Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - 1 John 3:4 - 3:4
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
1Jn_3:4. The believer is so much the more bound to holiness, as all sin is ἀνομία .
πᾶς ὁ ποιῶν κ . τ . λ .] corresponding to the beginning of 1Jn_3:3, πᾶς ὁ ἔχων κ . τ . λ . The apostle is anxious to emphasize the truth of the thought as being without exception. ποιεῖν τὴν ἁμαρτίαν , as the antithesis of ποιεῖν τὴν δικαιοσύνην , chap. 1Jn_2:29, is contrasted with ἁγνίζειν ἑαυτόν , 1Jn_3:3; as the apostle “wants to contrast with the positive sentence 1Jn_3:3 its negative counterpart,” “he begins with the antithesis of that idea which formed the predicate in 1Jn_3:3, and makes it the subject” (Ebrard). The definite article shows that the idea, according to its complete extent, is intended as definite, as forming the concrete antithesis to ἡ δικαιοσύνη ;[199] both the interpretation of Socinus: “to remain in sin,” and that of Baumgarten-Crusius: “to receive sin into oneself, to let it exist in oneself,” are alike arbitrary; even the very common definition: “to sin knowingly and wilfully,” is out of place here, as the subject here is not the way in which sin is done, but the actual doing of sin itself. According to Brückner,[200] by ποιεῖν τὴν ἁμαρτίαν “an actual moral tendency of life” is indicated; this explanation is apparently justified by 1Jn_3:6; 1Jn_3:8-9, but even in these passages the apostle’s meaning goes beyond the restricted idea of “tendency of life,” inasmuch as he certainly has sinning in view.
καὶ τὴν ἁμαρτίαν ποιεῖ ] “ καί accentuates the idea that the very doing of ἁμαρτία is as such equally the doing of ἀνομία ” (Düsterdieck); by ἀνομία we are to understand, according to the constant usus loquendi, never the mere non-possession of the law (differently ἄνομος , 1Co_9:21), but always the violation of the law, namely, of the divine law, of the divine order according to which man should regulate his life,—lawlessness (Lücke).[201] The sense therefore is: he who practises sin (in whatever way it may be) thereby makes himself guilty of the violation of divine order, he acts contrary to the θέλημα τοῦ Θεοῦ , chap. 1Jn_2:17. According to Ebrard, τὴν ἀνομίαν ποιεῖν expresses the antithesis of ἔχειν τὴν ἐλπίδα ταύτην , 1Jn_3:3; but it is more correct to perceive in that sentence—instead of a conclusion—the introduction of a new element, by which the sharp contrast with τὴν δικαιοσύνην (1Jn_2:29) is indicated.
The following words: καὶ ἡ ἁμαρτία ἐστὶν ἡ ἀνομία , are added, partly to confirm the previous thought, partly to mark emphatically the identity of ἁμαρτία and ἀνομία which is expressed in it. The apostle does not want to give an exact definition of the idea ἁμαρτία (contrary to Sander), but to indicate its nature from the side “on which its absolute antagonism to any fellowship with God appears most unrestrictedly” (Brückner). The apostle could not more sharply express the antithesis between the character of the believer, who is a τέκνον Θεοῦ , and will be ὅμοιος Θεῷ , and the ἁμαρτία , than by showing ἁμαρτία to be ἀνομία , whereby he most distinctly opposes the moral indifferentism, against which the first section of the Epistle is also directed. Violence is done to the thought, both by limiting the idea ἁμαρτία to a particular kind of sin (a Lapide: loquitur proprie de peccato perfecto, puta mortifero), and by making ἀνομία the subject and ἁμαρτία , the predicate;[202] so also by mixing up references which are foreign to the context.[203] The καί by which the two sentences are connected with one another, Bengel translates and explains by: immo (so also Brückner by “nay”), with the remark: non solum conjuncta est notio peccati et iniquitatis, sed eadem; this is incorrect, for even the first sentence expresses, not a mere connection, but identity. The apostle could have written instead of καί the confirmatory particle ὍΤΙ , or the like, but by means of ΚΑΊ the thought of the second clause obtains a more independent position (so also Braune).
[199] Braune, however, rightly observes that too strong an emphasis is not to be laid here, either upon the article or on ποιεῖν , for in ver. 9 it is put ἁμαρτίαν ποιεῖν , and then, as synonymous with it, simply ἁμαρτάνειν ; nevertheless, it is to be noticed that “the fuller idea ποιεῖν τὴν ἁμ . at the beginning includes and determines the others, ποιεῖν ἁμ . and ἁμαρτάνειν ” (Ebrard).
[200] Brückner rightly rejects the interpretation of de Wette: ἁμαρτία appears to be the broader idea, ἀνομία the narrower, more definite and stronger, including particular offences, vices, etc.
[201] ἀνομία is distinguished from ἀδικία (1Jn_1:9, 1Jn_5:17) in this way, that the former idea is contrasted with abstract right ( δίκη ), the latter with the concrete form of right ( νόμος ) (Brückner).
[202] Köstlin (p. 246) appeals in behalf of this construction to Joh_1:1 : καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος , assuming that καὶ ἁμαρτία κ . τ . λ . is to be read; see, however, the critical notes. Against this construction there is, besides, the fact that ἁμαρτία would have to be taken in a different sense here from that in which it is previously used, namely, as Köstlin says: “The first time ἁμαρτία means sinful action, the second time guilt in the sight of God.”
[203] This is the case, for example, in Hilgenfeld’s explanation: “Not every one who deviates from the ceremonial laws, but only the sinner, falls under the category of ἀνομία ;” not less in the remark of Calvin: “the sum of the thought is that the life of those who give themselves to sin is hateful to God, and cannot be tolerated by God.”