Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - 1 John 2:1 - 2:1
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
1Jn_2:1. The apostle had considered, in chap. 1Jn_1:7, the blood of Christ, in 1Jn_1:9 the faithfulness and justice of God—and both in reference to the forgiveness and purification of believers; now he comfortingly points to Christ as the Paraclete, whereby the previous thought now obtains its necessary complement. First, however, he mentions the object of his previous statement.
Τεκνία μου ] Similarly chap. 1Jn_3:18; without μου , 1Jn_2:12; 1Jn_2:28, 1Jn_3:7. John chooses this form of address: tum propter aetatem suam, tum propter paternam curam, et affectum (Hornejus). In regard to the verbal form, Lorinus rightly says: diminutiva nomina teneri ac blandientis sunt amoris signa. The Apostle Paul, in Gal_4:19, uses the same form of address, with special reference to the spiritual fatherhood in which he stood toward his readers.
ταῦτα γράφω ὑμῖν ] ταῦτα is referred by Bengel to what follows, by Grotius to what follows and what precedes, by most commentators (Lücke, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Sander, Düsterdieck, Braune), correctly, to the latter only; it refers, however, not merely to the truth expressed in 1Jn_2:6, normerely to the “exhortation to self-knowledge and penitence” (de Wette) which is contained in the preceding, nor merely to the statement about forgiveness and cleansing; but to the “whole in its vivid harmony” (Düsterdieck, so also Braune).[76]
ἵνα μὴ ἁμάρτητε ] Statement of the object for which the apostle wrote what precedes; the direction which Calvin gives it: ne quis putet eum peccandi licentiam dare, quum de misericordia Dei concionatur, which is also found in Augustin, Bede, Calov, Bengel, Hornejus, Düsterdieck, Ewald, etc., is incorrect, since the sternness of the apostle against sin has already been sharply and definitely expressed, and the context, in which the subject previously was the forgiveness of sin, would not permit such a supposition to arise at all.[77]
ΚΑῚ ἘΆΝ ΤΙς ἉΜΆΡΤῌ ] ΚΑΊ is neither = “however” (Baumgarten-Crusius), nor = sed (Vulg.); it connects as simple copula a new thought with the preceding one. By ἐάΝ the possibility of sinning is admitted; Calvin incorrectly explains it: Conditionalis particula “si quis” debet in causalem resolvi; nam fieri non potest quin peccemus. Whether it is possible for the Christian not to sin, John does not say. Under the influence of the new spirit of life which is communicated to the believer he cannot sin; but, at the same time, in his internal and external mechanism there lies for him the possibility of sinning—and it is this which the apostle has in view. Socinus perverts the idea of the apostle when he interprets: si quis peccat i. e. post Christum agnitum et professionem nominis ipsius adhuc in peccatis manet, necdum resipuit, etc.; for, on the one hand, the true Christian may indeed sin, but cannot remain in his sins; and, on the other hand, Christ is not the παράκλητος for him who remains in his sins. Besser correctly: “If any man sin—not with wilful doing of sin, but in spite of the will in his mind, which says no to sin.”
παράκλητον ἔχομεν πρὸς τὸν πατέρα ] From the 1st pers. plur. it follows that the preceding ΤΙς is used quite generally; the apostle is speaking communicatively, and does not wish himself to be considered excluded.[78] It is unnecessary for the connection of this sentence to supply: “let him know that,” or: “let him comfort himself with the thought that,” or any similar expression; for it is precisely through the ἁμαρτάνειν of believers that Christ is induced to be their Paraclete. The verb ἜΧΕΙΝ indicates that Christ belongs to believers.[79]
The word ΠΑΡΆΚΛΗΤΟς has both a general and a special forensic meaning; in the former, in which it is = “assister,” or “helper,” it is used in Gospel of Joh_14:16; Joh_14:26; Joh_15:26; Joh_16:7, where the Holy Ghost is so called because by His witness He leads the disciples into all truth; see Meyer on Joh_14:16;[80] here, on the other hand, it is used in its forensic meaning = “advocatus, patronus causae,” or even more special = “intercessor,” and is in close connection with the following ἱλασμός , and refers back to the ἀφιέναι and καθαρίζειν of chap. 1Jn_1:9; so that in Christ the typical action of the high priest interceding for the people has reached its complete fulfilment. The idea of the apostle therefore is—as almost all commentators recognise[81]—the same as is expressed in Rom_8:34 ( ὃς καὶ ἐντυγχάνει ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ), in Heb_9:24 ( ΕἸΣῆΛΘΕΝ Ὁ ΧΡΙΣΤῸς … ΕἸς … ΤῸΝ ΟὐΡΑΝΌΝ , ΝῦΝ ἘΜΦΑΝΙΣΘῆΝΑΙ Τῷ ΠΡΟΣΏΠῼ ΤΟῦ ΘΕΟῦ ὙΠῈΡ ἩΜῶΝ ), and in Heb_7:25.[82]
ΠΡῸς ΤῸΝ ΠΑΤΈΡΑ ] ΠΡΌς in the same sense as chap. 1Jn_1:2.
God is called ΠΑΤΉΡ , because the ΠΑΡΆΚΛΗΤΟς is the Son of God, and we also (believing Christians) have become through Him ΤΈΚΝΑ ΤΟῦ ΘΕΟῦ , chap. 1Jn_3:1-2.
ἸΗΣΟῦΝ ΧΡΙΣΤῸΝ ΔΊΚΑΙΟΝ ] Christ is the Paraclete, not as the Logos, but as the incarnate Logos, who has shed His αἷμα (chap. 1Jn_1:7) for the atonement,—and indeed inasmuch as He is ΔΊΚΑΙΟς ; ΔΊΚΑΙΟς is here also neither = lenis et bonus (Grotius), nor = ΔΙΚΑΙῶΝ (see Wolf on this passage); but neither is it = fidelis atque verax, quatenus id praestat quod promisit, se scilicet suis adfuturum (Socinus); according to the usus loquendi, ΔΊΚΑΙΟς could be understood of (judicial) justice (Bede: justus advocatus, injustas causas non suscipit), but then the adjective would have had to be put with ΠΑΡΆΚΛΗΤΟΝ ; Ebrard incorrectly explains it = ΔΊΚΑΙΟς ΚΑῚ ΔΙΚΑΙῶΝ ; but this explanation is so much the more unwarrantable, as ΔΙΚΑΙΟῦΝ is the very business of the ΠΑΡΆΚΛΗΤΟς ; by the epithet ΔΊΚΑΙΟς , Christ is held up before the ἉΜΑΡΤΆΝΟΥΣΙ as one who by His nature is fitted to be the Paraclete of sinners, i.e. as one who perfectly satisfies the will of God; who is “just and stainless, and without sin” (Luther). “Only as the Holy One, in whom the holy ideal of manhood is seen realized, can He intercede for sinners with the heavenly Father” (Neander).
[76] Ebrard refers ταῦτα to the two sentences, 1Jn_1:6-10, in which these thoughts, involving an apparent contradiction, are contained—(1) “That we must by no means walk in darkness,” and (2) “that we must confess that we have and that we commit sin,” and thinks that this apparent contradiction is solved by 1Jn_2:1, in this way, that in contrast to those theoretical statements these two practical conclusions from them are here given, namely, (1) “that we are not to sin;” (2) “that when we have sinned we are to reflect that in Christ we have an Advocate.” But against this it is to be observed—(1) that by such a changing of theoretical statements into practical precepts the problem mentioned above is really not solved; (2) that the ideas expressed in 1Jn_1:6-7, and in 1Jn_1:8-10, do not stand to one another in the relation of co-ordination, but the idea of 1Jn_1:8-10 is subordinated to that of 1Jn_1:6-7; (3) that it is herewith presupposed that the apostle should have written: καὶ ἵνα εἰδῆτε , ὅτι , ἐάν τις ἁμάρτῃ , παρά κλητον ἔχομεν , which, however, is incorrect, as the advocate-office of Christ is not mentioned in the preceding.
[77] Socinus incorrectly renders ἁμαρτάνειν = manere in peccatis; Löffler even more so = “to remain unbaptized.”
[78] Augustin: habemus dixit, non habetis; maluit se ponere in numero peccatorum, ut habeat advocatum Christum, quam ponere se pro Christo advocato et inveniri inter damnandos superbos.—Socinus thinks that the apostle speaks in the first person, non quod revera ipse esset unus ex illis, qui adhuc peccarent, sed ut melius indicet, id quod affirmat pertinere ad omnes, quibus evangelium annunciatum est; clearly erroneous. Grotius arbitrarily: habet ille advocatum, sed ecclesia habet, quae pro lapso precatur. Preces autem ecclesiae Christus more advocati Deo patri commendat.
[79] Besser: “He has made Himself ours, has given our faith an eternally valid claim on Him.”
[80] In the fact that in the Gospel of John the Holy Ghost, but here Christ, is called παράκλητος , there is so much the less a contradiction, as in Joh_14:16 it is expressly put: ἄλλον παράκλητον , by which Christ signifies that He Himself is the proper παράκλητος , and the Holy Ghost His substitute.
[81] Ebrard, who here gives the same explanation, explains the expression in the Gospel of John = “Comforter,” ὅς παρακαλεῖ (more correctly παρακαλεῖται , mid.), according to the Hebrew îÀðÇçÅí , LXX. Job_16:2; but in this passage it is not παράκλητος , but παρακλήτως , that is used; Hofmann’s explanation is also incorrect (Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 15 ff.) = “Teacher” (comp. Meyer and Hengstenberg on Joh_14:16).
[82] This idea is not, as it might appear, in contradiction with Joh_16:26; for even in this statement a lasting intercession by Christ is indicated, since Christ ascribes the hearing of prayer in His name to Himself (Joh_14:13) as well as to the Father.
REMARK.
How Christ executes His office of Advocate with the Father, John does not say; a dogmatic exposition of it is not in place here, still it is important to mark the chief elements which are the result of the apostle’s statement. These are the following:—1. The Paraclete is Jesus, the glorified Redeemer who is with the Father; therefore neither His divine nature alone, nor His human nature alone, but the Lord in His divine-human personality. 2. The presupposition is the reconciliation of men with God by His blood. 3. His advocacy has reference to believers, who still sin amid their walking in light; and 4. It is a real activity in which He intercedes for His people (that God may manifest in their forgiveness and sanctification His faithfulness and justice) with God, as His (and their) Father. If these points are observed, on the one hand, there is found in the apostolic statement no ground for a materialistic conception, which Calvin opposes in the following words: obiter notandum est, nimis crasse errare eos, qui patris genibus Christum advolvunt, ut pro nobis oret. Tollendae sunt eiusmodi cogitationes, quae coelesti Christi gloriae derogant;—but neither, on the other hand, is there any justification for doing away with the idea, as not a few commentators have been guilty of. Even Bede has not kept himself free from it, when he says that the advocacy consists in this, that Christ presents Himself as man to God, and prays for us non voce, sed miseratione, and therefore considers the intercessio, not as an actio realis, but only as an actio interpretativa. But the idea is even more done away with, when the intercession is viewed only as the permanent effect of the redemptive work accomplished by Christ in the giving up of His life to the death, which is no doubt the opinion of Baumgarten-Crusius when he says: “The apostles certainly did not think of a special oral intercession, but of an intercession by deed, in His work.”[83] Lücke rightly says: “The meaning of this form of representation is no other than this, that Jesus Christ also in His δόξα with the Father continues His work of reconciliation. If Christ were not the eternal Paraclete for us with God, His saving and reconciling work would be limited to His earthly life merely, and in so far could not be regarded as eternal and complete;” but it is not to the point when he further puts it: “Without the eternally active saving and reconciling spirit of Christ, without the πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ , Christ would not be a perfect, a living Christ;” for John is not here speaking of the πνεῦμα of Christ, but of the personal Christ Himself. The explanation of de Wette, that the advocacy of Christ is the combination of the idea of the glorified and of the suffering Messiah, is also unsatisfactory, because it changes the objective reality into a subjective representation. Neander rightly says: “When Christ is described as the Advocate, this is not to be understood as if only the effects of the work once accomplished by Him were transferred to Himself.
John considers the living Christ as personally operating in His work, as operating in His glorified position with His Father, with the same holy love with which He accomplished His work on earth as a mediation for sinful man. It is by Him in His divine-human personality that the connection between man, saved and reconciled to God by Him, and God as the Father, is always brought about.” Comp. also Meyer on Rom_8:34, and Braune in the fundamental dogmatic ideas of the passage.
[83] Similarly Köstlin (p. 61): “Christ is the eternal παράκλητος ; He does not however, pray the Father, but the sense of His office of Advocate is simply this, that for His sake the Father also loves those who believe on Him.” Frommann also (p. 472 ff.) finds in the statement of the apostle only a symbolical form of expression, by which the continuation of the atoning work of Christ in His state of exaltation is indicated.