Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - 1 John 5:13 - 5:21
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
1Jn_5:13-21
That ye may know, that ye have eternal life, ye that believe in the name of the Son of God.—Quite similar to the closing verse of the Gospel, Joh_20:31. The purpose of the writing ἵíá åἰäῆôå ὅôé æùὴí ἔ÷åôå áἰþíéïí corresponds with the ÷áñÜ at the beginning of the Epistle, which ÷áñÜ was to be filled by the testimony of the eye and ear-witnesses of the ëüãïò ôῆò æùῆò ; hence ôáῦôá ἔãñáøá answers to ôáῦôá ãñÜöïìåí 1Jn_1:4 (Bengel), the certainty of the possession of eternal life being the ground and strength of the joy, which John has, and to which he adverts. The words ôïῖò ðéóôåýïõóéí åἰò ôὸ ὄíïìá ôïῡ õἱïῦ ôïῦ èåïῦ , annexed to ὑìῖí , primarily refer back to 1Jn_3:23. but find their last resting-place in the êïéíùíßá ἡ ἡìåôÝñá ìåôὰ ôïῦ ðáôñὸò êáὶ ìåôὰ ôïῦ õἱïῦ áὐôïῦ , 1Jn_1:3. Hence ôáῦôá must be referred neither to 1Jn_5:8-12 (Huther), nor to 1Jn_5:1-12 (S. Schmid), but to the whole Epistle (Luther, Bengel, Lücke, Düsterdieck and al.), though the inducement to the choice of this expression lies in verses immediately preceding, and preparing the concluding portion of the Epistle, and there still follow several verses which constitute that concluding portion. Noteworthy is the difference between the closing verse of the Gospel, Joh_20:31, which adverts to the future believing and obtaining eternal life of the readers, while our passage asserts their present belief and possession of eternal life. [Alford sees here with Düsterdieck something like an anticipatory close of the Epistle. Huther maintains, that this verse still belongs to the second main part of the Epistle beginning with 1Jn_3:23, on the ground that æùὴí áἰþíéïí goes back to the verses immediately preceding, and that ðéóôåýåéí åἰò ôὸ ὄíïìá ôïῦ õἱïῦ ôïῦ èåïῦ , refers back to 3:28.—M.].
The confidence that prayer is heard. 1Jn_5:14-15.
1Jn_5:14. And this is the confidence which we have towards Him.— Êáὶ connects with what goes before, i.e., it connects ðáῤῥçóßá ἣí ἔ÷ïìåí with æùὴí ἔ÷åôå áἰþíéïí . This confidence consists in this:—
That if we ask any thing according to His will, He heareth us.—It is consequently the confidence in God, which has the intercourse of prayer with Him; this confidence rests on the æùὴ áἰþíéïò , springs from it, points back to it, and reacts also on it, strengthening and confirming it. Cf. 1Jn_3:21-22.— Ðñὸò áὐôὸí and to ôὸ èÝëçìá áὐôïῦ must be referred to God the Father, because the idea of possessing the æùὴ áἰþíéïò involves the idea of the Divine Sonship, and the ðáῤῥçóßá is connected with both. While ἐὰí ôé leaves the object of the prayer quite general and indefinite, êáôὰ ôὸ èÝëçìá limits it, so that it is a conditio æquissima, latissime patens (Bengel), as we may see from the fourth and seventh petitions of the Lord’s Prayer, in connection with the others. (Cf. Doctrinal and Ethical No. 1.)— Ἀêïýåé ἡìῶí denotes an attentive, sympathetic hearing, while ἡìᾶò would signify a mere hearing.—This is an undoubted fact:
1Jn_5:15. And if we know that He heareth us whatsoever we may ask.—Hence ἐὰí with the Indicative ïἶäáìåí . Winer, p. 310, sq.— Ὅ ἐὰí áἰôþìåèá denotes the general character of the object of prayer. It follows that:
We know that we have the petitions which we have asked from Him.—” Ἔ÷ïìåí , emphatic, placed first. By the side of ἀêïýåé ἡìῶí , we must distinguish ̓́ ÷ïìåí ôἀ áἰôÞìáôá (Lorinus: res petitæ), although the two belong together; God hearing our prayers and our having go hand-in-hand. The additional clause: ἃ ᾐôÞêáìåí ἀð ’ áὐôïῦ indicates that the having is the consequence of prayer preceding it, so that the having in point of time does not coincide with the prayer, as does the believer’s prayer with God’s hearing; but our having is secured; ἔ÷ïìåí is not= ëáìâÜíïìåí (Lachmann and al.), nor must it be construed like a Future (Grotius: statim exaudit, at non statim dat).— Ἀð ’ áὐôïῦ , as in Mat_20:20, belongs to ᾐôÞêáìåí , not to ἔ÷ïìåí ; ðáñ ’ áὐôïῦ , as in Act_3:2, (see Appar. Crit., No. 7,), could not, at any rate, denote prayers as deposits made with God, as Ebrard maintains.
Intercession for a brother sinning not unto death. 1Jn_5:16-17.
1Jn_5:16. If any one see his brother commit a sin, not unto death.—Here is supposed a specific case, in which the confident petition becomes an intercession for the purpose of keeping an erring brother,—after the example of Christ (1Jn_2:1; cf. Luk_22:31-32; Joh_17:9; Heb_7:25),—with his Saviour and salvation, in fellowship with the Redeemer and in the participation of eternal life. Additur casus omnium maximus; ut possis orare etiam pro altero in re gravissima (Bengel). ἘÜí ôéò ἴäῃ supposes an objective possibility; it is not said that some one does see, but it may be, the event will show it; consequently: If any one should see it. Winer, p. 306, sq. The reference is to an event which may be seen, to a fact susceptible of observation, as in 1Jn_3:17.— Ôὸí ἀäåëöὸí áὐôïῦ , denotes a member of the Christian Church, and ôéò requires to be taken in the same sense. The reference is consequently to intimate converse, and to what happens and becomes manifest there. This the Apostle brings out emphatically in the participial form: ἁìáñôÜôïíôá ἁìáñôßáí : the sinning brother stands, as it were, before our eyes. Here we have ìὴ ðñὸò èÜíáôïí , not as in 1Jn_5:17 : ïὐ ðñὸò èÜíáôïí , because the reference is to the subjective judgment of the observer, not to an objectively valid principle, not to the establishment of a dogmatically real idea. Winer, p. 496.— Ἀäåëöὸò is therefore not=proximus quicunque (Calov); non-christians are excluded (against Ebrard), although the reference may not be exactly to “a regenerate person” (Düsterdieck).
He shall ask and give him life.—The Future áἰôÞóåé denotes that the intercession may be confidently expected, since êáὶ äþóåé neither warrants us to construe the Future, in the decisive language of the legislation of the Old and New Testament (Mat_5:21; Mat_5:27, etc.,) as an Imperative, nor gives an occasion to assume a purely ethical possibility, as Luk_22:49 : êýñéå , åἰ ðáôÜîïìåí ; Rom_10:14 : ðῶò ïὖí ἐðéêáëÝóïíôáé ; shall we smite? how shall they, how can they call? See Winer, pp. 294, 295, 331. Hence it is not=licebit petere (S. Schmidt). The subject is the intercession, ôéò , not the Church (Neander), or the saints (Meyer). The same subject, áἰôῶí , belongs also to äþóåé ; it is neither=dabitur (variation of the Vulgate, approved by Bede and others), nor to be derived from the idea of prayer, áἰôïýìåíïò , rogatus Deus (Beza, Bengel, Lücke, Winer, p. 553, and al.). [The Æthiopic version brings out the right meaning: rogans vivificabit; i.e. the asker shall be instrumental in bestowing life on the erring brother for whom he intercedes.—M.]. The grammatical requirements of our passage are fully borne out by the cycle of thoughts current in the New Testament (Act_3:6; Jam_5:15; Jam_5:20). John here simply contemplates the result as a fact, without adverting to the instrumentality, its ways and stages within the brother’s heart, which was the object of intercession; repentance and faith, moreover, are not excluded, and the interceding brother is not viewed as the Saviour, or the representative of the Redcemer. Neither may we think of an admonitio et correptio fraterna (Mat_18:15; S. Schmid), nor of the proper demeanour of the asker towards his erring brother, as the result of his intercessory prayer (Rickli). The final effect of intercession is æùὴ ( áἰþíéïò ), which is weakened and disturbed by every sin [Alford; This bestowal of life by intercessory prayer, is not to be minutely inquired into, whether it is to be accompanied with “correptio fraterna,”—whether it consists in the giving to the sinner a repentant heart (Grotius, al.), but taken, as put by the Apostle, in all its simplicity and breadth. Life, viz.: the restoration of that Divine life from which by any act of sin he was indeed in peril, and indeed in process of falling, but this sin was not an actual fall.—M.].
To them that sin not unto death.—The Plural ôïῖò ἁìáñôÜíïõóé belongs to áὐôῷ , which generaliter positum est (Erasmus); the Plural takes the supposed case from the sphere of singularity; ôéò has collective force. See Winer, p. 553. It is forced and ungrammatical to refer áὐôῷ to him that asks, understanding èåὸò as the subject, and taking ôïῖò ἁìáñôÜíïõóé as Dativ. commodi: “God will give him life for the persons sinning,” as Bornemann (Biblische Studien der Sächs. Geistlichen I. p. 71,) does.— Ìὴ ðñὸò èÜíáôïí qualifies ἀìáñôÜíåéí ἁìáñôßáí , or ἁìáñôÜíåéí , and has consequently adverbial force. èÜíáôïò , only, if taken in the sense of spiritual death, corresponds with the context, viz., with the ðáῤῥçóßá of prayer being heard on the ground of our possession of the æùὴ áἰþíéïò , for æùÞ in the intercession on behalf of the erring brother, and the preposition ðñὸò , as denoting the aim towards which something is directed (Winer, p. 423), require us to think of a sinning, which in the conviction of the person interceding, must not terminate in èÜíáôïò , the emptying of all æùὴ áἰþíéïò , and accordingly must not absolutely annul fellowship with Christ, faith in Him. This is brought out more clearly in the next clause.
There is a sin unto death.—Thus the Apostle circumscribes the domain of sinning not unto death: it is not infinite. This is directed against any possible laxity in the judgment of the Church on the sins of believers. Ðñὸò èÜíáôïí has the same meaning here, as in the preceding clause. The reference is accordingly to a specific sin, to a simple act perceptible ( ἴäῃ ) in the brother, within the limits of Christian fellowship ( ôὸí ἀäåëöïí áὐôïῦ ), not to a particular, outwardly marked category of sins, but to a sinning, and committing of sin, which renders it clear to the careful observer, that the fellowship of faith with Christ, the fountain of eternal life, has been cut off, that consequently the ethical life-form appears to be inwardly decayed and dying, that the moral status of that brother shows itself to be in a state of hopeless dissolution, so that it is of no avail to pray for such an one, and that therefore intercession is not proper. Hence it is wrong to transfer to this passage the Old Testament idea of çֵèְà ìָîåּú , ἁìáñôßá èáíáôçöüñïò (Num_18:22), and to refer to capital crimes, e.g. idolatry, adultery, murder, incest, which are punishable with death under the secular or Mosaic law (Morus, al.), or to the sins ecclesiastically punishable with excommunication, as if intercession had to conform to the secular code of punishment; nor is the reference to sinning unto the end of man’s earthly existence (Bede and al.), in which connection de Lyra rightly observes: “Qui sit peccator non ad mortem, sciri non potest nisi per divinam revelationem;” ðñὸò èÜíáôïí cannot be rendered “usque ad mortem.” Nor is the reference to the physically sick, Jam_5:14 (Steinhofer); nor to definite, gross crimes, peccatum gravissimum, quod vix remittitur (Ambrose), moechia port baptismum commissa (Tertullian), peccatum invidentiæ (Bede). Nor is here any description of a condition, “Talis animæ status, in quo fides et amor et spes, in summa, vita nova exstincta est; si quis sciens volensque mortem amplectitur, non ex illecebris carnis, sed ex amore peccati, sub ratione peccati; repudium gratiæ proæreticum.” (Bengel). Augustine thought first of invidentiæ faces post agnitionem Dei, and added afterwards: si in hac perversitate finierit vitam, and then: fidem deserere usque ad mortem. Lastly the reference is neither to a purely inward act, like obduracy (Ebrard), apostasy (de Wette, Lücke), nor to sin, perceptible in the walk of men, like the anti-christian denial expressed in words (Düsterdieck), nor to the sin against the Holy Ghost (Calvin, Sander and al.). The reference is simply to sinning, from which it may be perceived either, that no inward absolute severance from the faith and denial of Christ may or can be assumed, or that the latter is either recognizable of highly probable. To the latter case apply the words:
Concerning that I do not say that he shall pray.—The simple negation is, that the the Apostle says ( ïὐ — ëÝãù ), that prayer should be made for him who sins unto death. He only makes prominent the circumstance that he confines himself to saying that intercession should be made for the person not sinning unto death. Hence those commentators are right, who do not see here a prohibition (Socinus, Grotius, Neander, Lücke, Huther and al.). But it is certainly not said that we ought, or only are permitted, to pray for him (Neander). It is important to note the difference of the words employed by the Apostle, for whereas before he made use of the word áἰôÞóåé , he now uses ἐñùôÞóῃ : ἐñùôᾷí is=rogare, and implies equality on the part of the asker with him from whom the favour is sought; Jesus designates His praying by that term (Joh_14:16; Joh_16:26; Joh_17:9; Joh_17:15; Joh_17:20); on the other hand áἰôåῖí is=petere, and implies inferiority (Düsterdieck), while Bengel regards áἰôåῖí as species humilior under the genus ἐñùôᾷí . This word ἐñùôᾷí denotes the confident petition of the child, praying inquiringly and expecting the gift. Hence, due regard being had to the force of the term employed, we may discover here the sanction of intercession for a brother sinning unto death, yet without any assurance of success or that the intercession will prevail. But since the Apostle advocates this very ðáῤῥçóßá and Deus non vult, ut pii frustra orent (Bengel), it is probably locutio morata et attica for a prohibition. Deu_3:26. This is also suggested by ἵ va; in the present instance he does not wish to excite and promote the purpose of praying. (Cf. Doctrinal and Ethical No. 4).
1Jn_5:17. All unrighteousness is sin.—The subject ðᾶóá ἀäéêßá reminds us of the predicate ἡ ἀíïìßá 1Jn_3:4. Ἀíïìßá is in contradiction with the objectively given law of God, ἀäéêßá is the contradiction and negation of the äéêáéïóýíç and is concerned with the subjective disposition, though it be wrought from above and subject to the law. And this harmonizes with the fact that we are concerned with the moral status of the sinner in this sinning unto death, and sinning not unto death. John manifestly desires to guard against any ἀäéêßá being too lightly dealt with, being not considered as ἁìáñôßá , though it be ìὴ ðñὸò ôὸí èÜíáôïí . The Roman Catholics, therefore, have no warrant for determining from the sin itself, whether it is peccatum mortale or veniale.
And there is a sin not unto death.— Êáὶ simply connects the sequel; it is not=et quidem, and the sense: quodlibet nefas est peccatum non ad mortem (Bengel); Bengel’s clause: ‘sed ne quisquam id levius interpretetur, præmittit: est peccatum’ is only a moral reaction against the perversion of the Johannean thought: all unrighteousness is sin. The sequel, because of the intercession recommended, is added by way of emphasis. Ïὐ ðñὸò èÜíáôïí implies the objectively real fact, the actual occurrence of such sin; it defines ἁìáñôßá , not ἔóôéí , as Luther supposes.
[There are one or two questions, in connection with this section, which require to be treated somewhat more fully. First, 1Jn_5:17, involves a prohibition, or what is equivalent to it. But this has been denied by many commentators. “Ora si velis, sed sub dubio impetrandi” (Corn, a Lapide); Neander supposes that the offering of prayer is permitted, though the obtaining of it will be difficult, and arbitrarily imagines the prayer in question to be the collective prayer of the Church, and that one who sins ðñὸò èÜíáôïí should not be included in the common prayer of the Church, lest he might be confirmed in his sin; Huther finds in ïὐ ëÝãù not more than a denial of the Apostle that the case of one sinning unto death came within the purview of his command. Lyra qualifies the prohibition, though “non est orandum pro damnatis,” yet we may pray, “ut minus peccaret, et per consequens minus damnaretur in inferno.”—Calvin recognizes the prohibition, but limits it to extreme cases, adding: “Sed quia rarissime hoc accidit, et Deus, immensas gratiæ suæ divitias commendans, nos suo exemplo misericordes esse jubet: non temere in quemquam ferendum est mortis æternæ judicium, potius nos caritas ad bene sperandum fleetat. Quod si desperata quorundam impietas non secus nobis apparet, ac sic Dominus eam digito monstraret; non est quod certemus cum justo Dei judicio, vel clementiores eo esse appetamus.”—Alford sums up: “Certainly this seems, reserving the question as to the nature of the sin, the right view of the ïὐ ëÝãù . By an express command in the other case, and then as express an exclusion of this case from that command, nothing short of an implied prohibition can be conveyed.”—
Secondly, the question: What is the sin unto death?—The canons of interpretation for its solution, and some of the principal divergences, chiefly from Düsterdieck, collected by Alford, are here produced.
“The First canon of interpretation of the ἁìáñôßá ðñὸò èÜíáôïí and ïὐ ðñὸò èÜíáôïí is this: that the èÜíáôïò and æùÞ of the passage must correspond. The former cannot be bodily death, while the latter is eternal and spiritual life. This clears away at once all those commentators who understand the sin unto death to be one for which bodily death is the punishment, either by human law generally, as Morus and G. Lange, or by the Mosaic law (Schöttgen),—or by sickness inflicted by God, as Whitby and Benson; or of which there will be no end till the death of the sinner (thought possible by Bede, and adopted by Lyra). This last is evidently absurd, for how is a man to know, whether this will be so or not?
“The Second canon will be, that this sin unto death being thus a sin leading to eternal death, being no further explained to the readers here, must be presumed as meant to be understood by what the Evangelist has elsewhere laid down, concerning the possession of life and death. Now we have from him a definition immediately preceding this, in 1Jn_5:12, ὁ ἔ÷ùí ôὸí õἱὸí ἔ÷åé ôὴí æùÞí ὁ ìὴ ἔ÷ùí ôὸí õἱὸí ôïῦ èåïῦ ôὴí æùὴí ïὐê ἔ÷åé . And we may safely say that the words ðñὸò èÜíáôïí here are to be understood as meaning, “involving the loss of this life which men have only by the union with the Son of God.” And this meaning they must have, not by implication only, which would be the case, if any obstinate and determined sin were meant, which would be a sign of the fact of severance from the life which is in Christ (see 1Jn_3:14-15, where the inference is of this kind), but directly and essentially, i.e. in respect of that very sin which is pointed at by them. Now against this canon are all those interpretations, far too numerous to mention, which make any atrocious and obstinate sin to be that intended. It is obvious that our limits are thus confined to abnegation of Christ, not as inferred by its fruits otherwise shown, but as the act of sin itself. And so, with various shades of difference, as to the putting forth in detail, most of the best commentators, both ancient and modern: e.g., Aretius, Luther, Calvin, Beza, Piscator, Corn. a Lapide, Tirinus, Baumgarten-Crusius, Lücke, Huther, Düsterdieck.
“The Third canon will help us to decide, within the above limits, what especial sin is intended. And it is, that by the very analogy of the context, it must be not a state of sin, but an appreciable act of sin, seeing that which is opposed to it in the same kind, as being not unto death, is described by ἐὰí ôéò ἴäῃ ἁìáñôÜíïíôá . So that all interpretations which make it to be a state of apostacy, all such as, e.g., Bengel’s (see above), do not reach the matter of detail which is before the Apostle’s mind.
“In enquiring what this is, we must be guided by the analogy of what St. John says elsewhere. Our state being that of life in Jesus Christ, there are those who have gone out from us, not being of us, 1Jn_2:19, who are called ἀíôß÷ñéóôïé , who not only “have not” Christ, but are Christ’s enemies, denying the Father and the Son (1Jn_2:22), whom we are not even to receive into our houses nor to greet (2Jn_1:10-11). These seem to be the persons pointed at here, and this is the sin: viz. the denial that Jesus is the Christ, the incarnate Son of God. This alone of all sins bears upon it the stamp of severance from Him who is the Life itself. As the confession of Christ, with the mouth and in the heart, is salvation unto life (Rom_10:9), so the denial of Christ, with the mouth and in the heart, is sin unto death. This alone of all the proposed solutions seems to satisfy all the canons above laid down. For in it the life cast away and the death incurred strictly correspond: it strictly corresponds to what St. John has elsewhere said concerning life and death, and derives its explanation from those other passages, especially from the foregoing 1Jn_5:12 : and it is an appreciable act of sin, one against which the readers have been before repeatedly cautioned (1Jn_2:18 sqq.; 1Jn_4:1. sqq.; 1Jn_5:5; 1Jn_5:11-12). And further, it is in exact accordance with other passages of Scripture which seem to point at a sin similarly distinguished above others: Mat_12:31 sqq., and so far as the circumstances there dealt with allow common ground, with the more ethical passages, Heb_6:4 sqq., heb 10:25 sqq. In the former case, the Scribes and Pharisees were resisting the Holy Ghost (Act_7:51), who was manifesting God in the flesh in the person and work of Christ. For them the Lord Himself does not pray (Luk_23:34): they knew what they did: they went out from God’s people and were not of them: receiving and repudiating the testimony of the Holy Ghost to the Messiahship of Jesus.”—M.].
Assurance of redemption. 1Jn_5:18; 1Jn_5:20.
1Jn_5:18. We know that every one who is born (out) of God, sinneth not.—Each of these three concluding verses begins with ïἴäáìåí ; Bengel: anaphora. The Evangelist refers to åἰäῆôå 1Jn_5:13, and thus describes the proper consciousness of the Christian in his attitude to sin (1Jn_5:18), the world (1Jn_5:19), and the Redeemer (1Jn_5:20). Ðᾶò ãåãåííçìÝíïò ἐê ôïῦ èåïῦ signifies every one who is, and abides, born of God; the power of regeneration, of the life given and received in regeneration, operates from the past into the present; as such ïὐ÷ ἁìáñôÜíåé , as such sin is foreign to him, Rom_7:20; cf. 1Jn_3:9.—It is unnecessary to supply ðñὸò èÜíáôïí (Bede, Beza and al.), and arbitrary to understand an abiding in sin, or a falling from grace (Calvin), or the not frequent occurrence of the sin unto death and sin in general (de Wette).
But he that hath been born of God, keepeth himself, and the wicked one doth not touch him.—The opposite ( ἀëëὰ ), refers not only to the predicate, but, since the subject is particularly specified, to the whole clause, and the two clauses ( ïἴäáìåí ὅôé —and ὅ ãåííçèåὶò ê . ô . ë .) are independently coördinated. The Aorist indicates the historical fact; that hath been born again (in opposition to Sander who discovers this in the Perfect, and Bengel, “præteritum grandius quiddam sonat, quam aoristus; non modo qui magnum in regeneratione gradum assecutus, sed quilibet, qui regenitus est, servat se.”) Ôçñåῖ áὑôὸí indicates moral effort and self-exertion; ïὐ öýóåé åἰò ἀíáìáñôçóßáí ðñïâáßíåé (Oecumenius); sin occurs, approaches, but he sustains the conflict, guarding himself in his peculiar nature and the Divine gift of eternal life, which hinders, spoils and drives away sin. Thus sin destroys man himself; it is in virtue of his self-guarding that the óðÝñìá ôïῦ èåïῦ abides in him (1Jn_3:9); we must neither supply ἁãíüí (1Ti_5:22), nor ἄóðéëïí (Jam_1:27. Carpzov, Lücke, al.), nor take ôçñåῖóèáé in the sense of being on one’s guard (Ebrard). Cf. 1Jn_3:3. [Alford justly objects to this and similar expositions, and retaining the reading áὑôüí A. B. Vulg. Jer., renders “it keepeth him,” viz. the Divine birth, adding, “it is this, and not the fact of his own watchfulness, which preserves him from the touch of the wicked one, as in 1Jn_3:9, where the same is imported by ὅôé ôὸ óðÝñìá áὐôïῦ ἐí áὐôῷ ìÝíåé , êáὶ ïὐ äýíáôáé ἁìáñôÜíåéí , ὅôé ἐê ôïῦ èåïῦ ãåãÝííçôáé . The rationalistic commentators insist on ôçñåῖ ἑóõôüí , as showing, as Socinus, “aliquid præstare eum atque efficere, qui per Christum regeneratus fuerit;” and the orthodox commentators have but a lame apology to offer. Düsterdieck compares ἁãíßæåé ἑáõôüí , 1Jn_3:3. But the reference there is wholly different—viz. to a gradual and earnest striving after an ideal model; whereas here the ðçñåῖóèáé must be, by the very nature of the case, so far complete that the wicked one cannot approach: and whose self-guarding can ensure this even for a day? Cf. Joh_17:15, ἵíá ôçñÞóῃò áὐôïὺò ἐê ôïῦ ðïíçñïῦ , which is decisive.”—M.]. The clause annexed by êáὶ notes the difficult but successful conflict. The enemy, ὁ ðïíçñὸò , 1Jn_3:12, is Satan, ïὐ÷ ἅðôåôáé áὐôïῦ , though he would fain do it, hostile attacks, Satanic assaults, temptations are not wanting (1Pe_5:8); but the point of complication between Satan and the regenerate is not reached, the wrestling is wanting; the regenerate keeps Satan at a distance, wards him off; Bengel: malignus appropinquat, ut musca ad lychnum, sed non nocet, ne tangit quidem. “In the ðáíïðëßá he is guarded against all the ìåèïäåῖáé ôïῦ äéáâüëïõ Eph_6:11 sqq.” (Huther). Luther and Calvin also refer to the armour of God, so that, as in Joh_17:11-12; Joh_17:15; Rev_3:10, God is the Preserver [Calvin: “Utut malignus renatum ad peccatum solicitet, tela tamen illius irrita cadunt, quoniam renatus scuto fidei munitus ea repellit et diabolo per fidem resistit.”—M.]. But here the Apostle contemplates only the result, and not the way to it. Additions such as letaliter (Calvin), finaliter (E. Schmid), are unnecessary. But ὁ ðïíçñὸò ïὐ÷ ἅðôåðáé áὐôïῦ depends of course on the careful ôçñåῖí ἑáõôὸí (Düsterdieck, Huther). [Alford: “As the Prince of this world had nothing in our blessed Lord, even so on His faithful ones who live by His life, the Tempter has no point d’ appui, by virtue of that their ãÝííçóéò by which they are as He is.”—M.].
1Jn_5:19. We know that we are (out) of God.—The second ïἴäáìåí repeats by way of introduction and in pregnant abbreviation ( ἐê ôïῦ èåïῦ ἐóìÝí ), and with application to himself and his church, the believer’s consciousness of his Divine sonship. There is no occasion whatever to understand here the peculiar revelation vouchsafed to the Apostles, or to explain åἶíáé ἐê ôïῦ èåïῦ =a Deo pendere illique adhærere (Socinus). The principal sentence is the independent clause, annexed like 1Jn_5:18; 1Jn_5:20, by êáὶ , viz.:
And the whole world lieth in the wicked one.—For the world is the territory and domain of Satan, on which account, and because ὁ ðïíçñὸò occurs in 1Jn_5:18, and we have here an antithesis to ὁ èåὸò , ôῷ ðïíçñῷ is masculine, and not neuter (Lyra, Socinus, Grotius, who however allows an allusion to Satan, Spener, Rickli and al.). Ἐí ôῷ ðïíçñῷ êåῖôáé denotes like ἐí ôῇ óõãêëÞôῳ êåῖôáé (Polyb. VI. 14, 6), both the competency of Satan and dependence on him as the controlling power; in ( ἐí ) him lies the world, [it is circumscribed by him and in his power—M.]; êåῖôáé denotes the passiveness of the state, of the situation; he ἅðôåôáé ôïῦ êüóìïõ continually in the most powerful and destructive manner The ethical medium of sin is not expressed here, only the result is indicated. Referring here, with Spener and Steinhofer, to Isa_46:3, and explaining it in analogy with regeneration, as if the world were lying in the wicked one like a child in its mother’s womb, is false per se and not warranted by that passage wrongly rendered by Luther.— Ὁ êüóìïò ὅëïò refers to all the unregenerate; God’s children do not belong to the world, though ἐí ôῷ êüóìῳ , yet are they not ἐê ôïῦ êüóìïõ (Joh_17:11; Joh_17:16), not ἐê ôïῦ äéáâüëïõ (1Jn_3:8). Bengel well observes: “Totus mundus, isque universus, eruditos, honestos, aliosve complectens omnes, exceptis duntaxat, qui Deo se et Christo vindicarunt, non modo non tangitur, sed plane jacet (remains lying), per idololatriam, cæcitatem, fraudem, vim, lasciviam, impietatem, malitiam omnem, in malo, expers et vitæ ex Deo et äéáíïßáò (1Co_5:10; 1Co_11:32). Brevi hac summa vividissime denotatur horribilis status mundi. Commentarii loco est ipse mundus et mundanorum hominum actiones, sermones, contractus, lites, sodalitia.” Hence our passage does not contradict 1Jn_2:2; 1Jn_4:14. God aims at the redemption of the whole world through Christ and He is enough for the whole world; but Satan also, as the antagonist of God, aims at the whole world. The world is to be taken as the territory which embraces all, not as the sum-total produced by the adding together of all individuals. [Alford: “Had not Christ become a propitiation for the sins of the whole world, were He not the Saviour of the whole world, none could ever come out of the world and believe on Him; but as it is, they who believe on Him, come out and are separated from the world; so that our proposition here remains strictly true: the êüóìïò is the negation of faith in Him, and as such lies in the wicked one, His adversary.”—M.].
1Jn_5:20. But we know, that the Son of God is come.—The third ïἴäáìåí whose object: ὄôé ὁ õἱὸò ôïῦ èåïῦ ἥêåé , i.e., has come; he conditions the åἶíáé ἐê ôïῦ èåïῦ which continues in åἶíáé ἐí ôῷ èåῷ ; had He not come, we should still lie like ὁ êüóìïò ἐí ôῷ ðïíçñῷ . Hence it is= ἐöáíåñþèç 1Jn_3:8 and not adest (Bengel referring to Mar_8:3).—[“ äὲ closes off and sums up all: cf. 1Th_5:23; 2Th_3:16; Heb_13:22 al. This not being seen, it has been altered to êáß , as there appeared to be no contrast with the preceding.” Alford.—M.].
And hath given us a sense that we know the true One.—The subject of äÝäùêåí is ὁ õἱὸò ôïῦ èåïῦ , not as Bengel Deus, as the Sender, ordaining the coming of Jesus. For Jesus is also the Mediator of the truth and of knowledge [i.e., He bestows to us the truth and this knowledge—M.], (Düsterdieck). ÄéÜíïéá is the faculty or sense of knowing, not insight or knowledge (Lücke, de Wette), nor the activity of thinking out all the points in contrast with a faith void of thought (Paulus), 2Pe_3:1; Eph_4:18; Eph_1:18 ( ὀöèáëìïὶ ôῆò êáñäßáò or ôῆò äéáíïßáò ), or mind (Mat_22:37; Luk_1:51; Eph_2:3; Col_1:21; 1Pe_1:13; Heb_8:10; Heb_10:16), sensus cognoscendi (Lyra), sensus et gustus rerum divinarum (a Lapide), the spiritual sense (1Co_2:12; 1Co_2:14), whose aim ( ἵíá ), but not whose substance is ãéíþóêåéí ôὸí ἀëçèéíüí . Cf. 1Jn_2:3-4; Joh_17:3. The object of this cognition is evidently God, qui re vera Deus est, ut eum ab idolis omnibus discernat (Calvin), in contrast with every Deus fictitius. Bengel refers to the Son without any warrant for doing so.
And we are in the true One, in His Son Jesus Christ.—Another independent proposition annexed by êáὶ , as in 1Jn_5:19. Ἐóìὲí ἐí ôῷ ἀëçèéíῷ , designates, as before, God, which is also evident from the pronoun in ἐí ôῷ õἱῷ áὐôïῦ . This is the extreme antithesis of êåῖôáé ἐí ôῷ ðïíçñῷ , the climax of åἶíáé ἐê ôïῦ èåïῦ . The words ἐí ôῷ õἱῳ õἱῷ áὐôïῦ Ἰçóïῦ ×ñéóôῷ fully denotes the Mediator, the ground and stay both of the knowledge and of the position of the believing child of God, and it denotes this by ἐí , not by äéÜ , in, not per, in order to mark the permanent character of this life-fellowship; inserimur in Christum et unum efficimur cum Deo. Cf. 1Jn_2:3-6; 1Jn_3:2. It is therefore no opposition, as seems to be assumed by the Vulgate (which connects by et simus with the clause beginning with ἵíá ), Lyra, Erasmus and al.
This is the true God and eternal life.— Ïὖôïò like ἐêåῖíïò , does not refer, as it were, in a merely mechanical manner, to the literally or locally nearest or more remote noun, but also to the noun, psychologically nearer or more remote. Winer, p. 175. Thus in 1Jn_5:16, ἐêåßíç did not refer to the grammatically and locally distant ἁìáñôßá ìὴ ðñὸò èÜíáôïí , but to the immediately preceding ἁìáñôßá ðñὸò ôὸí èÜíáôïí . So here the mediating Son is not in point of sense the nearest, but ὁ ἀëçèéíüò . Under the influence of the christological conflicts it may have been natural, with reference to the Arian heresy which was joined by the more modern antitrinitarians, to refer ïὖôïò to the Son; but the discipline of grammar and language requires us to refer it to the Father (this has been done by most commentators, also by Hofmann, Schriftbeweis I. 146, down to Sander, Ebrard, Besser, Stier [ad Joh_17:3. Vol. 5, p. 392] of our time), though the arrangement, the reference taken locally, might induce us to think of Christ, yet this is not the case, if the internal structure of the thought,—in which God the Father is the chief, and the Son simply the Mediator,—is attentively considered. But what does ïὖôïò refer to? To ἐí ôῷ ἀëçèéíῷ . That would make: ïὖôïò ( ὁ ἀëçèéíüò )= ὁ ἀëçèéíüò èåüò , but that would be weak and shallow. But if we take ïὖôïò , äåéêôéêῶò , of Christ, it is a terse and strong conclusion of the Epistle, and a powerful motive for the concluding exhortation.—The words: êáὶ æùὴ áἰþíéïò belong to ïὖôïò . Grammatically it is not singular (Winer, p. 144), still less in point of thought: for God is essentially æùÞ , and so is Christ (Joh_14:6), even æùὴ áἰþíéïò . In like manner He is called öῶò (1Jn_1:5), ἀëÜðç (1Jn_4:8; 1Jn_4:16), ðíåῦìá (Joh_4:24). Bengel, on vita æterna, has the subtle note: “initium epistolæ et fines conveniunt.” It is therefore wrong to contend, that ïὖôïò ἐóôéí ὁ ἀëçèéíὸò èåὸò êáὶ æùὴ áἰþíéïò ought to be referred to the Son, as if His Divinity rested on this passage, and at the same time to overlook, that ἐí ôῷ ἀëçèéíῷ denotes primarily God the Father, nor is it right to overlook here the tautology (this One, the true One, is the true God), and to apprehend an identification of the Father and the Son, which would be un-johannean, if the clause were referred to the Son. Now John distinguishes between the Father and the Son, but not between God and not-God. In t