, in spite of their claims to intellectual and spiritual superiority. There is nothing inconsistent with the teaching of the Christ in laying special stress on the first stage in obeying it. The experience of a lifetime, and especially of his later years, would seem to have taught the writer the necessity of charity beginning at home.
ε τυω ε τυο Ia 200f (83).
πς pr. κιC* uid aeth.
πινδκισννאA B C K L P al. omnuid cat. harl. tol. arm. cop. syr. aeth. Did. Thphyl. Oec.] ω δκιςm vg. (am. fu. demid.) sah. syr. Or. Cyp. Lcif. Aug.: δκιςω H δ (Ψ An interesting “Western” variant, which can hardly claim to be original. The context requires the practical test of “doing.”
δκισννאB L al. plu. Dam.] pr. τνA C K P h. al. fere.20 Dam.
0 2o] om. Ia 382 (231).
ατυ + οκααατνθ Ia 70 (505).
11. The original message of the Gospel, nay, the whole history of God’s revelation of Himself to men from the earliest times, is summed up in the command to exercise mutual love. He therefore who does not love his brother shows thereby that he cannot be ἐ τῦθο.
ατ …ἵα The ατ, which refers to what follows, excludes the possibility of any “telic” force being retained by ἵαhere; cf. Joh_17:3, and the close parallels in Joh_13:34, Joh_13:15:12; 1Jn_3:23, 1Jn_4:21, 1Jn_5:16. See also 1Jn_5:3; 2Jn_1:5, 2Jn_1:6; cf. note on 1:9. The declarative, or definitive, use of ἵαto introduce the contents of a command, or the like, is fully established for S. John.
ἀγλα The message of the Gospel, of which the law of love is the basis. The reading ἐαγλαdoes not suit the context, and it is obviously due to the careless substitution of a commoner word. Except in this passage, ἀγλαis found only once in the N.T. (1Jn_1:5). On the other hand, ἐαγλαoccurs 51 times, but only once in the Johannine writings (1Jn_2:25).
ἣ ἠοστ ἀʼἀχς The law of love was an essential part of the earliest presentation of the Gospel. It formed part of the earliest teaching which the readers had received. The contents, however, of ver. 12 suggest that in the words ἀʼἀχςthe writer’s thought goes back to still earlier times. The earliest stories of the beginnings of the race bear witness to the fatal consequences of disobedience to the law of love.
αγλαA B K L al. plu. cat. Thphyl. Oeccom vg. Aug.] εαγλαאC P 27. 29. 40. 66**. 69. 99 ascr nscr al. mu. harl. syr. sahwb cop. arm. seth. Did. Cyr. Oectxt Lcif.: uerbum sahd.
ιαααωε] ut diligatis boh-ed. armusc: ιααααεIa 113 (235).
12. The story of Cain is the typical example of the “want” of brotherly love. The form of the reference here is conditioned by what the writer has to say about the hatred which Christians must expect from the world. Men’s deeds are the natural outcome of their character and inclinations. Evil deeds are the expression of a character which takes pleasure in what is evil. Righteousness must always provoke the hostile feeling of those whose delight is in evil. And feelings must sooner or later express themselves in action.
ο κθς Cf. 2Co_8:5, κὶο κθςἠπσμνἀλ ἑυοςἔωα: Joh_14:27, ο κθςὁκσο δδσν and especially Joh_6:58, οτςἐτνὁἄτςὁἐ ορνῦκτβς ο κθςἔαο ο πτρςκὶἀέαο, where the construction is irregular, as here. The comparison is incomplete in form. It may be paraphrased “the feelings of Christians for each other must not be like, rather they must be the exact opposite of, those of Cain, whose hatred of righteousness led him to the violent murder of his brother.” Schlatter aptly quotes in illustration (p. 149), בְֵזהאח·ֹ בקיןלהבל קיןהרגאתהבל Pes. Kah. 16. 126a.
ἐ τῦπνρῦἦ] Every man must draw his life and power from one source or the other. His deeds show to whom he belongs and has attached himself. The writer never denies the individual freedom of choice. He only traces things back to what he believes to be their ultimate spiritual sources.
ἔφξν The verb always includes the idea of violence. In the N.T. σάενis found only here and in the Apocalypse. Cf. Rev_6:4, ἵαἀλλυ σάοσν 9, τςψχςτνἐφγέω δὰτνλγντῦθο: 18:24, πνω τνἐφγέω ἐὶτςγς It is also used of the Lamb, and of the “head” of the beast (13:3). In the LXX its most frequent use is sacrificial (cf. Gen_22:10, of Isaac; Exo_29:11; Lev_1:5; Num_11:22, etc.); but see also Jdg_12:6 (A), σάοσνατὺ ἐὶτςδαάεςτῦἸράο: 1 K. 15:33, ἔφξ ΣμυλτνἈὰ ἐώινΚρο: 1 Mal_1:2, κὶἔφξ βσλῖ, etc.χρντνς The violent deed was only the last expression of that antipathy which righteousness always calls out in those who make evil the guiding principle of their life. This view, that the cause of the murder of Abel is to be found in the character of Cain as manifested in his actions, is hardly in accord with the narrative of Genesis (4:8 ff.), but it is quite in keeping with the suggestions read into that narrative by the adherents of the allegorical method of exegesis. We may compare Philo’s treatment of the subject, who finds indications of Cain’s φλυί in the fact that he only offered his sacrifice “after several days,” and not at once, with the readiness which should distinguish the service of God; and that he offered of the fruits, not of the first fruits. Cf. also Heb_11:4, where the stress is laid on the character of the sacrifices offered (πεοαθσα), rather than on the general character of all the actions of the two men.
τυ(? 1o) om. Ia 397ffff (96) | τν pr. Abal, sahd.
om. κι…ατνaeth.
τνςχρνIsa_55 (236).
ο] pr. et sahd.
αεφυατυ αε Ia 264 (233).
δκι] bona arm.
13-16. The ground of the world’s hatred of those who love, and the glory of love, which gives life, in Christ.
13-15. Those who can interpret aright the true meaning of the story of Cain and Abel will feel no surprise at the attitude of the world towards Christians. It only expresses the hostility which that which is good must always call out in that which is evil. Our love for the brethren assures us that we have already passed out of the state of hatred and death, and now abide in that of life. For life is love. He who does not love is still in the state of death. Every one who does not love his brother is a murderer, in the eyes of all to whom the true issues of things are manifest, even though he has so far stayed his hand from violence. And your common consciousness as men tells you that no murderer can have the higher life in him as a permanent and abiding principle of action.
13. μ θυάεε cf. Joh_3:7 (μ θυάῃ), where the aorist emphasizes the immediate feeling aroused by a particular thought, or action, rather than the more permanent feeling called out by what is continuous. Cf. also Joh_5:28, where the form of sentence refers to the continuous feeling, not to the momentary surprise, which the fact that the hour was coming, when all the dead should hear the voice of the Son of God, might occasion. The construction with the present imperative is the usual construction in the Johannine writings, the aorist subjunctive being only used in the passage quoted above. Here it is significant. The hatred of the world was an abiding attitude, always liable to provoke unchristian retaliation, and always a temptation to the more “intelligent” to neglect their duty to their weaker brethren.
μ A B Ccorr K L al. pler. vg. sah. cop. syr. Lcif. Did. Thphyl. Oec.] pr. κιאC* P 15. 18. 29. 36. 66**. 98. 191 cat.* syr. am. aeth.
αεφιאA B C D al. mu. cat. vg. arm. Lcif. Did.] + μυK L al. longe. plu. syr. sah. cop. aeth. (ηω) Thphyl. Oec.
υα] ηα sah. Ia 1402 (219) O46 (154).
14. ἡεςοδμν The appeal is to the Christian consciousness, shared by writers and readers alike. Their experience as Christians has taught them that conscious life is dormant till it is called out in active love and fellowship. Cf. Augustine (Tract. v. 10), “Nemo interroget hominem; redeat unusquisque ad cordem suum: si ibi inuenerit charitatem fraternam, securus sit quia transiit a morte ad uitam.”
ὁμ ἀαῶ] The statement is put in its most general form. The state in which love has not been called out into conscious activity is a state of death. Life is the chance of learning how love not only “might be,” but “is.”
The addition of τνἀεφνin the Receptus is natural in the light of the preceding clause and of ver. 16. But it narrows down the writer’s meaning unnecessarily. In his more absolute statements he shows himself fully aware that the duty of love is absolute, and has a wider application than the Christian Society, even as the Christ is the propitation for the whole world, though in a practical Epistle he lays most stress on what is first practicable.
τυ αεφυ] + ηωא68. 58lect syr. sah.
ομ ααω אA B 13. 27. 29. vg. sahdb arm. Did. Lcif. Aug.] + τναεφνC K L P al. pler. sahw cop syr. Thphyl. Oec. Cassiod. (+ ατυP Rev_10 sahw cop. syr. aeth.): τυ αεφυ 15.
ο + δ Ia 256 (24).
15. πςὁμσνκτλ Cf. Aug. (Tract. 5:10). “Non movet manus ad occidendum hominem, homicida iam tenetur a Domino; uiuit ille, et iste iam interfector iudicatur.” Hatred is the moving cause, whether or not the occasion for its final display has presented itself and been used. Cf. Mat_5:23, Mat_5:24.
ἀθωοτνς Cf. Joh_8:44, the only other instance of its use in the N.T. It is, of course, used here in its literal sense of actual murderer, not of the murderer of the soul.
οδτ] It is axiomatic. Their natural consciousness as men will tell them that the higher life cannot be communicated as a permanent possession to such an one. The writer does not avoid the use of irony when it suits his purpose.
μνυα] Cf. Joh_1:32, Joh_1:33, Joh_1:5:38, Joh_1:6:27; 1Jn_2:14, 1Jn_2:24; 2Jn_1:2. The word suggests that eternal life is both “a continuous power and a communicated life.” Wohlenberg’s attempt to connect the word μνυα with the following verse (Μνυα ἐ τύῳἐνκμντνἀάη) is ingenious rather than convincing. Though it is not absolutely necessary to the sense, its position is justified by the μνιof ver. 14, and it serves to heighten the impossibility of the rejected hypothesis.πς ο] The usual “Hebraistic” expression, or at least the form of expression which a Jew writing Greek would naturally adopt. Cf. 1Jn_2:19, 1Jn_2:21, etc.; and see Moulton’s note, Grammar of New Testament Greek, vol. i. p. 245 f. Such phrases as χρςπσςὑεθσω show that “vernacular usage” only needed to be extended “under the encouragement of a similar idiom in Hebrew.” But so far as the evidence goes it would seem that there has been “extension” in the Semitic direction. The construction is not found in the Gospel.
ατυ ευο B
οδτ] οδμνIc 114 (335) sahwb boh.: pr. οκIa δ (69).
πς2o] + οIb δ (1149).
ε ατ B K al. plu. Thphyl. Oec.] ε ευωאA L C P al. 30.
αωιν om. Ic 116. 114 ( - ).
μνυα] om. sahd.
16-18. Description of true love, and exhortation to its practice. The essence of love was manifested once for all, finally and completely, when the Christ gave His life for men. We know what true love really is in the light of that example. And we cannot but recognize our obligation to follow it, if need be even to the last sacrifice, for our brethren. There is, however, a simple test by which we can know at once whether we are at least on the road which leads to the possession of true love. He who is unwilling to give of his external possessions, where need is obvious and well known to him, has not even begun to cherish true love for God in his soul. True love proves itself in action. It cannot stop short at expressions of which the tongue is the instrument. It must show by actual deeds that the words in which it is professed correspond to real feelings of the heart.
16. ἐ τύῳ The reference is to what follows, according to the writer’s usual custom, especially when a clause with ὅιfollows.
τνἀάη] Absolute. There is no need to supply a genitive, τῦΧιτῦor τῦθο. The true nature of love was manifested in such a way that men could learn to realize it,