Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - 1 John 3
Verse Commentaries:
Chapter Level Commentary:
The reading ὑμῖν in B is not even accepted by Buttm., rightly; for it no doubt owes its existence merely to the connection with the 2d pers.: ἴδετε .
After κληθῶμεν is found in A B C à , many min. and vss., in Thph. Aug. Bede, the addition: καὶ ἐσμέν ; the Vulg. and other Latin vss. have: et simus; Oecum. in his comm.: ἔδωκεν ἡμῖν τέκνα αὐτοῦ γενέσθαι τε καὶ κληθῆναι , and Thph. in his comm.: γενέσθαι τε καὶ λογισθῆναι . According to these authorities, the addition must be regarded as genuine (Lachm. Düsterd. Ewald, Brückner); Tisch. (following G K, many min. Copt. etc.) has not accepted it; many critics (thus even Reiche) explain it as a gloss; this it certainly may be—taken from 1Jn_3:2; but the overwhelming weight of authorities is in favour of its genuineness. Düsterdieck thinks that the omission originated in a false explanation of κληθῶμεν .
Instead of ἡμᾶς , à has ὑμᾶς .—1Jn_3:2. After οἴδαμεν the Rec. has δέ (G K, etc., Syr. Copt. etc., Thph. Oec. etc.), which, with Lachm. and Tisch., following A B C à , several min. etc., is to be deleted; its insertion is easily explained by the apparent antithesis to the preceding.—1Jn_3:4. The Rec. ἡ ἁμαρτία is certified by all the authorities; Lachm. omits ἡ , but, as Tisch. observes, sine teste, for even B, to which Lachm. appeals, reads ἡ ἁμαρτία . After ἐστιν , à (sol.) reads καί , which, scarcely genuine, serves to connect more closely the two ideas ἁμαρτία and ἀνομία .—1Jn_3:5. Instead of οἴδατε , à (sol.) reads οἶδαμεν , which makes no essential difference in the thought.
τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν ] Rec. following C G K à , etc., Syr. etc., Thph. Oec. Bede (de Wette); Lachm. and Tisch. omit ἡμῶν , following A B, etc., Copt. Theb. etc., Tert. Aug. etc. The genuineness of ἡμῶν is certainly doubtful; perhaps it was omitted at a later date, to generalize the idea τὰς ἀμαρτίας ; Reiche regards it as genuine.—1Jn_3:6. With the reading ἑόρακεν in Tisch. 7, comp. chap. 1Jn_1:1.—1Jn_3:7. Instead of the Rec. τεκνία (in B G K à , etc., vss. min. Thph. Oec. Tert. etc., Lachm.), Tisch. has accepted παιδία , after A C, etc., Copt. etc.; it is difficult to decide; it is possible that τεκνία is a correction for παιδία , a form of address unusual in the Epistle. That παιδία , as Ebrard thinks, is a correction, because in the section beginning with the address παιδία (chap. 1Jn_2:18) the conclusion is περὶ τῶν πλανώντων (1Jn_3:24), and here the same verb ( μηδεὶς πλανάτω ὑμᾶς ) follows the address, has little probability in its favour.—1Jn_3:10. Lachm. in his larger ed. has instead of the Rec. ποιῶν δικαιοσύνην , which he had retained in his smaller ed., the reading ὢν δίκαιος , attested by no cod., but only by the Vulg., some other vss. and several Fathers (Or. Tert. Cyp. etc.); clearly without adequate reason.
The Codd. A C K, etc., have before δικαιοσύνην the article τήν , probably inserted in correspondence with 1Jn_3:7 and chap. 1Jn_2:29.—1Jn_3:11. Instead of the Rec. ἀγγελία , C à , etc., some vss. read ἐπαγγελία ; probably in accordance with chap. 1Jn_2:25; de Wette considers it the original reading, just as chap. 1Jn_1:5; scarcely correct.—1Jn_3:13. à has before μὴ θαυμάζετε : “ καί ,” clearly added for the purpose of closer connection.
ἀδελφοί ] according to A B C à , 27, etc., Vulg. etc., Aug. Oros. etc.; recommended by Griesb., accepted by Lachm. Tisch.; the Rec. adds μου , after G K, etc.—1Jn_3:14. After τοὺς ἀδελφούς à reads ἡμῶν , probably a later addition to complete the thought.
ἀγαπῶν τὸν ἀδελφόν ] Rec. following C G K, Thph. Oecum.; τὸν ἀδελφόν is, however, a later addition; it is not found in A B à , etc., Vulg. etc., Aug. etc.; justly omitted by Lachm. and Tisch.; its insertion is easily explained; Reiche, however, is of a different opinion.—1Jn_3:15. Instead of αὐτοῦ , as Lachm. and Tisch., or αὑτοῦ , as most of the editors read, B has ἑαυτοῦ .
ἐν αὑτῷ (or better: ἐν αὐτῷ , Tisch.), Rec. after B G K, etc., Thph. Oec.
Lachm. has accepted ἐν ἑαυτῷ , the reading of A C à , etc.—1Jn_3:16. Instead of τιθέναι (Rec. according to G K, etc., Oec.) we must read, with Lachm. and Tisch., following the overwhelming evidence of A B C à , etc., the aorist θεῖναι .—1Jn_3:18. After τεκνία the Rec. (following G K, etc.) has μοῦ , the genuineness of which, however, is justly doubted by Griesb.
The article τῇ before γλώσσῃ , which is omitted by the Rec., is with certainty attested by almost all authorities; it is wanting, however, in à .
Before ἔργῳ the Rec. has omitted ἐν , only on the evidence of K; almost all the authorities attest its genuineness; as the co-ordinate ideas are without ἐν , it was natural to omit the preposition with ἔργῳ also.—1Jn_3:19. Before ἐν τούτῳ the Rec., following C G K à , most min. vss. etc., reads καί , which is also accepted by Tisch. Lachm. has omitted it; it is wanting in A B, etc., Vulg. Copt. etc.; it is, however, probably genuine; omitted because it seemed unsuitable for the connection.
Instead of γαώσκομεν , Rec., following G K, etc., Vulg. etc. (Tisch.), A B C à , etc.,[189] several vss. etc., read ΓΝΩΣΌΜΕΘΑ (Lachm.); as the latter is the more difficult reading, and besides has the most important authorities in its favour, it is to be regarded as genuine, with Ewald, Brückner, Braune, contrary to the opinion of Lücke, de Wette, Reiche; Bengel and de Wette think that the following ΠΕΊΣΟΜΕΝ has led to the change of the present to the future; but it is just as likely that the indicative is a correction of the copyists, in accordance with the frequently-occurring formula: ἘΝ ΤΟΎΤῼ ΓΙΝΏΣΚΟΜΕΝ , 1Jn_2:3, 1Jn_3:24, 1Jn_4:2, 1Jn_5:2 (Erdmann).
ΤᾺς ΚΑΡΔΊΑς ἩΜῶΝ ] Rec. following A** C G K à , almost all min., several vss. Thph. Oecum. Bede; retained by Tisch. and Lachm. (in his larger ed.); in the small ed. Lachm. has: ΤῊΝ ΚΑΡΔΊΑΝ ἩΜῶΝ , after A* B, Syr. etc.; the plural was apparently altered to the singular in accordance with 1Jn_3:20.—1Jn_3:20. Instead of ὍΤΙ ἘΆΝ , Lachm. and Buttm. read: Ὅ ΤΙ ἘΆΝ ; see on this the explanation of the verse.
The ὍΤΙ before ΜΕΊΖΩΝ , which Lachm. had omitted in his small ed. (following A, etc., Vulg. etc., Oec. etc.), he has again rightly accepted in the larger ed. The change of it to ἜΤΙ , which Henr. Stephanus would read, is arbitrary.—1Jn_3:21. The genuineness of ἩΜῶΝ (Rec.) after ἡ καρδία is uncertain; it is found in C G K à , etc. (Tisch.), but is wanting in A B, etc., Vulg. etc. (Lachm.).
The ἡμῶν after καταγινώσκῃ is wanting in B and C; it is, however, hardly spurious, as it is indispensable for the sense. Instead of ἔχομεν , attested by almost all the authorities, B has ἔχει , originating in a false reference to καρδία .—1Jn_3:22. Instead of ὅ ἐάν , B reads ὅ ἄν .
Instead of the active form: αἰτῶμεν , there is found in à the middle form: αἰτώμεθα .
In opposition to the Rec. ΠΑΡʼ ΑὐΤΟῦ (G K, etc.), ἈΠʼ ΑὐΤΟῦ deserves the preference, according to the authorities (A B C à , etc., Lachm. Tisch.).
The reading ΤΗΡῶΜΕΝ in à instead of ΤΗΡΟῦΜΕΝ is no doubt only a clerical error.—1Jn_3:23. ΠΙΣΤΕΎΣΩΜΕΝ ] Rec. following B G K, al. pl., Oec. Tisch.; the reading of A C à , etc., Thph., on the other hand, is ΠΙΣΤΕΎΩΜΕΝ ; recommended by Griesb., accepted by Lachm., probably a change in accordance with the following present ἈΓΑΠῶΜΕΝ ; so Reiche thinks.
After ἘΝΤΟΛΉΝ , ἩΜῖΝ is wanting in G K, etc. (omitted by Tisch.). The most important authorities attest the genuineness of ἩΜῖΝ ; Reiche, however, regards it as a later addition.—1Jn_3:24. In à the ΚΑΊ is wanting before ἘΝ ΤΟΎΤῼ ; in the same cod. ΟὟ ἜΔΩΚΕΝ ἩΜῖΝ is found instead of the Rec. οὗ ἡμῖν ἔδωκεν .
[189] Lücke, whom Sander copies, says that C does not testify in favour of γνωσόμεθα , but according to Tischendorf it certainly does.