Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - 1 John 2:8 - 2:8
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
1Jn_2:8. πάλιν ἐντολὴν καινὴν κ . τ . λ .] Almost all commentators hold that the ἐντολὴ καινή is the same ἐντολή as was the subject of 1Jn_2:7; differently Ebrard, who explains as follows: “With 1Jn_2:7 begins a new section which continues to 1Jn_2:29, in which the leading thought is the position of the readers to the light as one which was already shining; by ἐντ . παλαιά is meant the clause, chap. 1Jn_1:5 : ὁ Θεὸς φῶς ἐστι ; by ἐντ . καινή , on the other hand, the following clause: ἡ σκοτία παράγεται καὶ τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινὸν ἤδη φαίνει ;[107] the relative clause Ὅ ἙΣΤΙΝ ἈΛΗΘῈς Κ . Τ . Λ . belongs, by apposition, to the following sentence: ὍΤΙ Ἡ ΣΚΟΤΊΑ Κ . Τ . Λ ., and states to what extent the essential true light has already begun to shine, namely, the fact that the light already shines has a double sphere in which it is ἈΛΗΘΈς , i.e. actually realized, first in Christ, but then also ἐν ὑμῖν , i.e. in the Ephesian readers themselves, and equally in all true Christians.” This explanation is, however, incorrect; for—(1) the truth ἡ σκοτία παράγεται κ . τ . λ . can just as little be called an ἘΝΤΟΛΉ as the sentence Ὁ ΘΕῸς Φῶς ἘΣΤΙ (see on 1Jn_2:7); (2) the relative clause, if it was to be a preceding apposition to Ἡ ΣΚΟΤΊΑ Κ . Τ . Λ ., would have had to come after ὍΤΙ ; according to the structure of the verse, Ὅ must necessarily be connected with what precedes; (3) it is a false idea, that that which the clause ὍΤΙ Ἡ ΣΚΟΤΊΑ expresses was actually realized in Christ; the incorrectness of this idea is concealed in Ebrard’s interpretation in this way, no doubt, that he gives to ἘΝ ΑὐΤῷ a different relation from that which he gives ἘΝ ὙΜῖΝ , and changes the present ΠΑΡΆΓΕΤΑΙ into the perfect.[108] Nor is the opinion that we are to understand by ἘΝΤ . ΠΑΛ . the commandment of walking in light, and by ἘΝΤ . ΚΑΙΝΉ , on the other hand, that of brotherly love (1Jn_2:9), tenable, because these commandments, according to their import, are not two distinct commandments, but one and the same commandment. Still more unjustifiable is the assumption of S. Schmid, that in 1Jn_2:7 the fundamental law of Christianity, namely, justification by faith, but here the commandment of Christian sanctification, is meant; and that of Weiss, that by ἘΝΤΟΛΉ , 1Jn_2:7, is to be understood the evangelical message of salvation, but here the commandment of love. The apostle, having in view here the same commandment as in 1Jn_2:7, says: “Again a new commandment I write unto you, which thing is true in Him and in you: because the darkness is past, and the true light now shineth.” The relative clause ὅ ἐστιν κ . τ . λ . serves not merely to establish the statement that the commandment is a new one (Socinus, Flacius, Morus, Hornejus, de Wette-Brückner, Lücke, ed. 2 and 3, ed. 1 of this commentary, Erdmann, etc.);[109] but the apostle thereby describes the commandment, yet not in a material way, so that ὅ would be referred to the substance of it (Oecumenius, Luther, Baumgarten-Crusius, Semler, Frommann, Düsterdieck, etc.),[110] but only in a formal way, as that which is actually fulfilled in Christ and in his readers; as the commandment in 1Jn_2:7 was also only defined in a formal way by ἣν εἴχετε ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς .
ὅ ἐστιν … ἐν ὑμῖν is the object belonging to ΓΡΆΦΩ , and ἘΝΤΟΛῊΝ ΚΑΙΝΉΝ is to be taken as the accusative of more particular definition; this construction of it is found in Ewald, only he explains ἘΝ ΑὐΤῷ incorrectly by: “in the last-mentioned (in 1Jn_2:7) word of God;” most recently it has been accepted by Braune with the interpretation here given. The sense accordingly is: that which is already true, i.e. fulfilled, in Christ and in you, namely, the τηρεῖν τὰς ἐντολὰς τοῦ Θεοῦ (comp. Joh_15:10, where Christ says of Himself: ἘΓῺ ΤᾺς ἘΝΤΟΛᾺς ΤΟῦ ΠΑΤΡΌς ΜΟΥ ΤΕΤΉΡΗΚΑ ), I write unto you as a new commandment.[111] With this view it is self-evident that the apostle calls the old commandment a new one only in so far as he writes it anew to them. It is true a different reference has usually been given to καινή , by understanding it either of the constant endurance of the commandment of love (Calvin: novum dieit, quod Deus quotidie suggerendo veluti renovat; Joannes negat ejusmodi esse doctrinam de fratribus diligendis, quae tempore obsolescat: sed perpetuo vigere), or to indicate that this commandment first entered into the world along with Christianity—whether emphasis was put more upon the substance of it (Lücke, de Wette, ed. 1 of this comm.), or upon the mere time of it (Düsterdieck);[112] but these constructions, not being indicated in the context, are purely forced.
On πάλιν , Erasmus says: et contrarietatem declarat et iterationem; hic autem non repetitionis sed contrarietatis est declaratio; with this interpretation almost all commentators agree, referring πάλιν to the idea ἐντ . καινήν ; but an antithetical construction is foreign to the word; it is = “again, once more,” is to be connected with γράφω , and is explained by the fact that the readers have already heard the commandment, nay, even are already fulfilling it. Lücke and de Wette connect it directly with the verb, but in such a way that even they give to it an antithetical reference.[113]
ἐστὶν ἀληθές ] ἀληθής signifies here the actual reality, as in Act_12:9 (see Meyer on this passage).
ἘΝ ΑὐΤῷ ] ἘΝ is to be retained in its special meaning, not = “respectu, in reference to,” nor is it used “of the subject in which something true is to be recognized as true (1Jn_2:3)” (de Wette), for there is no mention here of any knowledge. That by αὐτός here not God (Jachmann), but Christ is to be understood, is shown by the context. Socinus incorrectly explains ἘΝ ΑὐΤῷ = per se ac simpliciter. On the point that ἩΜῖΝ is not to be read, see the critical notes. Grotius unjustifiably understands by ἩΜῖΝ the apostles.
Neander has a wrong conception of the relation of ἘΝ ΑὐΤῷ and ἘΝ ὙΜῖΝ when he explains: “it takes place in reference to Christ and in reference to the church, therefore in reference to their mutual relationship to one another.”
ὅτι ἡ σκοτία κ . τ . λ .] ὅτι is not used declaratively, nor in such a way as to be dependent on ἀληθές (“it is true that the darkness,” etc.), or on ἘΝΤΟΛΉΝ (Castellio, Socinus, Bengel, Ebrard),—to both these views the structure of the verse is opposed,—but causally; this is rightly perceived by most of the commentators; but it is incorrect when they connect it with the immediately preceding ὅ ἐστιν ἀληθὲς κ . τ . λ ., for the double-membered clause: ὍΤΙ Ἡ ΣΚΟΤΊΑ … ΦΑΊΝΕΙ , being a confirmatory clause, does not stand in a corresponding relationship to the thought: Ὅ ἘΣΤΙΝ ἈΛ .… ὙΜῖΝ , which it is intended to confirm.[114] By ὅτι κ . τ . λ . the apostle rather states the reason why he writes to them as a new commandment that which is true in Christ and in them (Düsterdieck, Braune); this reason is the already commenced disappearance of darkness and shining of the true light. The contrasted words Ἡ ΣΚΟΤΊΑ and ΤῸ Φῶς ΤῸ ἈΛΗΘΙΝΌΝ are to be taken in ethical sense (Braune);[115] the former idea signifies the darkness which consists in error and sin, as it exists outside the fellowship with God; the latter, the light which consists in truth and holiness, as it proceeds from Christ, who Himself is the true light. It is incorrect to understand here by ΤῸ Φῶς ΤῸ ἈΛ ., Christ Himself (Bengel, Erdmann), as the contrast with Ἡ ΣΚΟΤΊΑ shows. ἈΛΗΘΙΝΌς is an expression which is almost confined to the writings of John; outside them it is only found in Luk_16:11, 1Th_1:9, and three times in the Epistle to the Hebrews; it describes the light of which the apostle is speaking as the eternal, essential light, of which the earthly light is merely the transitory reflection; see especially Neander on this passage.
ΠΑΡΆΓΕΤΑΙ is translated by the Vulgate as perfect: quoniam tenebrae transierunt; similarly by Luther: “the darkness is past;” and Calvin directly says: Praesens tempus loco Praeteriti. This, however, is arbitrary; the present is to be retained as such; it is used in the same sense as in 1Co_7:31 : ΠΑΡΆΓΕΙ (see Meyer on this passage), so that we must interpret: “the σκοτία is in the state of passing away.” It is unnecessary to take παράγεται , with Bengel, with whom Sander and Besser agree, as passive (Bengel: non dicit ΠΑΡΆΓΕΙ transit, sed ΠΑΡΆΓΕΤΑΙ traducitur, commutatur, ita ut tandem absorbeatur); it is more natural to regard it as the middle form with intransitive meaning. With the meaning: “is in the state of passing,” corresponds the particle ἬΔΗ with ΦΑΊΝΕΙ , which is not = “now” (Luther), but by which the moment is described in which the darkness is retreating before the light, at which therefore neither has the darkness already completely disappeared, nor is the light completely dominant. Most of the commentators, both the older and more recent (Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette-Brückner, Lücke, Sander, Düsterdieck, Erdmann, Ebrard), take this as referring to Christianity in general, in so far as by it, as the true light, the old darkness is being ever more and more overcome; but by the word ἬΔΗ the apostle shows that in these words he is looking forward to a future time at which that victory will have been completely won, and which he regards as close at hand (so also Braune). The moment in which he writes this is in his eyes, therefore, no other than that which immediately precedes the second coming of Christ, and which He Himself in 1Jn_2:18 calls the ἘΣΧΆΤΗ ὭΡΑ ,[116] in which it is of the greater importance for Christians, by keeping the commandment, to show themselves as children of the light. The same train of thought essentially occurs here as afterwards in 1Jn_2:15-18; compare also the Pauline ἡ νὺξ προέκοψεν , ἡ δὲ ἡμέρα ἤγγικε , Rom_13:12.
[107] The same view is found in Castellio, Socinus, and Bengel. The latter remarks on ἐντολὴν καινήν : praeceptum novum, quod nobis nunc primum in hac epistola scribitur; and on ὅτι : quod hoc est illud praeceptum, to which he then very strangely adds: amor fratris, ex luce.
[108] Ebrard says: “The eternally existing light is one which has already appeared ἐν αὐτῷ , in so far as in Christ the light objectivized has arisen for the world and has overcome the darkness, and ἐν ὑμῖν in so far as also subjectively to the readers the light of the gospel has arisen, and they also subjectively have been drawn from darkness unto light.” By ἐν ὑμῖν he means, therefore, the readers, in whom, i.e. in whose souls, the transition from darkness to light has taken place; by ἐν αὐτῷ , however, not Christ, in whom, but the world, for which that has happened objectively, inasmuch as Christ entered as the light into the darkness of the world. Quite a different meaning, therefore, is here assigned to ἐν αὐτῷ from that which is given to ἐν ὑμῖν , as the difference in the relation from the antithesis of “objective” and “subjective” clearly shows.—It is not merely the change of the present παράγεται into the perfect that is the cause of this treatment, for it appears elsewhere in the commentary,—thus on p. 148: “that which is true in Christ and in you, that the darkness is past,” etc.; p. 150: “similar to the new announcement, that the darkness is past,” etc.; p. 155: “It is the truth, that the darkness is past;” against which, on the other hand, παράγεται is correctly explained on p. 150: “the darkness is passing by, is in a state of passing away, of disappearing.”
[109] For if ὅ ἐστιν κ . τ . λ . is, according to the intention of the apostle, to be referred to the idea of the newness of the commandment, he would—first, have given this idea a more independent form than he has given it as a simple attribute of the object ἐντολήν depending on γράφω ; and, secondly, not have given the confirmation of the statement (that the commandment is a new one) in a sentence which does not so much show the truth of this idea as merely state the sphere in which that statement is true; to which may be added, that the idea so resulting is itself so indistinct, that it requires, in order to be understood, an explanatory circumlocution, such as: “that the commandment is a new one has its truth in Christ, inasmuch as it did not exist before Him,” etc. (ed. 1 of this comm.). Besides, an emphasis unwarranted by the context is placed on the idea of the newness of the commandment, especially if it is thought that the following ὅτι again serves to establish the thought expressed in the confirmatory clause (Lücke, de Wette, Brückner).
[110] Düsterdieck, it is true, approves of Knapp’s paraphrase, which agrees with the above explanation: πάλιν ( ὡς ) ἐντολὴν καιν . γρ . ὑμῖν τοῦτο ὅ ἐστιν ἀληθές κ . τ . λ .; but, with the idea of a constructio ad sensum, refers ὅ to the preceding ἐντολήν , so that this forms the object of γράφω , which by the relative clause obtains its more particular definition. In opposition to this construction, de Wette has rightly observed that it has grammatical difficulty. When Düsterdieck, in reply to Lücke’s objection, that with that interpretation it would need to run ἥ ἐστιν ἀληθής , says that it is not the ἐντολή itself as such, but its substance in Christ, etc., that has been fulfilled, Ebrard’s observation is a sufficient answer: “That which is required in the ἐντολή is nothing else than just the ἐντολή itself; the requirement itself is fulfilled in Christ when its substance is fulfilled in Him.”
[111] That John places before his readers anew as a commandment that which already has been fulfilled in them, is clearly not more strange than that he declares to them truths of which he himself says that they know them already (comp. ver. 21). Brückner admits that the construction here advocated is simple and clear, but groundlessly thinks that “the strangeness of this form of speech” is not mitigated by the reference to ver. 21.
[112] On the basis of the right view of ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς , ver. 7, we find the nature of the newness of the commandment indicated just in this; this, however, is only the case if the temporal reference is retained in its purity. This Düsterdieck indeed insists on; but this relation has only force if we regard at the same time the substance of the commandment, as Düsterdieck does. But nothing in the context indicates this new substance, and it is therefore very differently defined by the commentators.
[113] Lücke does so when he says: “In ver. 8, John continues correctingly thus: Again a new commandment I write unto you.” (In the edition of 1851, Lücke agrees with the usual acceptation: “Again—in contrast—a new commandment I write unto you;” see ed. 3, p. 249, note 1.)—De Wette does not expressly give his opinion about πάλιν ; but when he thinks that John should properly have written: “again a new commandment I call it,” and when he then paraphrases it: “The commandment of love is an old and long-known one to you; but (as it is altogether revealed as a new one by Christ) for you who partake in the newness of life it is in an especial manner a new one,” the antithetical reference is clearly brought out by him also.
[114] With this connection of the thoughts, the double-membered clause: ὅτι ἡ σκοτία … φαίνει , must confirm both ἐστιν ἀλ . ἐν αὐτῷ and also ἐστιν ἀλ . ἐν ὑμῖν . Now, when Lücke makes the apostle to say, as a proof that the commandment to walk in light shows itself in Christ and in his readers as a new one: “Not only in Christ Himself ( ἐν αὐτῷ ) has the true light appeared, but it has also shed itself abroad, dispelling the darkness in the minds of his readers ( ἐν ὑμῖν ), and is shining in them,” he attributes the thought really expressed by the apostle ( ἡ σκοτία … φαίνει ) only to ἐν ὑμῖν ; while to ἐν αὐτῷ , on the other hand, he attributes an idea which the apostle has not expressed.—Brückner says: “The ἐν αὐτῷ refers to καὶ τὸ φῶς κ . τ . λ ., the ἐν ὑμῖν rather to ἡ σκοτία κ . τ . λ .;” but this reference of the one member of the confirmatory clause to the one element of the thought to be confirmed must be regarded as unjustified, although Brückner thinks “it can easily be imagined that the apostle in the one part of the confirmation had in view rather the latter, and in the other rather the former part of the clause to be confirmed,” for such a different reference is in no way hinted at; besides, ἤδη is here altogether left out of view. Düsterdieck rightly establishes the proposition that the whole sentence: ἀληθ .… ὑμῖν , is to be regarded as confirmed by the whole sentence: ὅτι ἡ σκ .… φαίνει ; but when he then, in interpretation, says: “Already the darkness is dispelled by the true light, which shines in truth in Christ and in His believers (in so far, namely, as brotherly love attained its most perfect manifestation in the walk of Christ, and is exercised by believers also),” it is only the second part of the confirmatory clause that is referred by him to ἐν αὐτῷ καὶ ἐν ὑμῖν , but not the first part; and this indeed is quite natural, since in Christ a disappearance of darkness is not imaginable.
[115] It was to be expected that Weiss here also denies to the ideas σκοτία and φῶς the ethical meaning, and wants to be understood by the former only error, by the latter only the knowledge of God. Weiss himself, however, views them both so that they are of ethical—and not merely theoretical—character; and, moreover, as he admits that with the former error sin, and with the latter knowledge holiness, is necessarily connected, it is so much the more arbitrary to allege that John, in the use of these ideas, utterly ignored this necessary connection.
[116] Rickli: “John says this of the time in which they are living, and in which the great work of the Lord had had a wonderful, rapid progress of development. The true Light, the Lord in His perfect manifestation of divine truth, is already shining; … already the great morning is dawning for mankind. When the Lord shall return, then shall be the perfect day of God. Towards this manifestation all believers walk.”