Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - 1 John 1:3 - 1:3
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
1Jn_1:3. In the opening words of this verse: ὃ … ἀκηκόαμεν , the object expressed in 1Jn_1:1 is resumed, and the governing verb, which was there already in the apostle’s view, is added. The drift of this verse does not, however, lie in this, but rather in the final clause: ἵνα κ . τ . λ . While John first meant to state what was the subject of his proclamation, namely, that it was that which was from the beginning and was perceived by his senses,—which he then more particularly defined in 1Jn_1:2,—he now wants to state the purpose of this proclamation of that subject. In this lies the reason why the object is resumed in abridged form, namely, in the form which the immediately preceding words ( καὶ ἐφανερώθη ἡμῖν ) suggested. The ὃ ἦν ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς , and similarly the ὃ ἐθεασάμεθα , was not to be resumed; the former, because it has been fully dealt with in what follows it; the latter, because it was not here in the purpose of the apostle once more to bring out the reality of the sensuous appearance of Him who was from the beginning. That ἑωράκαμεν is placed before ἀκηκόαμεν —in which no artificial parallelism is to be sought for (against Ebrard)—resulted naturally from the interweaving of ἑωράκαμεν into 1Jn_1:2 (de Wette).
ἀπαγγέλλομεν καὶ ὑμῖν ] with ἀπαγγέλλομεν , comp. 1Jn_1:2.
καί (see the critical remarks) distinguishes the readers either from others to whom the apostle had declared the same thing (Spener, de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Lücke, Düsterdieck, Myrberg, Braune, etc.), or from John (along with the other apostles). Lorinus: vos qui nimirum non audistis, nec vidistis, nec manibus vestris contrectastis verbum vitae; so also Zwingli, Bullinger, Ebrard. The latter interpretation would be preferable, if the following καί before ὑμεῖς , to which the same reference is to be attributed, did not thereby become pleonastic.
ἵνα καὶ ὑμεῖς κοινωνίαν ἔχητε μεθʼ ἡμῶν ] Many commentators, as Socin, Bengel, Russmeyer, Spener, and others, supply with κοινωνίαν as enlargement: “with God and Christ;” without adequate ground; the enlargement of the idea κοινωνία is μεθʼ ἡμῶν (Baumgarten-Crusius, Düsterdieck, Braune), whereby, however, John does not mean “the apostles and other Christians” (de Wette), but himself, although including the other apostles, who have also seen and heard the Word of Life. This κοινωνία is self-evidently the fellowship of spirit in faith and love, which was brought about by the apostolic preaching.
ἔχειν is neither to be explained, with a Lapide, by: pergere et in ea ( κοινωνία ) proficere et confirmari, nor, with Fritzsche, by: “to acquire;” the word is rather to be retained in the signification peculiar to it; the apostle simply indicates the having fellowship as the aim of the apostolic proclamation, quite apart from the question as to how the hearers of this are related to that.
καὶ ἡ κοινωνία δὲ ἡ ἡμετέρα κ . τ . λ .] By ἡ κοινωνία ἡ ἡμετέρα most commentators understand “the fellowship which the apostles and the believing hearers of their proclamation have with one another,” and, according as ᾖ or ἐστί is supplied, have thus defined the thought of the verse, that the apostle states of this mutual fellowship that it either should be or is a fellowship with the Father and the Son. But as this view necessitates a scarcely justifiable enlargement of the idea κοινωνία ( ἡ κοινωνία ἡ ἡμετέρα ᾖ [or ἐστί ] κοινωνία μετὰ τ . πατρ . κ . τ . λ .),[43] the explanation of Baumgarten-Crusius, who resolves ἡ κοιν . ἡ ἡμετέρα into ἡμεις ἔχομεν κοινωνίαν μετὰ τ . πατρ ., deserves the preference (so also Ewald, Braune); taking this explanation, the κοινωνία meant here is not identical with that mentioned before, inasmuch as the distinction is marked both by the difference of the subject: ὑμεῖς and ἡμεῖς (which is contained in ἡμετέρα ), and that of the object: μεθʼ ἡμῶν and μετὰ τοῦ πατρός . According to this acceptation, the apostle here brings out that he (along with the rest of the apostles) has fellowship with the Father and with the Son, and, no doubt, in order to intimate by this that his readers, if they have fellowship with him, are thereby received with him into that fellowship. It is at all events incorrect, with Augustin, Luther, Calvin, Grotius, Ebrard, etc., to supply ᾖ with this sentence. In opposition to it are—(1) the structure of the sentence, for if it were dependent on ἵνα the verb could not be omitted;[44] and (2) the thought, for as the apostles are already in fellowship with the Father and with the Son, it cannot be the aim of their ἀπαγγελία to elevate the fellowship which exists between them and those who accept their word into fellowship with the Father and with the Son. Therefore it is ἐστί that must be supplied, as Erasmus, a Lapide, Vatablus, Hornejus, de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Düsterdieck, Myrberg, Ewald Braune, etc., have rightly recognised. The conjunction καὶ … δέ , which is pretty often found in the N. T., is used when the idea which is connected with a preceding one is at the same time to be contrasted with it; “the introduction of something new is thereby intimated” (Pape, see on καὶ … δέ ). Whether it be the connection or the contrast which is to be the more emphasized, this particle is never used to resume an idea with the view to a further expression of it. This usage therefore also proves that by ἡ κοιν . ἡ ἡμετέρα it is not the previously mentioned κοινωνία μεθʼ ἡμῶν , but another fellowship, namely, the fellowship of the ἡμεῖς , i.e. of John and the other apostles (not with one another, but) with the Father and with the Son, that is meant.[45] God is here called ΠΑΤΉΡ in relation to ΤΟῦ ΥἹΟῦ ΑὐΤΟῦ .
The full description of Christ as ΤΟῦ ΥἹΟῦ ΑὐΤΟῦ ἸΗΣΟῦ ΧΡΙΣΤΟῦ serves to bring out the identity of that which was from the beginning with Him who became man.
[43] This enlargement is involuntarily made by the commentators—although they do not mention it; thus by Lücke, when he explains: “that ye may have fellowship with us: but (not with us only, but—ye know) our fellowship with one another is also that with the Father and with the Son;” similarly by Düsterdieck; Ebrard also says: “It is the purpose of John in his ἀπαγγελία , that his readers may enter into fellowship with the disciples, and that this fellowship may have its life-principle in the fellowship with the Father and with the Son.”
[44] The omission of ἐστί very often occurs; on the other hand, ᾖ is very seldom omitted in the N. T., only in 1Co_8:11; 1Co_8:13 (still stronger is the ellipsis in Rom_4:16); thus even with Paul, who so frequently expresses only the outlines of the thought, the subjunctive of the substantive verb is almost never omitted; how much less can it be held as omitted in a construction of periods otherwise quite conformable to rule, in the second part of the dependent clause!
[45] For the usage of καὶ … δέ , comp. Mat_16:18; Mar_4:36; Luk_2:35; Act_3:24; Act_22:29; Heb_9:21; and in Gospel of Joh_6:51; Joh_8:16-17; Joh_15:27. Lücke wrongly says that the particle is used for the more exact definition, expansion, and strengthening of a preceding thought, and that there is contained in it an “at the same time” or “not only … but also.” It must also be held as erroneous when Düsterdieck says: “John has just spoken of a ‘fellowship with us;’ now he wants to expand this idea further; therefore he continues: ‘and our fellowship’—the new explanatory thought, however, forms a certain antithesis to what was previously said: but our fellowship is not so much the fellowship with us as rather that with the Father and with the Son.”—Apart from the fact that καὶ … δέ has not the force of such a restriction (not so much … as rather), who does not feel that, if John wanted to express this thought, he would have had to write not ἡμετέρα , but ὑμετέρα , or rather: αὕτη δὲ κεινωεία ?