Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - 1 John 1:5 - 1:5
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
to 1Jn_2:11
1Jn_1:5 to 1Jn_2:11.
After the apostle has indicated the fulness of joy, which is in the fellowship with the Father and with the Son, as the aim of his Epistle, he brings out in what follows, from the point of view that God is φῶς (1Jn_1:5), in opposition to moral indifferentism, the condition under which alone that fellowship can exist.
1Jn_1:5. This verse contains no inference from what precedes ( καί is not = igitur, Beza), but the thought that lays the foundation for what follows.
ἔστιν αὕτη ἡ ἀγγελία ] “and this is the message;” ἔστιν is here put—contrary to its usual position, comp. 1Jn_2:25, 1Jn_3:11; 1Jn_3:23, 1Jn_4:3, etc.—before αὕτη “in order to mark the reality of the message” (Braune); αὕτη here—as elsewhere also—refers to what follows: ὅτι ὁ Θεὸς κ . τ . λ ., by which the subject-matter of the message is stated. Calvin incorrectly, following the reading ἐπαγγελία : promissio, quam vobis afferimus, hoc secum trahit, vel hanc conditionem habet annexam.
The word ἀγγελία only here and 1Jn_3:11 (where, however, it is also not unopposed); frequently in the LXX. 2Sa_4:4; Pro_12:26; Pro_25:26; Pro_26:16; Isa_28:9; Jer_48:3-4. The reading ἐπαγγελία is more difficult with the meaning “promise;” yet this may be justified in so far as every N. T. proclamation carries with it a promise.[47] De Wette prefers this reading, but takes ἐπαγγελία , following the example of Oecumenius, a Lapide, Beza, Hornejus, etc.,—contrary to the constant usus loquendi of the N. T.,—in the signification: “announcement” (Lange: “teaching”).
ἣν ἀκηκόαμεν ἀπʼ αὐτοῦ ] “from Him, that is, Christ.” Instead of ἀπό , it is more usual to have παρά , comp. Joh_8:26; Joh_8:40; Joh_15:15; Act_10:22; Act_28:22; 2Ti_2:2.
αὐτός in the Epistle, not always (Paulus, Baumgarten-Crusius) indeed, but mostly, refers to God, while ἐκεῖνος refers always to Christ; here it refers backwards to τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ Ἰ . Χρ . in 1Jn_1:3; Düsterdieck: “From Him, Christ, the Son of God manifested in the flesh (1Jn_1:3), whom the apostle himself has heard (1Jn_1:1 ff.), has he received the message about the Father.” In favour of the correctness of this explanation is also the following: ὅτι ὁ Θεός .[48]
καὶ ἀναγγέλλομεν ὑμῖν ] ἀνΑΓΓΈΛΛΕΙΝ is synonymous with ἈΠΑΓΓΈΛΛΕΙΝ , 1Jn_1:2-3, only that in ἈΝΑ the idea “again” is contained; Erasmus: quod filius annuntiavit a patre, hoc apostolus acceptum a filio renunciat.[49] This ἀναγγέλλομεν refers back with peculiar subtleness to the preceding ἀγγελία , and thus testifies to the correctness of that reading (Düsterdieck). The subject is, as in 1Jn_1:2-3, John and the rest of the apostles. To reduce their proclamation to the word which they heard from Christ Himself serves to confirm its truth; comp. the combination of ἀκούειν and ἀπαγγέλλειν in 1Jn_1:3. Ebrard wrongly interprets this ἀναγγέλλομεν also of the proclamation of John which occurred in his Gospel, to which this Epistle is related as the concentrating development.[50]
ὅτι ὁ Θεὸς φῶς ἐστί ] φῶς is inappropriately translated by Luther: “a light;” the article weakens the thought; God is light, i.e. God’s nature is light = absolute holiness and truth (comp. chap. 1Jn_4:8; Gospel of Joh_4:24);[51] for the signification of the symbolical expression “light,” compare especially Jam_1:13; Jam_1:17.
As God is φῶς in absolute sense, so also all light outside of Him is the radiation of His nature, as all love flows forth from Him whose nature is ἀγάπη ; comp. chap. 1Jn_4:7 ff.
καὶ σκοτία ἐν αὐτῷ οὐκ ἔστιν οὐδεμία ] The thought contained in the foregoing is emphasized by the negation of its opposite, which is here expressed in the strongest manner by οὐκ … οὐδεμία , in accordance with John’s diction (comp. chap. 1Jn_2:4; 1Jn_2:18, etc.).
σκοτία : antithesis of φῶς : sin and falsehood; the same antithesis is frequently in the N. T.; comp. Rom_13:12; Eph_5:8 ff.; 1Th_5:4-5. In opposition to the general prevalent explanation given here, Weiss thus explains the sense of this verse: “God is light, i.e. He has become visible, capable of being known, namely in Christ, who certainly proclaims this truth; there is no more any darkness in God at all, i.e. no part of His nature remains any longer dark and unknown, He has (in Christ) become completely revealed.” This interpretation, to which Weiss is led by the erroneous supposition that the idea φῶς has in the N. T. no ethical reference,[52] is refuted both by the form of expression, which exhibits φῶς (just as ἈΓΆΠΗ , chap. 1Jn_4:8) as a description of the nature of God, and also by the train of thought, in so far as the truth expressed here forms the starting-point for all the following amplifications—which bear on the ethical relationship of Christians. Besides, the apostle would have insufficiently expressed the thought, as he would have left out the essential ἐν Χριστῷ , which Weiss unjustifiably inserts. John rightly puts the truth that God is light, as the chief subject-matter of the ἈΓΓΕΛΊΑ of Christ, at the top of his development; for it forms the essential basis of Christianity both in its objective and in its subjective subsistence; in it there lies as well as judgment in regard to sin, so also salvation from sin by the incarnation and death of Christ, as well as necessity of repentance and faith, so also the moral exercise of the Christian life.
[47] Spener: “Promise; inasmuch as, in what follows, a promise is really involved. God is not only a light in Himself, but to believers He is also their light. And that is the promise.”
[48] The use of this pronoun even where the reference is obscure is caused by this, that John does not think of the Father without the Son, or the Son without the Father; the thought therefore remains essentially the same, whether we refer it in the first instance to the Father or to the Son; notwithstanding, however, the view of Socinus is unjustifiable, according to which, on account of the conjunctio inter Deum et Christum (which Socinus, moreover, holds not as a conjunctio essentiae, but only as a conjunctio voluntatis et rerum aliarum omnium), by αὐτοῦ is here to be understood equally God and Christ.
[49] Bengel: Quae in ore Christi fuit ἀγγελία , eam apostoli ἀναγγέλλουσι ; nam ἀγγελίαν ab ipso acceptam reddunt et propagant.
[50] According to Ewald, John is here quoting a definite utterance of Christ; possibly, but not necessarily.
[51] The fulness of the references contained in these words, Lorinus states in the following manner: Deus lux est, quia clarissime se ipsum percipit, omniaque in se ipso, utpote prima et ipsissima veritas; quia summe bonus, ac summa et ipsissima bonitas; fidelis absque ulla iniquitate, justus et rectus, quia fons omnis lucis in aliis i.e. veritatis atque virtutis, non solum illustrans mentem, docensque quid agendum sit, verum etiam operans in nobis, ut agamus et sic radiis suis liberans mentem ab ignorantiae tenebris, purgans a pravitate voluntatem.
[52] The assertion that φῶς refers only to knowledge and not to the ethical state, is so much the more untenable, as Weiss himself describes this knowledge as “the true knowledge of God, i.e. such that the entire spiritual life of man is absorbed in it, so that he is henceforth completely in God,” or “in which the object of cognition is received into the whole spiritual life of man in such a way that it becomes a force, inspiring and determining, or ruling, the latter in its totality.” But even such a cognition must certainly be regarded as an ethical act.