Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - 1 John 2:2 - 2:2
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
1Jn_2:2. καὶ αὐτός = et ipse, idemque ille; καί is here also the simple copula, and is not to be resolved either into quia (a Lapide) or nam.
αὐτός refers back to Ἰησ . Χριστὸν δίκαιον , and the epithet δίκαιον is not to be lost sight of here; Paulus, contrary to the context, refers αὐτός to God.
ἱλασμός ἐστι ] The word ἱλασμός , which is used besides in the N. T. only in chap. 1Jn_4:10, and here also indeed in combination with περὶ τῶν ἁμ . ἡμῶν , may, according to Eze_44:27 (= çÇèÌÈàú ), mean the sin-offering (Lücke, 3d ed.), but is here to be taken in the sense of ëÌÄëÌËøÄéí , Lev_25:9, Num_5:8, and no doubt in this way, that Christ is called the ἱλασμός , inasmuch as He has expiated by His αἷμα the guilt of sin. This reference to the sacrificial blood of Christ, it is true, is not demanded by the idea ἱλασμός in itself,[84] but certainly is demanded by the context, as the apostle can only ascribe to the blood of Christ, in chap. 1Jn_1:7, the cleansing power of which he is there speaking, because he knows that reconciliation is based in it.
[84] In the Septuagint not only does ἱλασμός appear as the translation of the Hebrew ñÀìÄéçÈä (Psa_129:4; Dan_9:9), but ἱλάσκεσθαι is also used = to be merciful, to forgive (Psa_65:4; Psa_78:38; Psa_79:9),—quite without reference to an offering.—The explanation of Paulus, however: “He (i.e. God) is the pure exercise of compassion on account of sinful faults,” is not justifiable, because, in the first place, God is not the subject, and secondly, the ἱλασμός of Christ is not the forgiveness itself, but is that which procures forgiveness.
REMARK.
In classical Greek ἱλάσκεσθαι (as middle) is = ἱλεων ποιεῖν ; but in scripture it never appears in this active signification, in which God would not be the object; but in all the passages where the Septuagint makes use of this word, whether it is as the translation of ëÌÄôÌÅø (Psa_65:4; Psa_78:38; Psa_79:9), or of ñÈìÇí (Psa_25:11; 2Ki_5:18), or of ðÄçÇí (Exo_32:14), God is the subject, and sin, or sinful man, is the object; in Heb_2:17, Christ is the subject, and the object also is τὰς ἁμαρτίας . The case is almost exactly similar with ἐξιλάσκεσθαι , which does not appear in the N. T. at all, but in the O. T., on the other hand, is used as the translation of ëÌÄôÌÅø much more frequently than the simple form; it is only where this verb is used of the relation between men, namely Gen_32:21 and Pro_16:14, that the classical usus loquendi is preserved; but elsewhere with ἐξιλάσκεσθαι , whether the subject be God (as in Eze_16:63) or man, especially the priest, the object is either man (Lev_4:20; Lev_4:26; Lev_6:7; Lev_16:6; Lev_16:11; Lev_16:16-17; Lev_16:24; Lev_16:30; Lev_16:33; Eze_45:17) or sin (Exo_32:30; both together, Lev_5:18, Num_6:11), or even of holiness defiled by sin (the most holy place, Lev_16:16; the altar, Lev_16:18; Lev_27:33, Eze_43:22); only in Zec_7:2 is found ἐξιλάσκασθαι τὸν κύριον , where, however, the Hebrew text has ìÀçÇìÌåÉú àÆúÎôÌÀðÅé éÀäÉåÈä . Ἰλασμός , therefore, in scripture does not denote the reconciliation of God, either with Himself or with men, and hence not placatio (or as Myrberg interprets: propitiatio) Dei, but the justification or reconciliation of the sinner with God, because it is never stated in the N. T. that God is reconciled, but rather that we are reconciled to God.[85]
[85] Comp. Delitzsch in his Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, on chap. 1Jn_2:17, p. 94 ff. But it is to be noticed that Delitzsch, while he states correctly the Biblical mode of representation, bases his opening discussion on the idea of the “self-reconciliation of the Godhead with itself,” an idea which is not contained in scripture.—It is observed by several commentators that ἱλασμός , as distinguished from καταλλαγή = “Versöhnung” (reconciliation), is to be translated by “Sühnung” or “Versühnung” (both = Engl. expiation, atonement). It is true, Versöhnung and Versühnung are properly one and the same word, but in the usage of the language the distinction has certainly been fixed that the latter word denotes the restoration of the disturbed relationship by an expiation to be performed; only it is inexact to assert that the idea ἱλασμός in itself contains the idea of punishment, since ἱλάσκισθαι does not include this idea either in classical or in Biblical usage, and ἐξιλάσκεσθαι , though mostly indeed used in the O. T. in reference to a sacrifice by which sin is covered, is also used without this reference (comp. Sir_3:28).
Grotius, S. G. Lange, and others take ἱλασμός = ἱλαστήρ ; of course that abstract form denotes the personal Christ, but by this change into the concrete the expression of the apostle loses its peculiar character; “the abstract is more comprehensive, more intensive; comp. 1Co_1:30” (Brückner); it gives it to be understood “that Christ is not the propitiator through anything outside Himself, but through Himself” (Lücke, 2d ed.), and that there is no propitiation except through Him.[86]
The relation of ἰλασμός to the preceding παράκλητον may be variously regarded; either παράκλητος is the higher idea, in which ἱλασμός is contained, Bede: advocatum habemus apud Patrem qui interpellat pro nobis et propitium eum ac placatum peccatis nostris reddit; or conversely: ἱλασμός is the higher idea, to which the advocacy is subordinated, as de Wette thus says: “ ἱλασμός does not merely refer to the sacrificial death of Jesus, but, as the more general idea, includes the intercession as the progressive reconciliation” (so also Rickli, Frommann); or lastly, both ideas are co-ordinate with one another, Christ being the ἱλασμίς in regard to His blood which was shed, and the παράκλητος , on the other hand, in regard to His present activity with the Father for those who are reconciled to God through His blood. Against the first view is the sentence beginning with καὶ αὐτός , by which ἱλασμός is marked as an idea which is not already contained in the idea παράκλητος , but is distinct from it; against the second view it is decisive that the propitiation, which Christ is described as, has reference to all sins, but His intercession, on the other hand, has reference only to the sins of the believers who belong to Him. There remains, accordingly, only the third view as the only correct one (so also Braune). The relationship is this, that the intercession of the glorified Christ has as its presupposition the ἱλασμός wrought out in His death,[87] yet the sentence καὶ αὐτός is not merely added, ut causa reddatur, cur Christus sit advocatus noster (Hornejus, and similarly Beza, Lorinus, Sander, etc.), for its independence is thereby taken away; the thought contained in it not merely serves for the explanation or confirmation of the preceding, but it is also full of meaning in itself, as it brings out the relation of Christ to the whole world of sinners.
περὶ πῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν ] περί expresses the reference quite generally: “in regard to;” it may here be observed that ἐξιλάσκεσθαι , in the LXX. is usually construed with περί , after the Hebrew ëÌÄôÌÅø òÇì . The idea of substitution is not suggested in περί .
With τῶν ἁμαρτ . ἡμῶν , comp. chap. 1Jn_1:9; it is not merely the sins of Christians ( ἡμῶν , i.e. fidelium; Bengel) before their conversion that are meant, but also those which are committed by them in their Christian life; comp. chap. 1Jn_1:7. Ebrard’s opinion, that these words are added to ἱλασμός merely as a preparation for the following additional thought, is inadmissible; they rather suggest themselves to the apostle—and without regard to what follows—inasmuch as it is only by virtue of them that the idea obtains complete expression.
οὐ περὶ τῶν ἡμετέρων δὲ μόνον , ἀλλὰ καὶ περὶ ὅλου τοῦ κόσμου ] Expansion of the thought, in reference to the preceding περὶ τ . ἁμ . ἡμῶν , in order to mark the universality of the propitiation. It is incorrect to understand by ἡμεῖς the Jews, and by κόσμος the Gentiles (Oecum., Cyril, Hornejus, Semler, Rickli, etc.); ἡμεῖς are rather believers, and κόσμος is the whole of unbelieving mankind; so Spener, Paulus, de Wette, Lücke, Sander, Neander, Düsterd., Braune, etc.
Baumgarten-Crusius agrees with this interpretation, only he understands by κόσμος not mankind together (extensive), but successively (protensive); but this distinction is unsuitable. It would be preferable to say that John was thinking directly of the κόσμος as it existed in his time, without, however, limiting the idea to it. The interpretation of Augustin and of Bede, by which κόσμος is = “ecclesia electorum per totum mundum dispersa,” is clearly quite arbitrary. The propitiatory sacrifice was offered for the whole world, for the whole of fallen mankind; if all do not obtain the blessing of it, the cause of that does not lie in a want of efficacia in it; Düsterdieck therefore rightly says: “The propitiation is of judicial nature; according to this, the propitiation for the whole world has its real efficacia for the whole world; to the believing it brings life; to the unbelieving, death.” Calvin quite improperly asserts: sub omnibus reprobos non comprehendit, sed eos designat, qui simul credituri erant et qui per varias mundi plagas dispersi erant (similarly Beza); against this the statement of Bengel is sufficient: quam late peccatum, tam late propitiatio. The expressly added ὅλου places the matter beyond all doubt.
With regard to the genitive περὶ ὅλ . τοῦ κόσμου , Winer says (p. 509, VII. p. 536): “instead of this, either περὶ τῶν ὅλου τ . κ ., or, instead of the first words, περὶ ἡμῶν might have been written; similarly Heb_9:7;” many commentators, on the other hand, supply τῶν directly, as Grotius, Semler, Wilke (Hermeneutik, II. p. 145), de Wette, Düsterdieck; as the Vulg. renders: “pro totius mundi,” and Luther: “für der ganzen Welt.” On behalf of this, appeal is made to passages such as Joh_5:36,[88] Mat_5:20; but the construction which appears in these passages is the well-known comparatio compendiaria, which does not occur here, as there is no comparison here at all; an oratio variata is therefore to be accepted, which was the more natural to the apostle, as the idea κόσμος includes in itself that of sin.[89]
[86] The case is the same with the expression ἱλασμός as with other abstractions by which Christ is described, as ζωή , ὁδός , ἁγιασμός , κ . τ . λ . Who does not feel that by these words something much more comprehensive is expressed than in the concrete forms: ὁ ζωοποιῶν , ὁ ὁδηγῶν , ὁ ἁγιάζων , κ . τ . λ .?
[87] Köstlin incorrectly says (p. 180): “Christ is παράκλητος , while He is ἱλασμός , i.e. high priest, and at the same time sacrifice, a high priest who offers himself; and ἱλασμός , while He is παράκλητος , i.e. a sacrifice which offers itself;” for neither does παράκλ . describe the high-priesthood of Christ, according to its full comprehension, nor does ἱλασμός mean “sacrifice.”
[88] This passage is cited by Ebrard further, in order to prove his assertion: “This abbreviation for περὶ τῶν ὅλου τοῦ κόσμου needs no explanation” (!).
[89] When Braune, who has accepted the explanation which is here given of the verse as a whole and in detail, says in reference to the oratio variata which occurs here: “it has not happened for the sake of the evil which attaches to the κόσμος , for this is true of Christians also (contrary to Huther),” he thereby shows that he has not correctly understood the above remark.