Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - 1 John 2:12 - 2:14
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
1Jn_2:12-14. After the apostle has depicted the Christian life in its essential features, he passes on to exhortation. To this these verses form the introduction, in which the apostle assures his readers that their Christianity is the ground of his writing. The motive of this, which explains also the form of expression, is the earnest longing which inspires the apostle, that his readers may take home to themselves the following exhortation.
The apostle addresses them under four different names: τεκνία and παιδία , πατέρες , νεανίσκοι . By the two latter names they are distinguished according to the two corresponding degrees of age;[119] in the case of ΠΑΤΈΡΕς the proper meaning is not to be strictly retained, but in contrast to ΝΕΑΝΊΣΚΟΙ it is = ΓΈΡΟΝΤΕς or ΠΡΕΣΒΎΤΕΡΟΙ , the members of the church who are already in advanced age; thus Erasmus, Calvin, Socinus, Morus, Carpzov, Lange, Paulus, de Wette-Brückner, Lücke, Düsterdieck, Braune, etc.
The ΝΕΑΝΊΣΚΟΙ are the younger members of the church; Calvin: tametsi diminutivo utitur, non tamen dubium est, quin sermonem ad omnes dirigat, qui sunt in aetatis flore et statu. The view of Augustine is to be rejected, that under the three names the same persons are addressed, whom the apostle only designates differently in different aspects: filioli, quia baptismo neonati sunt; patres, quia Christum patrem et antiquum dierum agnoscunt; adoleseentes, quia fortes sunt et validi. So also is the opinion that the apostle has in view, not the difference in age, but the difference in the degree, or even in the length of existence of Christian life; a Lapide: triplici hoc aetatis gradu triplicem Christianorum in virtute gradum et quasi aetatum repraesentat; pueri enim repraesentant incipientes et neophytos; juvenes repraesentant proficientes; senes perfectos; similarly Clemens, Oecumenius, further Gagneius, Cajetanus, Russmeyer, Grotius,[120] etc. Some commentators (as Erasmus, Socinus, J. Lange, Myrberg) also refer the two expressions: ΤΕΚΝΊΑ (1Jn_2:12) and ΠΑΙΔΊΑ (1Jn_2:13), to the difference of age, and understand by them children, in the proper sense of the word; but more prevalent is the view that this is true of παιδία only, and that ΤΕΚΝΊΑ , on the other hand, is to be regarded as a form of address to all Christians; Calvin: haec (namely, 1Jn_2:12) adhuc generalis est sententia, mox speciales sententias accomodabit singulis aetatibus; similarly Luther, Beza, Calov, Wolf, Baumgarten-Crusius, Sander, Neander, Besser, Ebrard, etc. With the first view there arises a wrong succession, namely: children, fathers, young men, instead of: children, young men, fathers, or: fathers, young men, children; and, moreover, since τεκνία is in the Epistle frequently the form of address to all readers, and not only with, but also without ΜΟΜ (see on 1Jn_2:1), so it is to be taken here also. Equally, however, by ΠΑΙΔΊΑ the apostle addresses all readers, as Lücke, de Wette-Brückner, Düsterdieck, Gerlach, Erdmann, Ewald, Braune rightly interpret. If we read before παιδία , with the Receptus: γράφω ὑμῖν , there certainly results, if ΠΑΙΔΊΑ is taken as alluding to children, a more accurate succession: fathers, young men, children; but (1) according to almost all authorities we must read, not ΓΡΆΦΩ , but ἜΓΡΑΨΑ , and the former reading can only be explained in this way, that ΠΑΙΔΊΑ was understood in its proper sense, and it was thought that this clause must be brought into the closest connection with the preceding; (2) then in the repetition of the same succession in 1Jn_2:14 one member of it is wanting, as the children are not mentioned again; and (3) in 1Jn_2:18 ΠΑΙΔΊΑ is used as a form of address in reference to all readers; comp. Joh_21:5. Against the two last reasons it might indeed be alleged, with Bengel, Sander, and Besser, that from 1Jn_2:14 to 1Jn_2:17 is still intended for the ΝΕΑΝΊΣΚΟΙς , and that then in 1Jn_2:18 the address to the children comes in, and that the sequel as far as 1Jn_2:27 refers to them. But against this construction is—(1) the dissimilarity in the form of the sentences that thereby results; (2) the absence of an exhortation addressed to the fathers; (3) the unsuitable reference of the warning against false teachers specially to the children, with the additional remark: οἴδατε πάντα , 1Jn_2:20, and Οὐ ΧΡΕΊΑΝ ἜΧΕΤΕ , ἽΝΑ ΤῚς ΔΙΔΆΣΚῌ ὙΜᾶς , even though the warning against false teachers in chap. 1Jn_4:1 ff. is referred without distinction to all readers; and finally, (4) the close connection of 1Jn_2:17 and 1Jn_2:18 : Ὁ ΚΌΣΜΟς ΠΑΡΆΓΕΤΑΙ (comp. 1Jn_2:8 : Ἡ ΣΚΟΤΊΑ ΠΑΡΆΓΕΤΑΙ ), and ἘΣΧΆΤΗ ὭΡΑ ἘΣΤΊ .
According to the true construction of the sentences, they fall into two groups; in each group first all Christians, and then specially the older and the younger members of the church, are addressed;[121] the correctness of this construction is shown also by this, that in reference to πατέρες , and equally to νεανίσκοι , in both groups the same thing is expressed, but in reference to all there are different statements. The arbitrary conjecture of Calvin (with whom Wall agrees), that both the clauses of 1Jn_2:14 are spurious, and interpolated temere by ignorant readers, requires no refutation.
The interchange of γράφω with the aorist ἔγραψα is peculiar, and is not to be explained by saying that ἔγραψα points to another writing of the apostle, whether it be the Gospel (Storr, Lange, Baumgarten-Crusius, Schott, Ebrard, Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 2, § 336; Braune[122]), or even an earlier Epistle (Michaelis); both expressions rather refer, as most of the commentators have recognised, to this Epistle; not, however, to the same thing, as some commentators suppose; thus Bengel, who regards the two expressions as synonymous, explains: verbo scribendi ex praesenti in praeterito transposito innuit commonitionem firmissimam, which cannot be grammatically justified;[123] and Düsterdieck, who thinks that the “different import of the present and of the aorist can only be sought for in the representation of the writing itself; that both times the apostle means the whole Epistle lying before him; that by γράφω he represents himself in the immediately present act of writing, and by ἔγραψα , on the other hand, his readers, who have received the completed Epistle;” opposed to this, however, is the fact that such a change of the mere form of representation would certainly be rather trifling. The ἔγραψα must be referred to something else than the preceding γράφω ; yet it is not, with Neander and Erdmann,[124] to be referred to that which is expressed in the clauses beginning with γράφω ; for, on the one hand, the clauses beginning with ἔγραψα have not the form of confirmation, and, on the other hand, there is no real cause apparent for the addition of such a confirmation; it seems more appropriate when Rickli thinks that γράφω refers to what follows, and ἔγραψα to what precedes;[125] but opposed to this is the fact that ἜΓΡΑΨΑ would then stand more naturally before ΓΡΆΦΩ . The correct view has been taken by de Wette, Brückner, and Ewald, who refer ἜΓΡΑΨΑ to what was already written, and ΓΡΆΦΩ to the immediate act of writing, and hence to the Epistle in general; taking this view, it is quite in order for John to write ΓΡΆΦΩ first, and that he then refers specially by ἜΓΡΑΨΑ to what has been already written is explained in this way, that this contains the principal grounds for the following exhortations and amplifications.[126]
In each part a clause beginning with ὍΤΙ follows the address; this ὍΤΙ is not objective or declarative = “that” (Socinus, Lange, Russmeyer, Bengel, Paulus, Johannsen, Neander, Hilgenfeld, etc.), but causal: “because” (Calvin, Beza, Baumgarten-Crusius, Lücke, de Wette-Brückner, Gerlach, Düsterdieck, Myrberg, Ebrard,[127] etc.). The apostle does not want to say what he is writing, but why he is writing to them; comp. especially 1Jn_2:20, also 1Jn_2:21; 1Jn_2:27; 1Jn_3:5; 1Jn_3:14-15; 1Jn_5:18-20. The particular Christian experiences of his readers form the fundamental presuppositions of the Epistle; it is not anything new that the apostle declares unto them, but he reminds them of what they know, so that they may take it more seriously to heart.
The first thing that the apostle, addressing all, reminds them of is: ὅτι ἀφέωνται ὑμῖν αἱ ἁμαρτίαι διὰ τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ . The forgiveness of sins is the basis of all Christian life; therefore this is put first.
On the form used here, the perfect passive ἈΦΈΩΝΤΑΙ , see Buttmann, Ausf. gr. Gr. § 97, Anmerk. 3, and § 108, note 1; and Winer, p. 74, VII. p. 77. The Vulgate and Luther incorrectly translated it as if it were the present: “are forgiven” (similarly Rickli and others; Paulus strangely interprets, deriving it from ἀφʼ ἑάω = ἈΦʼ ἙῶΝΤΑΙ , dimittuntur).
ΔΙΆ with the accusative is not = “through” (this meaning, as is well known, it has only with the genitive, comp. Act_10:43 : ἌΦΕΣΙΝ ἉΜΑΡΤΙῶΝ ΛΑΒΕῖΝ ΔΙᾺ ΤΟῦ ὈΝΌΜΑΤΟς ΑὐΤΟῦ ), but = “for the sake of;” αὐτοῦ = ΧΡΙΣΤΟῦ , not = ΘΕΟῦ (Socinus, Paulus). According to most of the commentators, ΔΙᾺ Τ . ὌΝ . ΑὐΤΟῦ refers to the objective ground of the forgiveness of sins, and ΤῸ ὌΝΟΜΑ ΑὐΤΟῦ signifies Christ Himself; thus Düsterdieck: “Christ who is what His name signifies;”[128] but this is contrary to the Biblical usus loquendi; if by διά Christ is referred to as the author of salvation, the preposition is always construed with the genitive; by ΔΙᾺ ΤῸ ὌΝΟΜΑ ΑὐΤΟῦ , therefore, it is the subjective ground of forgiveness that is stated (de Wette-Brückner, Braune), in this sense: because His name is in you, i.e. because ye believe on His name (comp. 1Jn_2:23 : πιστεύειν τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ). The name is therefore not regarded as empty, but as the form which includes the contents and reveals them; so that the subjective ground embraces in itself the objective.
In the second group it is said, in regard to the readers of the Epistle there called ΠΑΙΔΊΑ : ΓΡ . ὙΜῖΝ … ὍΤΙ ἘΓΝΏΚΑΤΕ ΤῸΝ ΠΑΤΈΡΑ . By Ὁ ΠΑΤΉΡ we are not to understand, with Hornejus, Christ, inasmuch as believers per fidem in nomen ejus renati sunt, for such a designation of Christ has the constant usus loquendi of Scripture against it, but God; for the name ὁ πατήρ is used here without any more particular definition, with clear reference to ΠΑΙΔΊΑ , and so God is here so called, not merely on account of His relationship to Christ, but equally on account of His relationship to those who, by faith in Christ, have obtained the forgiveness of their sins, and are thereby placed in the relationship of children to God. From this it is clear also how exactly ὍΤΙ ἈΦΈΩΝΤΑΙ ὙΜῖΝ ΑἹ ἉΜΑΡΤΊΑΙ and ὍΤΙ ἘΓΝΏΚΑΤΕ ΤῸΝ ΠΑΤΈΡΑ correspond with one another. But in the fact that John ascribes to the believers both of these, he testifies to them that they are in possession of the fulness of divine peace and of divine truth.
In regard to the ΠΑΤΈΡΕς , the apostle brings out the same thing in both groups, 1Jn_2:13-14 : ὍΤΙ ἘΓΝΏΚΑΤΕ ΤῸΝ ἈΠʼ ἈΡΧῆς . If the forgiveness of sins and the knowledge of God are common to all, the knowledge of Him who is ἈΠʼ ἈΡΧῆς is specially appropriate to the older members of the church. When some commentators, as a Lapide, Grotius, (novistis Deum, qui Senex dierum; Dan_7:9; Dan. 13:22), and others, understand by Ὁ ἈΠʼ ἈΡΧῆς God, they ignore the deeper connection which exists between the particular ideas; Ὁ ἈΠʼ ἈΡΧῆς is Christ, but not so called because He is the author of Christianity (Socinus: novi foederis et evangelii patefacti primum initium; Semler: qui inde ab initio auctor fuit hujus melioris religionis), but because He is from all eternity; ἈΠʼ ἈΡΧῆς is used in the same sense as in chap. 1Jn_1:1. John brings out by this designation of Christ the truth that Christ is subject of their knowledge in the quality of His being herein mentioned; it is therefore incorrect to understand ἘΓΝΏΚΑΤΕ of the personal knowledge of Him who was manifest in the flesh (Bengel, Schoettgen, etc.); the word has rather the same meaning as in 1Jn_2:3.[129] John ascribes this knowledge to the fathers, because he might with justice assume that they had not contented themselves with a superficial knowledge of Christ in His appearance according to the sense, but had looked more deeply into the eternal nature of the Lord.
In regard to the young men, it is said in both groups: ὅτι νενικήκαºατε τὸν πονηρόν ; not as if the same were not true also of the older members of the church, but John attributes this eminently to the young men, because they—in accordance with their age—had just recently obtained this victory, and their care therefore must be specially this, not to lose again what had been lately won. That ὁ πονηρός is the devil (comp. Mat_13:19; Mat_13:38-39; Eph_6:16; 1Jn_3:12; 1Jn_5:18-19) the commentators have rightly recognised.[130] Carpzov suitably says: Viris fortibus et robustis tribuiter supra fortissimum et robustissimum victoria. In the second group some further subordinate clauses precede that word, which state the conditions under which the young men have attained their victory: ὍΤΙ ἸΣΧΥΡΟΊ ἘΣΤΕ ; ἸΣΧΥΡΟΊ , “strong in spirit,” with special reference to the fight, comp. Heb_11:34; Luk_11:21; Mat_12:29 (Düsterdieck); here also ὅτι is “because,” not: “that,” thus: “because ye are strong,” not: “that ye are to be strong” (Paulus).
This conquering power of the young men is not their “own moral strength” (Baumgarten-Crusius), but the effect of the Word of God; therefore John adds: καὶ ὁ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν ὑμῖν μένει , and only then brings in ΚΑῚ ΝΕΝΙΚΉΚΑΤΕ Κ . Τ . Λ .
The individual sentences are simply placed side by side in order to let each of them appear the more strongly in its own meaning. The train of thought, however, is this, that their strength has its ground in the Word of God, which is permanent in them ( ΜΈΝΕΙ ), and that it is in this power that they have attained the victory.[131] This relation is correctly stated by Grotius, who explains the first καί by quia, the second by ob id.
ὁ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ is not = Christ, but the word proceeding from God, i.e. the Gospel, of which the personal Christ is no doubt the substance.
[119] That “the distinction between church leaders and church members appears in the distinction between old and young” (Hilgenfeld), is in no way suggested.
[120] Grotius: Partitur Christianos in tres classes, quae discrimina non secundum aetatem, sed secundum gradus diversos ejus profectus, qui in Christo est, intelligi debent, cf. 1Co_13:11-12; Heb_5:13; Eph_4:13-14.
[121] Even Ebrard regards the second triad as beginning with παιδία , although he understands by it children in age; there is a glaring inconsistency in this construction.
[122] To this view the following reasons are opposed:—1. That if the apostle in ἔγραψα had another writing in view than in γράφω , he would have expressed this distinctly; 2. That thereby the train of thought of the Epistle is unduly interrupted, since the assertion of the reason why he had written the Gospel is here introduced without any connecting link; 3. That then the emphasis contained in the threefold repetition of ἔγραψα remains inexplicable, whereas it is perfectly justifiable if the reference to something written in this Epistle is intended to stimulate the readers more earnestly to attend to the following exhortation. The view of Ebrard, that “while the Epistle plainly could only be understood by grown people,” the Gospel “is even for children ( παιδία ) enjoyable and pleasing food,” scarcely any one will endorse; although even Braune passes this over in silence.
[123] When Buttmann (p. 172) thinks that the change of tense is entirely occasioned by the need for variation in a sixfold repetition of the verb, it may be observed against this, that then ver. 14a would be nothing but a repetition of ver. 13a.
[124] Neander explains: “As John had said: ‘I write unto you,’ so now he resumes confirmingly what has just been written, and says: ‘I have written unto you,’ as if he would say: It is agreed. This that I am now writing to you, I have now written, it is settled, I have nothing else to say to you, this you must always allow to be said to you.” Erdmann: Pertinet hoc ( ἔγραψα ) neque ad superiorem epistolam, neque ad quidquam in hac ep. supra dictum, sed ad ea, quae modo verbo γράφω notata sunt. Similarly Paulus, who compares with this the expression: “His majesty deerees and has decreed.”
[125] Lücke, following Rickli, thought that with the first part ( ὅτι ἀφέωντα κ . τ . λ .) corresponded the section 1Jn_2:15-17 in what follows, and 1Jn_1:5-7 in what precedes; with the second part ( ὅτι ἐγνώκατε κ . τ . λ .), in the former 1Jn_2:18-27, and in the latter 1Jn_1:8 to 1Jn_2:2; and with the third part ( ὅτι νενικήκατε κ . τ . λ .), in the former 1Jn_2:28 to 1Jn_3:22, and in the latter 1Jn_2:3-11; but he afterwards gave up this artificial, cruciform construction of the clauses, and explained the γράφω with ἔγραψα as belonging to the rhetoric of the author. See 3d ed. p. 265, note.
[126] It is only if the signification of the section chap. 1Jn_1:5 to 1Jn_2:11 for the essentially hortatory Epistle is ignored that it can be said, with Ebrard and Braune, that with this view the antithesis of γράφω and ἔγραψα becomes a mere repetition or play upon words.
[127] Luther varies curiously in his translation; in ver. 12 he translates ὅτι : “that,” in ver. 13 “for,” and in ver. 14 again “that.” Sander thinks that in vv. 14 and 18 ὅτι is used causatively, but that in ver. 12 both “because” and “that” are contained in ὅτι . Erdmann takes ὅτι in the first three sentences objectively, but he leaves it undecided whether in the last three sentences it is to be taken objectively or causally.
[128] Similarly Sander: “God forgives our sins for the sake of the offering which Christ made; both of these—the person and work of Christ—are His name, for the sake of which we receive forgiveness.” Besser: “for the sake of all that Christ is, from the manger to the throne.” Ewald: “because Christ is and is called Christ.”
[129] Neander: “A knowledge of Christ as the One who is from the beginning, which results from the deeper communion with the personality of Christ. This is something else than the statement of a certain formula about the person of Christ.”
[130] Even Semler admits this, but then observes: Est usitata Judaeorum descriptio, quae gravium peccatorum et flagitiorum magistrum diabolum designat, quam descriptionem non opus est ut Christiani retineant, quum non sint ex Judaeis.
[131] Weiss groundlessly finds in what is said above an incorrect expression, and thinks that not the abiding, but the being, of the Word of God in them is the ground of their strength; for to the Apostle John the being is really this only when it is a firm and abiding existence.