Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - 1 John 1:10 - 1:10
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
1Jn_1:10. Not a repetition, but “a strengthening of 1Jn_1:8” (Baumgarten-Crusius). As 1Jn_1:8 is connected with the end of 1Jn_1:7, so is this verse with 1Jn_1:9.
ἐὰν εἴπωμεν ] as in 1Jn_1:8.
ὅτι οὐχ ἡμαρτήκαμεν ] is substantially synonymous with ὅτι ἁμαρτ . οὐκ ἔχομεν , only distinguished from it in this way that the former describes an activity, the latter a state (so also Braune); the expression used here is called forth by the plural τὰς ἁμαρτίας and the idea ἡ ἀδικία (1Jn_1:9), by which the sinful character is more definitely specified as an activity than by ἁμαρτία in 1Jn_1:7. The perfect does not prove that ἡμαρτήκαμεν is meant of sins before conversion (Socinus, Russmeyer, Paulus, etc.); the subject here, as in all the verses before, is the sinning of Christians; for to deny former sin could not occur to a Christian.[74] The perfect is explained both by John’s usus loquendi, according to which an action lasting up to the present is often represented in this tense, and also by the fact that the confession every time refers to sins previously committed.
ΨΕΎΣΤΗΝ ΠΟΙΟῦΜΕΝ ΑὐΤΌΝ ] corresponds to ἙΑΥΤΟῪς ΠΛΑΝῶΜΕΝ ; it brings out that the Christian by the denial of his sin accuses God ( ΑὐΤΌΝ , i.e. τὸν Θεόν ) of lying. In ΠΟΙΕῖΝ there lies, as Düsterdieck remarks, a certain reproachful bitterness; comp. Joh_5:18; Joh_8:53; Joh_10:33; Joh_19:7; Joh_19:12. This thought presupposes the declaration of God that even the Christian sins, which 1Jn_1:9 ΠΙΣΤΌς ἘΣΤΙ Κ . Τ . Λ . also suggests; for if God has promised Christians forgiveness of their sins on condition of their confessing them, the above declaration is thereby made on God’s side.
ΚΑῚ Ὁ ΛΌΓΟς ΑὐΤΟῦ (i.e. τοῦ Θεοῦ ) οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν ἡμῖν ] ὁ λόγος , corresponding to the thought Ἡ ἈΛΉΘΕΙΑ in 1Jn_1:8, refers directly to the preceding ΨΕΎΣΤΗΝ Κ . Τ . Λ . Lücke explains it correctly: “the revelation of God, especially the gospel of Jesus Christ” (so also Brückner, Düsterdieck, Braune); to understand by it (with Oecumenius, Grotius, de Wette, etc.) especially the O. T., is forbidden by the train of thought, for the subject here is not the sinfulness of man in general, but the ἁμαρτάνειν of Christians.[75] Ebrard interprets Ὁ ΛΌΓΟς Τ . Θ . as the “self-proclamation of the nature of God, which has taken place both in the verbal revelations of the O. and N. T. and in the revelations of deeds,” so that even the ΛΌΓΟς of Gospel of Joh_1:1 is to be regarded as included; but from the fact that the elements mentioned here are very closely connected, it does not follow that that idea has here, or anywhere else, this extensive signification. The words ΟὐΚ ἜΣΤΙΝ ἘΝ ἩΜῖΝ are erroneously explained by Baumgarten-Crusius: “we have given it up, or also: we are not qualified or fit for it;” it means rather: “it is not vividly imprinted in our hearts” (Spener); it has remained external to us, inwardly unknown.
[74] Therefore it is also not correct to refer ἡμαρτήκ . to present and past, as Hornejus explains: si dixerimus nos non tantum peccatum nunc non habere, sed nec peccatores unquam fuisse.
[75] This has been more or less overlooked by the commentators (even by Düsterdieck and Ebrard), although it is also important for the understanding of chap. 1Jn_2:1-2. But John may with justice assume that the word of God denies the absolute sinlessness of Christians, since—apart from the fact that even the O. T. does not depict the δίκαιοι as perfectly holy—in every evangelical announcement the παράκλησις is an essential element for believers, which presupposes their having and doing sin.