Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - 1 John 3:2 - 3:2
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
1Jn_3:2. After emphatic resumption of ἐσμέν , the apostle indicates the yet concealed glory of the τέκνα Θεοῦ . He begins with the address ἀγαπητοί , which occurs to him here the more readily as he feels himself most closely connected with his readers in the common fellowship with God (so also Düsterdieck).
νῦν τέκνα Θεοῦ ἐσμέν ] νῦν is used in reference to the future ( οὔπω ); it is here a particle of time, not = “now, in consequence of that decree” (de Wette); a contrast with what immediately precedes (Lücke: “amidst all mistake on the part of the world, we are nevertheless really now the children of God;” so also Düsterdieck and Braune) is not suggested by it. Hereby the present glory of the believing Christian is described;[192] before the apostle mentions the future glory, he observes that this is yet concealed: καὶ οὔπω ἐφανερώθη τί ἐσόμεθα ] φανεροῦσθαι may, as Ebrard remarks, mean both: “to be actually revealed,” or: “for the knowledge to be revealed;” most commentators rightly take the word here in the first meaning; it is true, Ebrard maintains that this explanation is grammatically impossible, because φανερόω , as governing a question, can only have the meaning of theoretical revelation; but this assertion is unfounded, for in the N. T. usus loquendi (nay, even in the classics) the interrogative τίς , sometimes τί , confessedly appears where, according to the rule, the relative should properly be used; comp. Winer, p. 152; VII. p. 158 f.; Al. Buttmann, p. 216; and especially if the thought involves an assumed question, as is the case here.[193] That φανεροῦσθαι cannot here be understood of the theoretical revelation is clear—(1) from the fact that no ἡμῖν is put with it, which Ebrard arbitrarily inserts when he interprets: “it has not yet been revealed to us, no information about it has yet been communicated to us;” (2) from the fact that the apostle himself immediately afterwards says what Christians will be in the future; (3) from the fact that a confession of present ignorance is at variance with the natural connection; from the fact that with this view a very artificial thought results for the following words: οἴδαμεν κ . τ . λ .; see below.
By οὔπω ἐφανερώθη κ . τ . λ . the apostle accordingly states that the future condition of those who at present are τέκνα Θεοῦ is still concealed, has not yet come to light (comp. Col_3:3; Rom_8:18).[194] This future state is, it is true, something different from the present, yet it is not absolutely new, but is that “which is latent and established in the present” (Düsterdieck, Braune).
οἴδαμεν ὅτι ἐὰν φανερωθῇ κ . τ . λ .] By ΟἼΔΑΜΕΝ the apostle expresses his own and his readers’ consciousness of that which, as ΤΈΚΝΑ ΘΕΟῦ , they will be in the future.
With ΦΑΝΕΡΩΘῇ we must supply ΤΊ ἘΣΌΜΕΘΑ , the meaning is the same as it previously has; so it is correctly explained by Didymus, Augustin, Socinus, Grotius, Paulus, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Semler, Lücke, Düsterdieck, Erdmann, Braune, etc. As Ebrard similarly supplies ΤΊ ἘΣΌΜΕΘΑ , but understands ΦΑΝΕΡΩΘῇ here also of the knowledge, there results for him this thought: “we know rather that when it shall be made known to us, we shall even already be like Him,” in which “the emphasis is made to rest on the contemporaneousness of the theoretical φανεροῦσθαι with the actual ὍΜΟΙΟΙ ἜΣΕΣΘΑΙ ;” but in this interpretation, which suffers from unjustifiable supplements, a reference is brought out as the chief element of the thought which is in no way indicated, and is foreign to the context.
Some critics supply with ΦΑΝΕΡΩΘῇ as subject ΧΡΙΣΤΌς , as in chap. 1Jn_2:28, so Syrus, Calvin, Beza, Hornejus, Calov, Semler, etc. (Myrberg at least thinks that this is not omnino improbabile); this is, however, erroneous, as in this ΦΑΝΕΡΩΘῇ what immediately precedes is clearly resumed. It is self-evident that this revelation will take place ἘΝ Τῇ ΠΑΡΟΥΣΊᾼ ΧΡΙΣΤΟῦ ; comp. 1Jn_2:28.
ὍΜΟΙΟΙ ΑὐΤῷ ἘΣΌΜΕΘΑ ] ΑὐΤῷ , i.e. Deo, cujus sumus filii (Bengel); the idea remains, indeed, essentially the same if αὐτῷ is taken = ΧΡΙΣΤῷ (Storr), but the context decides in favour of the first explanation. The apostle says: we shall be to God ὍΜΟΙΟΙ , not ἼΣΟΙ , because likeness to God will not be unconditioned, but conditioned by the nature of the creature, as a creature; in so far ὍΜΟΙΟς may be translated by “like,” only this idea has something indefinite in it, and therefore Sander not unjustly says “that thereby the point of the thought is lost.” As John himself does not more particularly define this future ὉΜΟΙΌΤΗς of man with God, the commentator must not arbitrarily restrict the general idea on the one side or the other, as, for instance, by the reference to the “light-nature of God” (Ebrard), or the ΔΙΚΑΙΟΣΎΝΗ ΘΕΟῦ (Düsterdieck), or the ΔΌΞΑ ΘΕΟῦ (de Wette[195]).
ὍΤΙ ὈΨΌΜΕΘΑ ΑὐΤΌΝ , ΚΑΘΏς ἘΣΤΙ ] This sentence states the logical ground of the foregoing; Calvin correctly: ratio haec ab effectu sumta est, non a causa; so that the sense is: “because we shall see Him as He is, we therefore know that we shall be like Him” (Rickli; so also Socinus, S. Schmidt, Erdmann, Myrberg, etc.). It is a different thought in 2Co_3:18, according to which Bengel explains: ex aspectu, similitudo (similarly Irenaeus, adv. haer. iv. 38, says: ὅρασις Θεοῦ περιποιητικὴ ἀφθαρσίας ), according to which the sense is: “the beholding is the cause of the likeness” (Spener; similarly Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Neander, Köstlin, Düsterdieck, Ebrard, Braune, Weiss, etc.). But John does not here want to explain whence the ὍΜΟΙΟΝ ΕἾΝΑΙ Τῷ ΘΕῷ comes to the believer, but on what the ΟἼΔΑΜΕΝ is based. The certain hope of the Christian is that he shall see God. In that hope there lies for him the certainty that he will one day be like God; for God can only be seen by him who is like Him.[196] When Rickli remarks on ὈΨΌΜΕΘΑ : “not a bodily vision of Him who is Spirit; it is the spiritual beholding, the knowledge of God in His infinite divine nature” (similarly Frommann, p. 217), or when others interpret this ὉΡᾷΝ simply by “to know aright,” and similarly, this is contrary to the sense of the apostle; for as the word itself indeed shows, an actual seeing is meant. For man in his earthly body, God is certainly invisible; but it is different with the glorified man in his σῶμα πνευματικόν (1Co_15:44); he will not merely know (the believer has knowledge already here), but see God; and, moreover, no longer διʼ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι , but ΠΡΌΣΩΠΟΝ ΠΡῸς ΠΡΌΣΩΠΟΝ , 1Co_13:12. Compare on the seeing of God, Mat_5:8; 2Co_5:7; Rev_22:4.
By ΚΑΘΏς ἘΣΤΙ the entire reality of the nature of God: “as He is, not merely in a copy, etc., but in Himself and in His nature, His perfect majesty and glory” (Spener), is described.[197] The relation of the single parts of this verse is usually regarded by the commentators as adversative; certainly ΝῦΝ and ΟὔΠΩ form an antithesis, but the connecting ΚΑΊ shows that the apostle considered the first two thoughts less in their antithesis to one another than in their co-ordination, inasmuch as it occurred to him to emphasize them both equally: both that believers are now really ΤΈΚΝΑ ΘΕΟῦ , and also that a glory as yet concealed—namely, likeness to God—awaits them. Between the third and fourth parts also a sort of antithesis occurs (hence the Recepta δέ ), but here also the apostle is not anxious to bring out this contrast, but rather to add to the negatively-expressed thought, for its confirmation, the positive substance of Christian consciousness; comp. de Wette-Brückner, Braune.
[192] De Wette incorrectly remarks on ἐσμέν : “by destiny, by faith and aspiration or idea;” John rather signifies by ἐσμέν the actual reality.
[193] Act_13:25 is especially to be compared. According to Buttmann, the interrogative is used for the relative only after predicates which have a certain similarity with the verba sentiendi, etc., thus especially after ἔχειν (Mar_8:1-2); yet this similarity is sometimes at the least very remote, thus with δοθήσεται , Mat_10:19, and with ἑτοίμασον , Luk_17:8, where Buttmann finds himself compelled to supply a connecting verb. Besides, a similarity with the verba sentiendi is not to be denied to the verb φανεροῦσθαι , even if it does not describe the theoretical revelation, for the coming out of concealment includes the becoming visible.
[194] Ebrard groundlessly asserts that this view amounts to a tautology: “our future state is still future,” for according to it the apostle rather expresses the thought that the future condition of the τέκνα Θεοῦ will be distinguished from the present; in which, plainly, there is not the slightest tautology contained.
[195] Baumgarten-Crusius and others quote on this passage 2Pe_1:4 : κοινωνοὶ τῆς θείας φύσεως ; this is (as Brückner also remarks) unsuitable, for in this expression the author of that Epistle does not say what the Christian will be one day, but what he already is; it therefore corresponds rather to the τέκνα Θεοῦ .
[196] To Düsterdieck’s question, Why then did not the apostle write: ὀψόμεθα αὐτόν , ὅτι ὅμοιοι αὐτῷ ἐσόμεθα ? it is a valid reply: because he did not want to represent the beholding of God, but likeness to God, as the purpose of the divine love. The justification of the rejected explanation by 2Co_3:18 is inappropriate, because John describes the future condition of the children of God, not as a becoming like, but as a being like ( ἐσόμεθα ).
[197] Calvin: Deus nune se nobis conspiciendum offert, non qualis est, sed qualem modulus noster cum capit. Weiss rightly observes that the emphasis is laid on καθώς ἐστιν ; but it is incorrect for him to place this in contrast with His manifestation in the Son; for God has not revealed Himself in Christ otherwise than καθώς ἐστι .—As a curiosity the explanation of Oertel may be given here: “One day after several centuries, mankind, which now belongs too much to the spirit of barbarism, will become more glorified, more ennobled, and more happy, and thus attain to the perfect knowledge of the plan of God and the purpose of Jesus.”