Lange Commentary - 1 John

Online Resource Library

Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | Download

Lange Commentary - 1 John


(Show All Books)

Verse Commentaries:


THE

EPISTLES GENERAL OF JOHN

_____________

by

KARL BRAIN, D. D.

General Superintendent, Etc., At Oldenburg

—————

TRANSLATED FROM THE GERMAN, WITH ADDITIONS ORIGINAL AND SELECTED

by

J. ISIDOR MOMBERT, D. D.

Rector Of St. Jame’s Church, Lancaster, Pa.

———————

THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF JOHN

_____________

INTRODUCTION

_______

§ 1. Contents of the Epistle

I. THE EXORDIUM (1Jn_1:1-4) states the object of the Apostolic annunciation (1Jn_1:2) and its purpose (1Jn_1:3); the design of the Epistle being superadded (1Jn_1:4).

II. PRINCIPAL PART THE FIRST (1Jn_1:5 to 1Jn_2:18):

If ye walk in the light (1Jn_1:5 to 1Jn_2:2), in obedience to his law in general (1Jn_2:3-6), and keeping the commandment of brotherly love in particular (1Jn_2:7-14), not being misled by the lusts (1Jn_2:15-17), and the lies of the world (1Jn_2:18-23), ye shall hereafter abide before Christ.

1. The leading thought: “God is light” (1Jn_1:5).

2. The first inference: true fellowship (1Jn_1:6-7).

3. The second inference: perception and confession of sins (1Jn_1:8-10).

5. The third inference: reconciliation and redemption (1Jn_2:1-2).

6. Mark of the walk in the light; obedience to His commandments, especially brotherly love (1Jn_2:3-11).

6. Consolatory warning against love of the world (1Jn_2:12-17).

7. Warning and consolation against antichrist (1Jn_2:18-28). Description of his forerunners, whose appearing points to the last time (1Jn_2:18-23); Exhortation of the faithful to stedfastness in their assurance of having the truth and eternal life (1Jn_2:24-28).

III. PRINCIPAL PART THE SECOND (1Jn_2:29 to 1Jn_5:12):

He that is born again (out) of (the Being of) God the Righteous (1Jn_2:29), is a miracle of His love now and hereafter (1Jn_3:1-3), is bound by His will (1Jn_3:4-10 a), especially to practise brotherly love (1Jn_3:10 b–18), is blessed before Him and in Him (1Jn_3:19-24), trying, like God, the false spirits (1Jn_4:1-6), he enjoys the love of god and exhibits brotherly love (1Jn_4:7-21), he triumphs over the world and is sure of eternal life (1Jn_5:1-12).

1. The leading thought: He that is born again of God the Righteous doeth righteousness (1Jn_2:29).

2. The glory of the Sonship (1Jn_3:1-3).

3. The way of God’s children passes through God’s law (1Jn_3:4-10 a).

4. Brotherly love is the sum-total of the Divine law (1Jn_3:10-18).

5. The blessed consequences of our adoption by God (1Jn_3:19-24).

6. Warning and exhortation with reference to false teachers (1Jn_4:1-6).

7. Brotherly love and Divine love as related to each other on the ground of Christ’s advent (1Jn_4:7-21).

8. The power of faith (1Jn_5:1-5), its testimony (1Jn_5:6-10) and substance (1Jn_5:11-12).

IV. THE CONCLUSION (1Jn_5:12-21) reminds us of the gift of eternal life (1Jn_5:13), of the confidence that our prayers are heard (1Jn_5:14-15), exhorts us to intercede for erring brethren (1Jn_5:16-17), and reminding us of the certainty of our redemption from sin (1Jn_5:18), dehorts us in view of the world (1Jn_5:19) and the redeemer (1Jn_5:20) from idolatry (1Jn_5:21).

This attempted analysis will have to be justified by the exposition, but the situation of the question has to be noted here in brief. Formerly nobody thought of seeking and finding in this Epistle a well-ordered train of thoughts, or even definite and connected groups of thought. Augustine (Expos. in Ep. Joh.) contented himself with the remark: “locuturus est multa et prope omnia de caritate.” Thus Luther in his two expositions says: “The main substance of this first Epistle relates to love.” “The Apostle’s object in this Epistle is to teach faith against heretics, and true love against the vicious.”—Calvin (in his Commentary on the New Testament) says: “doctrinam exhortatianibus mistam continet. Disserit enim de eterna Christi deitate, simul de incomparabili, quam mundo patefactus secum attulit, gratia; tum de omnibus in genere beneficiis, ac prœsertim inœstimabilem divinœ adoptionis gratiam commendat atque extollit. Inde sumit exhortandi materiam; et nunc qnidem in genere pie sancte vivendum admonet, nunc de caritate prœcipit. Verum nihil horum continua serie facit; nam sparsim docendo et exhortando varius est: præsertim vero multos est in urgenda fraterna intellectione. Alia quoque breviter attingit.” Lutheran expositors, e.g., Valentine Löscher and Rappolt thought that the Epistle was written without method; the latter described John’s method as aphoristic. Not until the 18th century, more definitely since the middle of that century, the programme of Joachim Oporin of Göttingen led to progress in the recognition of a plan and order in this Epistle. Bengel recognized the exordium (1Jn_1:1-4), the tractatio (namely the special one 1Jn_1:5 to 1Jn_4:21, and the more general 1Jn_1:1-10), and the conclusion (1Jn_5:13-21).—Lücke with his ten sections approached again the aphoristic plan (1Jn_1:1-4; 1Jn_1:5 to 1Jn_2:2; 1Jn_2:3-17; 1Jn_2:18-28; 1Jn_2:29 to 1Jn_3:10; 1Jn_3:10-24; 1Jn_4:1-6; 1Jn_4:7 to 1Jn_5:5; 1Jn_5:6-12; 1Jn_5:13-21).—After v. Hoffmann’s lead (in Schriftbeweis 2, 2. p. 335–337), who, independently of the exordium (1Jn_1:1-4), and the conclusion (1Jn_5:18-21) divides the Epistle into four parts (1Jn_1:1 to 1Jn_2:11; 1Jn_2:12-28; 1Jn_2:29 to 1Jn_3:22; 1Jn_3:23 to 1Jn_4:21; 1Jn_5:1-17), Luthardt in his programme of 1860 adopted the following division after the exordium: 1Jn_1:5 to 1Jn_2:11; 1Jn_2:12 to 1Jn_2:27; 1Jn_2:27 to 1Jn_3:24 a; 1Jn_3:24 to 1Jn_4:21; 1Jn_5:1-21.—Ebrard has six divisions; 1Jn_1:1-4; 1Jn_1:5 to 1Jn_2:6; 1Jn_2:7 to 1Jn_2:29; 1Jn_3:1-24; 1Jn_4:1 to 1Jn_5:3 a; 1Jn_5:3-21.—Ewald has only three divisions: 1Jn_1:1 to 1Jn_2:17; 1Jn_2:18 to 1Jn_4:6; 1Jn_4:7 to 1Jn_5:21.—Huther, who, at the suggestion of de Wette, in the first edition of his commentary had grouped his divisions according to the three leading thoughts:—God is light (1Jn_1:5), righteous (1Jn_2:29), love (1Jn_4:8), has abandoned this arrangement as untenable, and adopted the following division in the second edition of his work: 1Jn_1:5 to 1Jn_2:11; 1Jn_2:12 to 1Jn_2:28; 1Jn_2:29 to 1Jn_3:22; 1Jn_3:23 to 1Jn_5:17, leaving it optional to combine the first and second into one. Düsterdieck has, after the exordium, 1Jn_1:1-4, two main parts (1Jn_1:5 to 1Jn_2:28; 1Jn_2:29 to 1Jn_5:5), and a double conclusion (1Jn_5:6-21).

Cf. Lücke, ch v. Düsterdieck, 1, p. XI.–XXVII.; Huther, p. 3–12.

§
2. Character of the Epistle

1. The Epistle treats of the following subjects: God is light, love, righteous; being of God, being God’s child, born of God, being and abiding in God; His Son, who is from the beginning, sent by the Father, come in the flesh to destroy the works of the devil, who gave His life for us, who is the propitiation for all, for the sins of the whole world, our Paraclete, in whom is eternal life, in whom we are and abide, whom we shall see as He is: His Spirit, the Spirit of truth, of whom we have: His word, which is eternal; fellowship with the Apostles, with the Father and the Son, prayer, intercession, confidence even in the judgment, the faith which overcomes the world, love of the brethren even to the point of laying down our lives for them, hope that purifies itself;—the devil, the spirit of fraud, lying, darkness, antichrist, the world, the lust of the eyes, the lust of the flesh, the sin which is formally lawlessness, inwardly unrighteousness, the sin unto death, being of the devil, the child of the devil, hatred, death, idols.—They are almost exclusively ethical ideas, very few dogmatical, and these are immediately delivered of the ethical references they contain, and thus linked into this chain of ethical ideas; e.g., the death of Christ (1Jn_2:2; 1Jn_3:16). The author hastens in this Epistle through the whole sphere of life, although his power to do so is derived from a very small circle of ethical ideas. The advent of the Son of God in the flesh, His walk and aim as well as His intercession make up the christology he sets in operation, and the life of the Christian, snatched away from the power of the devil by regeneration and united in church-fellowship with the Father and the Son in his way through the world with its seductive power in particular things and in groups to the bliss of eternal life after death,—this is the sphere of life, the extent of ethical contemplations in this Epistle. We have therefore to deal here as much with faith in the divinity of Christ transposed into life, then with the life in Christ, as with the life in Christ theologically thought-out and leading to faith in the divinity of Christ. While the Gospel seeks to strengthen and enlarge faith in Jesus (says v. Hoffmann, Schriftbeweis, 2, 2, p. 337), the Epistle shows forth the moral conduct which is necessary to faith and only possible to faith.

2. But our Epistle does not treat these ideas as abstractions of the mind, but as contemplations of life, experiences of life, as facts and concrete manifestations of life. “One cannot tell whether the artless ingenuousness of a childlike disposition strikes us more in this Epistle than the grave high-tonedness of a thoughtful man, because, in fact, both are intimately blended together.” (Düsterdieck). The author takes hold of the most weighty thoughts and ideas with a sure, light and dexterous hand; he is perfectly master of them, he has experienced them, they are his own, he is familiar with them. His object is to bring them home to the consciousness of his readers and to make them know them. Hence ïἴäáôå , ïἴäáìåí , äïêéìÜæåôå , ãéíþóêåôå , ἵíá ãéíþóêùìåí , ἵíá åἰäῆôå . Peculiar is the constant repetition of antithetical sentences, not by way of simple antithesis, but so that the predicate of a sentence becomes the subject of the antithesis or vice versa; the antithesis only brings out a new feature and thus carries on the thought, cf. e.g., 1Jn_1:6 sq., 1Jn_1:8 sq.; 1Jn_2:4 to 1Jn_4:9 sqq. 1Jn_4:22, sq.; 1Jn_3:3-6. On the use of êáὶ instead of äὲ , of ὅôé , ἵíá , etc., see Ebrard, p. 9. [He says: Style and construction remind us strongly of the didactic passages of the Gospel, e.g., Joh_1:1-18; Joh_3:27-36, etc. For we recognize in the Epistle the same mode of thinking in paratactic periods and the same preference for êáὶ in connecting together the different members of a train of thought (cf. e.g., 1Jn_2:1-3, where Paul would doubtless have used ἐὰí äὲ for êáὶ ἐὰí , and surely have put áὐôὸò ãὰñ ἱëáóìüò ἐóôé for êáὶ áὐôὸò ἱëáóìüò ἐóôé ); cf. his taking up again the immediately preceding ὅôé in 1Jn_3:20 with the anaphoras in Joh_1:33; Joh_4:6, etc., and in general his preference for the particle ὅôé which is used in so many different senses (cf. Joh_16:3-4; Joh_16:6; Joh_16:17; also 1Jn_2:12 sqq. with Joh_16:9-11), and the use of the particles ðåñὶ , ἵíá , ἀëëὰ . It is clear that the author of the Epistle, like the Evangelist, is in the habit of thinking in Hebrew, i.e., Aramaic, and moving within the narrow range of the particles ëé , å or ìîòå , ãé . To this must be added certain other modes of construction peculiar to a Hebrew cast of thought, e.g., the circumlocution of the Genitive by ἐê , 1Jn_4:13, cf. Joh_1:35; Joh_6:8; Joh_6:70 and many other passages, the solution of a relative sentence into a conditional sentence, ( ἐÜí ôéò .… ïὐê ἔóôéí ἐí áὐôῷ for ὅóôéò ê . ô . ë .) 1Jn_2:15; 1Jn_3:17; cf. Joh_6:43, etc. The solution of a simple antithesis into a final or causal sentence depending on a word to be supplied ( ïὐê ἦóáí ἐî ἡìῶí ἀëë ἵíá .…) 1Jn_2:19; cf. Joh_1:8; Joh_3:28, etc. The circumlocution of the Dative of the instrument by ἐí , 1Jn_2:3, etc., compared with Joh_1:26; Joh_1:33; Joh_16:30; and lastly the frequent use of èåùñåῖí and èåᾶóèáé , while ὁñᾶí is only used in the Perfect, and certain phrases such as ôὴí øõ÷ὴí ôéèÝíáé , èåὸò ὁ ἀëçèéíὸò , ὁ óùôὴñ ôïῦ êüóìïõ ὁ ×ñéóôüò , êüóìïò ëáìâÜíåé , the use of öáßíåéí , ôåêíßá , ðáéäßá , etc.—M.].—John’s method is neither dialectical like that of Paul, nor rhetorical like that of the Epistle to the Hebrews, but speculative, contemplative, noting the substance of thought without marking the mutual relation of the thoughts themselves. Huther Strikingly illustrates the Apostle’s peculiarity by comparing his leading thought to a key-note that he strikes and causes to sound through the derivative thoughts until a new key-note is struck that leads to a new key. It is the dialectics of contemplation, of experience. “His simplicity and unadornedness of statement are characteristic: whether he refers to the Divine truths themselves, or addresses his readers by way of admonition or warning, his language preserves throughout the same calmness and decision; he never discloses a passionately excited frame of mind, but we see every where the reflection of the calmness of a heart resting in blissful peace, which makes him sure that the simple statement of the truth is sufficient to commend his words to the hearts of his readers. At the same time a firm, manly tone pervades the Epistle, contrary to all effeminate sentimentality of which the Apostle is so thoroughly free, that while enforcing spirituality of life, he uniformly insists upon the necessity of the exhibition of its truth in deeds [i.e., in the life and practice of men.—M.].—It is also noteworthy that while, on the one hand, he addresses his readers as a father speaks to his children, he does not forget, on the other, that they are no longer minors and do not require to be taught new things, but that they are his equals and joint-possessors with him of all the truth he enunciates and of the life which he wants not to create, but to preserve in them.” (Huther). This Epistle, “a deed of sacred love,” “is to the most simple reader whose heart has made experience of Christian saving truth, immediately intelligible, but also unfathomable to the profoundest Christian thinker, although equally dear and refreshing to both. The very method pursued by the author of our Epistle in taking hold of Christian living, believing and loving from their profoundest depth, and in their inexhaustible wealth, shows with peculiar clearness how the foolishness of God confounds all the wisdom of the world; for that which our Epistle declares with almost playful ease, or at least with the perfectly artless simplicity of a heart which in its real vital fellowship with the Lord possesses all the riches of Divine wisdom and communicates them in holy anxiety of love—that which it declares with the triumphant assurance and joyful confidence of indisputable truth concerning the source and nature of the Christian life, i.e., of eternal life, is infinitely more than all the wisdom of the world together can ever reach, and also more than even Christian wisdom can ever think out or fathom.” (Düsterdieck), One cannot fail to see how unexcelled gentleness, tenderness and thoroughness of love are wonderfully blended with the most decided sternness and deep-cutting keenness of judgment. “It does not seem as if only a father were addressing his beloved children, but as if a glorified saint were speaking to men from a higher world. The doctrine of heavenly love, calmly active, with indefatigable zeal essaying everything and never exhausting itself, has in no writing been so perfectly demonstrated as in this.” (Ewald). With such testimonies, triumphantly corroborated by the exposition, we may take comfort under the charges that the confusion of the Epistle betrays the senility of its author, who, either with planless abruptness, wanders from a thought he had suggested, or falls into the eternal sameness of an old man (S. G. Lange, Eichhorn, Ziegler). And the reproach of the master of the Tübingen school, of v. Baur, that the Epistle lacks the freshness of direct life, and that the tenderness and profound thoroughness of the Johannean mode of contemplation and statement had too much resolved themselves into a tone childishly effeminate, dissolving in indefiniteness, marked by constant repetitions and a lack of logical energy, may be met by Hilgenfeld’s declaration that this Epistle is one of the most beautiful writings of the New Testament, that it is peculiarly rich and original with reference to the subjective, intensive life of Christianity, and that the fresh, living and attractive character of the Epistle consists just in the marked preference with which it introduces us into the inward experience of the true Christian life.

[After all this, we may well say with Ebrard to the commentator and his readers: “Put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground.”—M.]

§
3. The Author of the Epistle

If we glance at the testimony of the ancient Church and pay close attention to the statements of the witnesses respecting the author of this Epistle, all doubt must vanish that the Apostle St. John was, without contradiction, considered to have been its author. The Apostolic Fathers contain several allusions and references to our Epistle. Ebrard gives them along with similar matter in the Introduction to his Commentary, pp. 14–16. [The paragraphs in question, besides the quotation from Polycarp, as given below, are these: Papias knew and used this Epistle: ÊÝ÷ñçôáé ä ὁ áὐôὸò [Papias] ìáñôõñßáéò ἀðὸ ôῆò ðñïôÝñáò ἸùÜííïõ ἐðéóôïëῆò . v. Euseb. H. E., III., 39.—The anonymous Epistle to Diognetus, written about the time of Justin Martyr, contains many passages, which imply an unquestionable dependence on this Epistle. Cf. Cap., X., with 1Jn_4:9-11; XII. with 1Jn_2:18-25; 1Jn_4:4-6; 1Jn_5:6-12; also Cap., V.–VII.; XI. The Epistle of Vienna and Lyons [Euseb., V., 1] contains an unmistakable allusion to 1Jn_3:16; ὁ äéὰ ôïῦ ðëçñþìáôïò ôῆò ἀëÜðçò ἐíåäåßîáôï , åὐäï÷Þóáò ὑðÝñ ôῆò ôῶí ἀäåëöῶí ἀðïëïãßáò êáὶ ôὴí ἑáôïῦ èåῖíáé øõ÷Þí .—Carpocrates, a Gnostic, who flourished about the beginning of the second century at Alexandria, sought to use for his purpose, 1Jn_5:19. “Mundus in maligno positus est,” see Origen in Genes., cap. I., Opp., I. p. 23,—M.].—The most important testimony is that of Polycarp, the disciple of John, who suffered martyrdom, A. D. 168, as found in his Epistle to the Philippians c. 1John 7: ðᾶò ãὰñ ὃò ἄí ìὴ ὁìïëïãῇ Ἰçóïῦí ×ñéóôὸí ἐí óáñêὶ ἐëçëõèÝíáé ἀíôß÷ñéóôὸò ἐóôé ; which Ebrard calls “an unmistakably clear reminiscence”, and Düsterdieck “a free use of Joh_4:2-3.”

Very important is the testimony of the Canon of the New Testament, which was edited by Muratori about a hundred years ago and is known as the Muratorian Canon. According to Wieseler’s careful investigation (see Studien und Kritiken, 1847, pp. 815–857) it was written A. D. 170 by a Church-teacher for the purpose of instructing catechumens in the documents of the Christian faith which were received in his Church. We read, thereafter, notices of the fourth Gospel and its origin: “Quid ergo mirum, ei Johannes tam constanter singula etiam in epistolis suis proferat, dicens in semet ipso (1Jn_1:1): quœ vidimus oculis nostris et auribus audivimus et manus nostrœ palpaverunt, haec scripsimus; sic enim non solum visorem, sed et auditorem, sed et scriptorem omnium mirabilium domine per ordinem profitetur.” And again after an enumeration of the Pauline Epistles: “Epistolœ sane Judœ et superscripti Johannes duœ in Catholica habentur.” This reference to the two Epistles of St. John must not be construed as denoting either the second and third, as if the citation from the first Epistle rendered further reference to it unnecessary (Schleiermacher, Lindner and Ebrard in Herzog’s R. E., p. 98), or the first and the third, the second being regarded as an appendix to the first (Hug), but the first and the second, as Catholic Epistles proper, the second Epistle, addressed to the êõñßá , being considered to have been written not for a single person, but for a congregation; it is consequently the third Epistle which is not mentioned, not because its Johannean authorship was called in question, but because it was regarded as less instructive and as a private letter addressed to an individual.

The Peschito, belonging to the same age as the Muratorian fragment, also bears witness to the authenticity of this Epistle.—Quotations from this Epistle grow more frequent after the beginning of the third century in the writings of Irenæus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen and Cyprian.—It is very probable, but without much importance, that the Alogi, who, on the authority of Epiphanius, rejected the Gospel and Revelation of St. John, rejected also the first Epistle. Nor can it be of any moment that Marcion and his followers did not enumerate the writings of John in their Canon. Eusebius, whose defects in statement, pompous style, and disjointed treatment are considerably excelled and counterbalanced by his comprehensive and laborious historical researches, includes the Epistle among the Homologoumena (H. E., III., 24. 25), and Jerome (de viris illust. c. 9) says: “ab universis ecclesiasticis viris probatur.”—Most excellent is also on this point Tischendorf’s short but weighty essay: “Wann wurden unsere Evangelien verfasst?” Leipzig, 1865. [See also my article on the Sources of the Gospels in the Bibliotheca Sacra, July and October numbers, 1866.—M.]

2. This chain of external evidence is confirmed by the internal evidence arising from the comparison of the Epistle with the Gospel of St. John. Both the range of thoughts and their mode of expression, as well as the diction, are the same in the first Epistle and in the Gospel, and the remarks on the former in § 2, 1. 2, may and must be applied to the latter with slight modifications. Cf. Grimm: On the Gospel and first Epistle of St. John as Works of the same Author in Studien und Kritiken, 1847, p. 171–181, and On the first Epistle and its relation to the fourth Gospel, ibid., 1849, p. 269–303.—“As in the Gospel we see here the author retire to the background, unwilling to speak of himself and still less to support any thing by the weight of his name and reputation, although the reader meets him here not as the calm narrator, but as an epistolary writer, as exhorter and teacher, as an Apostle, and moreover as the only surviving Apostle. It is the same delicacy and diffidence, the same lofty calmness and composure, and especially the same truly Christian modesty that cause him to retire to the background as an Apostle and to say altogether so little of himself: he only desires to counsel and warn, and to remind his readers of the sublime truth they have once acquired; and the higher he stands the less he is disposed to humble ‘the brethren’ by his great authority and directions. But he knew who he was, and every word tells plainly that he only could thus speak, counsel and warn. The unique consciousness, which an Apostle, as he grew older, could carry within himself, and which he, once the favourite disciple, had in a peculiar measure, the calm superiority, clearness and decision in thinking on Christian subjects, the rich experience of a long life, steeled in the victorious struggle with every unchristian element, and a glowing language lying concealed under this calmness, which makes us feel intuitively that it does not in vain commend to us love as the highest attainment of Christianity—all this coincides so remarkably in this Epistle, that every reader of that period, probably without any further intimation, might readily determine who he was. But where the connection required it, the author intimates with manifest plainness that he once stood in the nearest possible relations to Jesus (1Jn_1:1-3; 1Jn_5:3-6; 1Jn_4:16), precisely as he is wont to express himself in similar circumstances in the Gospel; and all this is so artless and simple, so entirely without the faintest trace of imitation in either case, that nobody can fail to perceive that the selfsame author and Apostle must have composed both writings.” (Ewald, Die Johann. Schriften, I., p. 431 sq.). Add to this the bold self-testimony with the impress of truth, 1Jn_4:6.—Surprising is the number of parallel passages in the two writings:

 
First Epistle Of John. Gospel Of John.  
 
1Jn_1:1-2. Joh_1:1; Joh_2:14.  
 
1Jn_1:4. Joh_15:11.  
   
Joh_16:24.  
 
1Jn_1:10. Joh_5:38.  
 
1Jn_2:1-2. Joh_14:16.  
   
Joh_11:51-52.  
   
Joh_13:15; Joh_13:34-35.  
 
1Jn_2:4-6. Joh_14:21-24.  
   
Joh_15:10.  
 
1Jn_2:8. Joh_13:34.  
 
1Jn_2:11. Joh_12:35.  
 
1Jn_2:23. Joh_15:23-24.  
   
Joh_15:24.  
 
1Jn_2:27. Joh_14:26.  
 
1Jn_3:1. Joh_17:25.  
 
1Jn_3:8. Joh_8:44.  
 
1Jn_3:10. Joh_8:47.  
 
1Jn_3:13-15. Joh_8:24-38.  
   
Joh_15:18-19.  
 
1Jn_3:16. Joh_15:12-13.  
 
1Jn_3:22. Joh_9:31.  
   
Joh_16:23.  
 
1Jn_4:5-6. Joh_3:31.  
   
Joh_15:19.  
   
Joh_8:47.  
 
1Jn_4:9. Joh_3:16.  
 
1Jn_4:16. Joh_6:69.  
 
1Jn_5:3-4. Joh_14:15.  
   
Joh_16:33.  
 
1Jn_5:9. Joh_5:36.  
 
1Jn_5:12. Joh_3:36.  
   
Joh_14:6.  
 
1Jn_5:13. Joh_20:31.  
 
1Jn_5:14. Joh_14:13-14.  
   
Joh_16:23.  
Considerably more than half of the thirty-five passages taken from the Gospel form part of the last sayings of Christ in 1John 12–17. There the receptivity of the witness was preëminently necessary, and there it showed its strength; where he made the most vital surrender of himself, there he received the most permanent impressions. This is thoroughly Johannean. Compare on this subject especially Lange, The Gospel of John, §§ 1–3, Vol. IV., p. 1 sqq. German edition.

3. The genuineness of this Epistle as that of an Apostle was maintained by the Church without all contradiction until Joseph Scaliger boldly enunciated the notion: “tres epistolœ Johannis non sunt Apostoli Johannis.” Then there arose at the time of the atomic criticism of Rationalism S. G. Lange (Die Schriften des Johannes übersetzt und erklärt, Vol. III., p. 4 sqq.), who although not venturing to assault the external evidence, made the subject matter of the Epistle the starting-point of his criticisms, and raised the doubt whether the Epistle was worthy of an Apostle; his strictures were as follows: that the Epistle lacked individual and local character, that its agreement with the Gospel gave rise to the suspicion of timid imitation and slavish copying; that John, before the destruction of Jerusalem, was not old enough to produce such a work of senility; that he may not have mentioned the destruction of Jerusalem, because it was a ticklish point, etc.—Bretschneider (Probabilia) is a more important opponent; but he lived to become convinced of the groundlessness of his doubts of the authenticity of John’s writings; Claudius (Uransichten des Christenthums), who maintained that the Epistle was the fabrication of a Jewish Christian, and Horst (in Henke’s Museum für religionswissenschaft von 1803) are only mentioned on account of their boldness, and Paulus (Die drei Lehrbriefe des Johannes wortgetreu mit erläuternden Zwischensätzen übersetzt und nach philologisch-notiologischer Methode erklärt. Mit exegetisch-Kirchenhistorischen Nachweisungen über eine sittenverderbliche magisch-persische Gnosis, gegen welche diese Briefe warnen. 1829. [The three doctrinal Epistles of John literally translated with explanatory parentheses, and expounded after the philologico-notiological method. With exegetico-Church-historical references to an immoral magico-Persian Gnosis, of which these Epistles give warning. 1829.—This title is enough to awe even confirmed book-worms.—M.]), who like Bretschneider believed the Presbyter Johannes to have been the author of this Epistle, is referred to simply because of the manner in which he maltreated it.

4. More important are the assaults of the Tübingen school on the authenticity of our Epistle. It starts with the Hegelian idea of God, which makes man truly the other part of God; we may say that the followers of that school have already applied Darwin’s theory to their conception of history: Christianity did not come down from heaven in a finished form, involves no miracle or privilege of certain persons, but originated in the inmost being of the Spirit, in the natural consciousness of man by a genuine historical development, without revelation or inspiration by a process in agreement with the general laws of historical development. The real original Christianity was a Judaism only slightly modified by Christ, quite Ebionite as exhibited by Peter and John in the Apocalypse, or Gentile-Christian as exhibited by Paul (Epistles to the Romans, Corinthians and Galatians), who, to be sure, went further in the dogma of the law. Hence there arose a contention between him and the other Apostles, in which men, well qualified to effect an understanding and reconciliation among the contending parties, advanced to Christian views and composed the other writings of the New Testament, which simply amount to unhistorical party-writings [German: Tendenzchrift, i.e., a writing of a certain tendency favouring the distinctive views of a party.—M.], not without legends, and were written about the middle of the second century. This applies also to our Epistle. At first Köstlin (Lehrbegriff des Ev., etc., 1843) and Georgii (Theol. Jahrbücher, 1845) pronounced for the identity of the author of the Epistles and that of the Gospel; then Zeller, who as late as 1842 had presupposed the identity of the author of both writings, was the first to declare, in a review of Köstlin’s work, that it was conceivable that the Epistles and the Gospel were written by different authors. This view was raised by Baur, the leader of that school (in Theologische Jahrbücher, 1848), to apodictical certainty, and according to him the Epistle is a weak imitation of the Gospel, whereas Hilgenfeld (Das Evangelium und die Briefe Johannis, 1849, and Theol. Jahrbücher, 1855) identified and proved the Epistle to be a splendid type of the Gospel.—Baur starts on the unfounded supposition that the author manifests the intentional and most studious anxiety (1Jn_1:1-3) to be regarded as identical with the author of the Gospel; in 1Jn_5:6-9, he sees, owing to an exegetical misunderstanding, a wanton attempt of drawing a distinction between Divine and human testimony, and shows by this the unskilful imitation of the author. From a comparison of the eschatological statements of the Epistle (ch, 1Jn_2:18-23; 1Jn_3:2) with those of the Gospel (Joh_14:3; Joh_14:18 sq. Joh_14:23; Joh_16:16; Joh_16:22), and of 1Jn_5:6, with Joh_19:34, he infers that the mode of contemplation in the Epistle is more material and outward than that of the Gospel, which he considers to be more ideal and spiritual. The idea of the atonement, ἱëáóìüò (1Jn_1:7; 1Jn_2:2; 1Jn_4:10), and that of the interceding High Priest, ðáñÜêëçôïò , he thinks more suited to the range of ideas peculiar to the Epistle to the Hebrews, and foreign to that of the Gospel. Baur, lastly, considers the Epistle to be wholly Montanistic, because it describes the fellowship of Christians as holy and sinless, makes mention of the ÷ñßóìá , and draws an unevangelical distinction between venial and mortal sins. But our Epistle does not distinguish a higher class of spiritual Christians from the lower classes of other Christians, the Psychici, but believing Christians from an unholy world; the Epistle does not, nor may we refer the ÷ñßóìá to the baptismal anointing which is mentioned for the first time by Tertullian; and with respect to the mortal sins enumerated by Tertullian (homicidium, idolatria, fraus, necatio, blasphemia, mœchia et fornicatio et si qua alia violatio templi dei), Baur ought not to have made a most arbitrary selection of three, viz., idolatry (1Jn_5:21; 1Jn_3:4), murder (1Jn_3:15), adultery or fornication (from the inscription ad Parthos, corrupted from ðñὸò ðáñèÝíïõò ), and still less to have remarked that the author does not refer to the outward acts, but to the inward, moral disposition; for that is not Montanistic. If Hilgenfeld considers (1Jn_1:5; 1Jn_1:7) the statement that God is öῶò , ἐí ôῷ öùôß , too material and local [räumlich, literally, relating to space.—M.], turns 1Jn_3:4, where sin is called ἀíïìßá , and 1Jn_2:7-8, where love is referred to as an old commandment, into an argument for a friendly relation to the Mosaic law, and maintains that the idea of a personal Logos, clearly expressed in the Gospel, is unknown to the Epistle, although ὁ õἱὸò ôïῦ èåïῦ is considered as identical with the Logos, and ἡ æùÞ in Christ as hypostatical,—that the Holy Ghost is not described as a Person because He is called ÷ñßóìá , and not ðáñÜêëçôïò , although He is called ôὸ ìáñôõñïῦí (1Jn_5:6), that the exhortation, addressed to the readers of the Epistle, to a conduct enabling them to look for and pass through the ordeal of the judgment without being ashamed, militates against the idea of the Gospel, which does not speak of the judgment of believers,—all this is as untenable on exegetical grounds as the recognition of Gnostical elements belonging to the post-Apostolical age in the idea of the óðÝñìá (1Jn_3:9), the conception of the ÷ñßóìá , and the thought that God ought not to be feared, but only to be loved (1Jn_4:18-19). Anointing as an Old Testament type suggested ÷ñßóìá in the antithesis of the Christian and ἀíôß÷ñéóôïò , the representation of being born of God suggested the óðÝñìá , and in that representation the fundamental view of an atonement for all the sins of all mankind prohibits any reference to a dualistic separation and to a metaphysical reason without ethical life-process, and the love of God is not a Gnostical discovery, but a purely Christian and Divine command. Of what avail is all the praise which Hilgenfeld awards to the first Epistle of John (for he solely refers to it without adverting to the second and third Epistles, although the title of his book refers to Epistles) and its author, in calling him a great independent thinker, if he nevertheless regards him as blindly echoing the Gnostic system of his time, and having only given a clear, practical impress to its speculative features, and considers the Epistle as less spiritual, and on that account older than the Gospel; and how can he accuse those who reject a pseudo-epigraphical literature of the New Testament, of overlooking the important circumstance that the modern idea of literary property was wanting in primitive Christian times; it has not been overlooked that the modern idea was then wanting, but even more than that, there was wanting all license of any forger. The pretensions of the Tübingen school are by no means borne out by what it gives us. Cf. Dietlein (Urchristenthum). Düsterdieck, Vol. I., p. XXXV—CI. Huther, p. 19–28; Brückner in de Wette’s Handbuch, p. 316 sqq.

§
4. The Readers Of The Epistle

1. Augustine has a literal quotation of 1Jn_3:2, which he introduces thus: Quod dictum est ab Joanne in epistola ad Parthos (Quaest. Evang. ii. 39). Possidius in his indiculus operum S. Augustini cites the tractates on our Epistles as “de ep. ad Parthos sermones decem.” Thus has this designation found its way at least into the Benedictine edition of the works of Augustine, and even into some Latin codices and several other writings (Vigilius Tapsensis, Cassiodorus, Beda). Grotius already knew how to explain and apply it: “Vocata olim fuit epistola ad Parthos, i.e., ad Judœas Christum professos, qui non sub Romanorum, sed Parthorum vivebant imperio in locis trans Euphratem, ubi ingens erat Judœorum multitudo, ut Neardœ, Nisibi et aliis in locis. Et hanc causam puto, car hœc epistola neque in fronte nomen titulumque Apostoli, neque in fine salutationes apostolici moris contineat, quia nimirum in terras hostiles Romanis haec epistola per mercatores Ephesios mittebatur multumque nocere Christianis poterat, si deprehensum fuisset hoc quanquam innocens litterarum commercium.”

Clement of Alexandria (opera ed. Potter fragm. 1011) observes that the second Epistle was addressed ad virgines (see Introduction to the second Epistle). It is easy to see how ðñὸò ðáñèÝíïõò may have been wrongly transcribed ðñὸò ðÜñèïõò , and thus originated the corrupted subscription of the second Epistle, which, being used as its superscription, may have been mistaken for the subscription of the first Epistle and connected with it, as Hug conjectures. Or, as in a codex of the Apocalypse, the subscription of the first and second Epistles may have read ἸùÜííïõ after ðáñèÝíïõ , and thus have given rise to the above mutilation and designation (so Gieseler, Eccl. Hist., I., p. 139). There is evidently a mistake somewhere, and since Hug’s supposition is even more simple than Gieseler’s, it seems to commend itself as giving the solution of the riddle. The matter is not furthered if we suppose with Paulus of Heidelberg, that this subscription originated in ðñὸò ðÜíôáò , or conjecture a corrupted reading in Augustine of ad Pathmios (Serrarius), ad sparsos (Wegscheider), adpertius (Semler). In this way, it is clear, we shall never find the readers for whom our Epistle was intended.

2. Equally inadmissible is the inference of Benson that ἀð ἀñ÷ῆò (1Jn_2:7; 1Jn_2:13-14) points to a circle of readers in Judæa and that of Lightfoot who, connecting the Gaius, mentioned 3Jn_1:1, with the Gaius 1Co_1:14, thinks of Corinth as the Church to which the Epistle was sent. The Epistle is not addressed to any one Church in particular; and this accounts for the absence of detailed notices of a concrete or personal character. The circumstance, that while the Epistle contains only slight and incidental references to representations peculiar to the Old Testament, it expressly denounces idolatry, gives countenance to Düsterdieck’s shrewd conjecture (§ 7), that it was addressed to Gentile Christian Churches; moreover, the author’s contrasting the knowledge of the true God in Jesus Christ, which includes eternal life, with the dazzling form of paganism and an antichristian Gnosis, is in perfect agreement with the historical notice that John selected Asia Minor as the sphere of his labours, if we have to look to that province for the Churches to whom this encyclical Epistle was sent. But we must not think of a single Church, least of all of the Church at Ephesus (Hug), but of several Churches “of John’s Ephesian circle of Churches” (Lücke),[i.e., Churches within the diocese of Ephesus, as we should say, Churches under the especial jurisdiction of John.—M.], perhaps of all Churches to whom the personal labours of John extended (Huther).

§
5. The Form Of The Epistle

1. Given an encyclical or circular Epistle, and it is manifest that it may and does lack features which generally belong to other Epistles: i.e., the special address and particular salutations. Thus the common epistolary address is wanting in the Epistle to the Hebrews, while the Epistle of James is without the customary final salutations. Barring this circumstance all the requirements of the epistolary form are complied with: ãñÜöù occurs seven times, ãñÜöùìåí once, ἔãñáøá six times; ὑìῖí , ἐí ὑìῖí , ὑìåῖò and ὑìᾶò occur thirty-six times, the address ôåêíßá and ðáéäßá ten times, ἀãáðçôïß six times, ðáôÝñåò and íåáíßóêïé twice each, ἀäåëöïß once. The exordium (1Jn_1:1-4) may be regarded with Calov (Biblia N. T. illustrata, Tom., II., p. 1582. Francof. 1676), who follows Estius, as founded on the usual form of an epistolary address. Lücke regards it as the amplification of such an address. The view of Baronius (Annal. Eccl. an. 99, II., p. 964) that the address, like a modern envelope, may have been lost, is as unnecessary as unfounded. The spirit of the Epistle corresponds with its form, the former being thus capitally described by Bacon: “Epistola habent plus nativi sensus quam orationes; plus etiam maturitatis quam colloquia subita.” Hence Düsterdieck very correctly remarks (I., p. X.): “The whole writing rests so thoroughly on a living, personal relation between the author and his readers, the pertinence of the written exhortation is so absolutely personal, that this ground is sufficient to make us consider the writing as a genuine Epistle. This epistolary character belongs moreover to the whole keeping and structure of the short writing. With all logical order, there reigns in it that free and easy naturalness and unconstraint of statement, which suits the immediate interest and hortatory tendency of an Epistle, while the strict, progressive dialectical development, peculiar to a treatise or homily, is held back.”

2. Receiving this writing with the ancient Church as an Epistle of John, is therefore every way commendable. Heidegger (Enchiridion Bibl., p. 986) advanced his new view as late as the end of the seventeenth century: “Accedit, quod scriptum hoc, licet epistola insigniatur, censeri tamen possit brevis quœdam Christianœ doctrinœ epitome et evangelii a Johanne scripti succinctum quoddam enchiridion, cui adhortationes quædam pro communi totius ecclesiœ conditione adjectœ sunt. Non enim, ut reliquœ epistolœ, inscriptione ac salutatione inchoatur, neque etiam salulatione et voto clauditur.” Although Bengel calls the writing epistola, he rather regards it as a libellus. Michaelis (Introd., p. 1520) calls it a treatise. Storr (Ueber den Zweck der evangelischen Geschichte und Briefe Johannis, pp. 384. 401 sq.) calls it the polemical, and Berger (Versuch einer moralischen Einleitung ins N. T., II., p, 179 sq.) the practical part of the Gospel; while Reuss (Die Geschichte der Heiligen Schriften, N. T., p. 217) describes it as “a homiletical essay, at the most a pastoral Epistle, the readers being present.” Augusti calls the Epistle an anacephalœosis of the Gospel, and Hug, Fromman (Studien und Krit., 1840, p. 853), Thiersch (Versuch zur Herstellung des historischen Standpunkts, p. 78, und die Kirche im apostolischen Zeitalter, p. 266) and especially Ebrard (Kritik der Evangelischen Geschichte, p. 148, and Comment., pp. 29–39) designate it as a companion-writing of the Gospel, or regard it in the light of a preface as an epistola dedicatoria without an independent designation per se, but we ought to have some notice or reference to that effect. This view certainly does not explain the want of an address, salutation and benediction, and we shall show in § 8, 3 that such a view is impossible.

§
6. Relations And Circumstances Of The Churches.

1. The external relations cannot have been peculiarly difficult; there is no reference whatsoever to persecutions, like those to which the Christians were exposed either by the Jews as in the time of Paul, or by Nero at Rome (A.D. 54–68), or at the end of Domitian’s reign (A.D. 81–96), and under that of Trajan (A.D. 98–117), and his proconsul Pliny in Bithynia. The Epistle speaks of the hatred of the world ( ὁ êüóìïò ìéóåῖ ὑìᾶò , 1Jn_3:13). The notices of the victory of young men (1Jn_2:13-14, íåíéêÞêáôå ôὸí ðïíçñüí ) and the victory over the world (v. 4, ἡ íßêç ἡ íéêÞóáóá ôὸí êüóìïí , ἡ ðßóôéò ἡìῶí ), point rather to spiritual struggles, in the Church and in the individuals themselves; but they afforded opportunity for a reference to and description of external conflicts. The external relations must have been, on the whole, favourable; at least external fears cannot have been of sufficient moment to be taken into account (cf. Ewald, p. 437 sq.).

2. The disquiet and motion reigning within, which characterize this Epistle, point to rest without. The Churches were not necessitated to cling together and to remain closed by themselves. The writing is deficient in words of consolation, but not in exhortations to brotherly love, to stedfastness in the fellowship of faith and life with the Father and the Son, in cautions against the seductions of worldly lusts and false brethren. The time of their first enthusiasm has passed; their zeal and love lack the vibration produced by the weighty pendulum of obstacles and enmity. The reaction of evil from without is followed by the more pernicious reaction from within; falling away has begun without a violent crisis; the energy of evil, as well as of good, has abated. The first generation which had torn loose from idolatry and the world, and earnestly laid hold of God in Christ, has died; a showy and nominal Christianity has crept into the Churches. Believers, like Gaius, exhibit all the Christian virtues (3Jn_1:5-6), old men full of Christian wisdom, young men full of vigorous aims (1Jn_2:13-14), are pleasing evidences of the Christian life. But ambition spreads itself, as in Diotrephes (3Jn_1:9-10), the lusts of the world assert their claims (1Jn_2:15-17), false brethren arise, and not only tear themselves; but also others from the true fellowship (1Jn_2:18 sq.; 1Jn_3:7; 1Jn_4:1 sqq.). And the influences from the world are rather those of pagan frivolity, than those of Judaistic narrowness.

3. The heresy, against which the Epistle is directed, is a pagan Docetism. Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God! Jesus is the incarnate Son of God! The Epistle, from the beginning to the end, raises high and holds fast confession as the banner under which we must fight and are sure of victory, thus pointing to Docetism, which had not yet developed into a system, but had appeared as a tendency, as is certified by Cerinthus, the contemporary of John. For Cerinthus held that Jesus was the son of Joseph, with whom the Logos united at His baptism, but left Him again after His crucifixion. Cf. Dorner, Entwickelungsgeschichte, I., 314 sqq. Pressensé, Hist. of the First Three Centuries, II., p. 233 sqq. The Epistle insists upon knowing and knowledge in opposition to the false spiritualistic Gnosis which had already begun with Docetism and opposed to the ergism of Judaism a syncretistic philosophy, and set in motion an ingenious theory operating intellectually, in the place of the work of redemption operating ethically.

In opposition to the pagan Dualism, which is the basis of Docetism in fixing metaphysically the antinomy of spirit and matter, the Epistle points to the opposites of light and darkness, of truth and falsehood, of the world with the evil one, and God with His Son and His children, opposites which are altogether ethical and in the fusion of an ethical life-process, so that the opposing element is overcome, dissolved and rejected, or may and shall be saved.—We do not yet find the full-blown Gnosticism, nor yet the rigid Docetism (as maintained by Lücke Sander and Thiersch), nor any longer the antinomism combated by Paul, nor yet the later antinomism of the Gnostics (as Hilgenfeld assumes). Nor do we find the least trace of opposition to the disciples of John the Baptist, whom Paul met at Ephesus (Act_19:1 sqq.), whom John may have had regard to in his Gospel (Joh_3:22-36), and a reference to whom was suggested by the very language of this Epistle (1Jn_5:6; 1Jn_5:8).

4. The Epistle knows no other division of the Church than that by age, fathers and young men (1Jn_2:12-14). But John gives distinct prominence to the circumstance that every one receives the unction of the Holy Ghost (1Jn_2:20; 1Jn_2:27); he joins his readers in the confession of sins (1Jn_1:8-9), does not set himself above his brethren, and acknowledges the inalienable rights of Christians to try the spirits (1Jn_4:1), as well as their own responsibility to the Lord (1Jn_2:28).

[The heresy of Cerinthus and other heretics is thus described by Irenæus in his great work against heresy:

Et Cerinthus autem quidam in Asia non a primo Deo factum esse mundum docuit, sed a virtute quadam valde separata et distanto ab ea principalitate, quœ est super universa, et ignorante eum, qui est super omnia, Deum. Jesum autem, subjecit, non ex virgine natum, (impossibile enim hoc ei visum est) fuisse autem eum Joseph et Mari