Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - 1 John 2:9 - 2:11
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
1Jn_2:9-11. Further definition of the life of light as life in love.—1Jn_2:9. ὁ λέγων ] the same form as in 1Jn_2:4, to which the structure of the whole verse is very similar. ἐν τῷ φωτὶ εἶναι ] stands in close relation to what immediately precedes; although he alone is in the light who lives in fellowship with Christ, and belongs to the church of Christ, yet τὸ φῶς describes neither Christ Himself (Spener, etc.) nor “the church, as the sphere within which the light has operated as illuminating power” (Ebrard). Chap. 1Jn_1:6-7 may be compared.
In contrast with teal καὶ τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ μισῶν is 1Jn_2:10, ὁ ἀγαπῶν ἀδ . αὐτοῦ , in which the apostle states the substance of the τηρεῖν τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ after the example of Christ. As φῶς and σκοτία , so μισεῖν τ . ἀδ . and ἀγαπᾶν τ . ἀδ . exclude each other; they are tendencies diametrically opposed to one another; human action belongs either to the one or to the other; that which does not belong to the sphere of the one falls into that of the other; Bengel: ubi non est amor, odium est: cor non est vacuum. Here also John speaks absolutely, without taking into consideration the imperfect state of the Christian, as is seen in the hesitations between love and hatred.
τὸν ἀδελφόν Grotius interprets: sive Judaeum, sive aliegenam; fratres omnes in Adamo sumus; similarly Calov, J. Lange, etc.; by far the greatest number of commentators understand thereby fellow-Christians. Apart from its exact meaning and the wider meaning = brethren of the same nation (Act_23:1; Heb_7:5), ἀδελφός is used in the N. T. generally, in Acts and in the Pauline Epistles always, to denote Christians; but in many passages it is also = ὁ πλησίον or ὁ ἕτερος ; thus in Mat_5:22 ff; Mat_7:3 ff; Mat_18:35; Luk_6:41 ff.; Jam_4:11-12 (in Mat_5:47 it describes our friendly neighbour). In the Gospel of John it is only used in the sense of relationship, except in chap. Joh_20:17, where Christ calls His μαθηταί “ οἱ ἀδελφοί μου ,” and in Joh_21:23, where οἱ ἀδ . is a name of Christians. If, therefore, according to the usus loquendi of the N. T., ὁ ἀδελφός may certainly be = ὁ πλησίον , yet in the Epistles of John, according to chap. 1Jn_3:11 (comp. Gospel of Joh_13:34; Joh_15:12; besides, especially with chap. 1Jn_3:16, comp. Gospel of Joh_15:13; there: ὑπὲρ τῶν ἀδελφῶν τὰς ψυχὰς τιθέναι ; here: ὑπὲρ τῶν φίλων αὐτοῦ ), and according to chap. 1Jn_5:1 (where the ἀδ . is specifically called a γεγεννημένος ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ ), we must understand by it the Christian brother; so that John, therefore, is speaking, not of the general love towards men, but of the special relationship of Christians to one another; comp. the distinction in 2Pe_1:7; Gal_6:10.
ἕως ἄρτι ] “until now,” refers back to ἤδη , 1Jn_2:9; the meaning is: although the darkness is already shining, such an one is nevertheless still (adhuc) in darkness; on this peculiarly N. T. expression, see Winer, p. 418, VII. p. 439; A. Buttmann, p. 275; there is no reason for supplying “even if he were a long time a Christian” (Ewald). “With the ἐν τ . σκ . ἐστίν is contrasted, 1Jn_2:10 : ἐν τῷ φωτὶ μένει ; see on this 1Jn_2:6.[117] That the “exercise of brotherly love is itself a means of strengthening the new life” (Ebrard), is not contained in the idea μένει . Even if the idea of 1Jn_2:10—in relation to that of the 9th verse—is brought out more distinctly by ΜΈΝΕΙ , this is much more done by the words: ΚΑῚ ΣΚΆΝΔΑΛΟΝ ἘΝ ΑὐΤῷ ΟὐΚ ἜΣΤΙΝ . ΣΚΆΝΔΑΛΟΝ appears in the N. T. only in the ethical signification = “offence,” i.e. that which entices and tempts to sin; in the case of ἐν αὐτῷ , the preposition ἘΝ is generally either left unnoticed by the commentators (Grotius says, appealing to Psalms 119 : est metonymia et ἘΝ abundat. Sensus: ille non impingit) or changed in meaning; de Wette: “in his case (for him) there is no stumbling; comp. Joh_11:9 ff.;” similarly Baumgarten-Crusius, Neander, etc.; Lücke even says: “ ἐν αὐτῷ can here only signify the outer circle of life,” because “the ΣΚΆΝΔΑΛΑ for the Christian lie in the world, and not in him;” with him Sander agrees. For such changes there is no ground, since in the usage of the word the figure (the snare, or rather the wood that falls in the snare) has quite given place to the thing, and it is therefore unnecessary to say, with Düsterdieck, that “in the expression ἘΝ ΑὐΤῷ the thing itself penetrates into the otherwise figurative form of speech;” the offence may be outside a man, but it may be in him also; comp. Mat_5:29-30. The preposition ἐν is here to be retained in its proper meaning (Düsterdieck, Ewald, Braune). The sense is: In him who loves his brother and thus remains in the light, there is nothing which entices him to sin. Some commentators refer ΣΚΆΝΔΑΛΟΝ to the temptation of others to sinning; so Vatablus: nemini offendiculo est; Johannsen: “he gives no offence;” Ebrard: “there is nothing in them by which they would give offence to the brethren,” etc.; but in the context there is no reference to the influence which the Christian exercises upon others, and if John had had this relationship in his mind, he would certainly have expressed it;[118] this is decisive also against Braune, who would retain both references. Paulus quite unwarrantably refers ἘΝ ΑὐΤῷ to ΤῸ ΦΏς : “in that light nothing is a stumbling-block.”
The beginning of the 11th verse repeats—in a form antithetical to 1Jn_2:10—that which was said in 1Jn_2:9; but with further continuation of the ἘΝ Τῇ ΣΚΟΤΊᾼ ἘΣΤΊΝ .
The first subordinate clause runs: ΚΑῚ ἘΝ Τῇ ΣΚΟΤΊᾼ ΠΕΡΙΠΑΤΕῖ . The difference of the two clauses does not consist in this, that the representation passes over from the less figurative ( ἘΣΤΊ ) to the more figurative ( ΠΕΡΙΠΑΤΕῖ ) (Lücke); for, on the one hand, ΠΕΡΙΠΑΤΕῖΝ is so often used of the ethical relationship of man, that it is scarcely any longer found as a figurative expression; and, on the other hand, the connection by ΚΑΊ shows that there is a difference of idea between the two expressions; this has been correctly thus described by Grotius: priori membro affectus (or better: habitus, Sander), altero actus denotatur (similarly de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Braune). Both: the being (the condition) and the doing (the result) of the unloving one belong to darkness; comp. Gal_5:25. The second subordinate clause: ΚΑῚ ΟὐΚ ΟἾΔΕ ΠΟῦ ὙΠΆΓΕΙ , is closely connected with ΠΕΡΙΠΑΤΕῖ ; ΠΟῦ , properly a particle of rest, is in the N. T. frequently connected with verbs of motion; comp. Joh_7:35; Joh_20:2; Joh_20:13; Heb_11:8; in the Gospel of John especially, as here, with ὙΠΆΓΕΙΝ ; see Joh_3:8; Joh_8:14, etc.; in Joh_12:35 it runs exactly as here: Ὁ ΠΕΡΙΠΑΤῶΝ ἘΝ Τῇ ΣΚΟΤΊᾼ ΟὐΚ ΟἾΔΕ ΠΟῦ ὙΠΆΓΕΙ . The translation: “where he is going,” is false, for ὙΠΆΓΕΙΝ is not: “to go,” but: “to go to.” To the unloving one, the goal whither he is going on his dark way, and therefore the direction of his way, is unknown. By this goal it is not exactly the final goal, i.e. condemnation (Cyprian: it nescius in gehennam, ignarus et caecus praecipitatur in poenam), that is to be thought of, for the subject according to the context is not punishment; but by the figurative expression the apostle wants to bring out that the unloving one, not knowing whither, follows the impulse of his own selfish desire: he does not know what he is doing, and whither it tends. As a confirmation of this last idea, the apostle further adds: ὅτι ἡ σκοτία ἐτύφλωσε τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς αὐτοῦ ; τυφλοῦν does not mean “to darken,” but “to make blind, to blind;” this idea is to be retained, and is not, with Lücke and others, to be enfeebled by an interpolated “tamquam, as” (“in the darkness they are as if blind”), by which the clause loses its meaning; the apostle wants to bring out that, inasmuch as the unloving one walks in the darkness, the sight of his eyes is taken from him by this darkness, so that he does not know, etc. He who lives in sin is blinded by sin, and therefore does not know whither his sin is leading him; comp. Joh_12:40 and 2Co_4:4.
[117] Köstlin incorrectly finds the reason why he who loves his brother remains in the light, in this, “that the Christian life of the individual requires for its own existence the support of all others.” Of such a support the apostle is not speaking here at all, but the truth of his statement lies rather in this, that love and light are essentially connected with one another.
[118] When Ebrard finds no obstacle in the thought that he who loves his brother does not by any act give offence to others, he should find no obstacle in the thought that there is nothing in him which becomes an offence to himself.