Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - 1 John 3:6 - 3:6
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
1Jn_3:6. πᾶς ὁ ἐν αὐτᾷ (i.e. Χριστῷ ) μένων ] refers back to the exhortation in 1Jn_2:27; μένειν , not merely = inesse, expresses close fellowship.
οὐχ ἁμαρτάνει ] John hereby states the abiding in Christ and sinning as irreconcilable opposites; still it is not his meaning that the believing Christian does not sin any more at all, or that he who still sins is not in Christ, for in 1Jn_1:8-10, 1Jn_2:1-2, 1Jn_3:3, he clearly enough expresses that sin still clings to the Christian, and that he therefore needs constantly both the forgiving and saving grace of God and the intercession of Christ, as well as self-purification. The solution of the apparent contradiction must not be sought by giving the word ἁμαρτάνειν here a meaning different from what it has elsewhere (e.g. = persistere in peccato; or with Capellus = sceleratum esse, or = to commit peccata mortalia); nor even by appealing to the apostle’s ideal mode of conception (de Wette, Düsterdieck; substantially also Weiss and Brückner[205]), for “John has here to do with real cases, and wants to indicate to us the marks by which it may be known whether a man loves the Lord or not, whether he is a child of God or of the wicked one” (Sander), as is clear from φανερά ἐστι , 1Jn_3:10; but only in the fact that the Christian, who is a ΤΈΚΝΟΝ ΘΕΟῦ , bears the contradiction in himself that he, on the one hand, it is true, still actually sins, but, on the other hand, is also actually free from sin—so free from it that he cannot sin (1Jn_3:9); he has actually broken with sin, so that in his most inner nature he is in the most decided opposition to it; yet at the same time he finds it in himself, and indeed in such a way that he still actually sins (chap. 1Jn_1:10), but inasmuch as he confesses it, and experiences the forgiving and saving love of the faithful God towards him (chap. 1Jn_1:9), and with all earnestness practises the ἁγνίζειν ἑαυτόν , it ever loses more and more its power over him, and thus it results that it is no longer sin, but opposition to it (as something foreign to his nature), that determines his conduct of life; and hence the apostle may with perfect justice say, that he who abides in Christ does not sin (so also Braune[206]), which is quite the same as when Paul says: εἴ τις ἐν Χριστῷ , καινὴ κτίσις · τὰ ἀρχαῖα παρῆλθεν , ἰδού , γέγονε καινὰ τὰ πάντα (2Co_5:17).
The antithesis expressed in the first clause is even more sharply brought out in the second, inasmuch as John does not say: Πᾶς Ὁ ἉΜΑΡΤΆΝΩΝ … Οὐ ΜΈΝΕΙ ἘΝ ΑὐΤῷ , but: ΟὐΧ ἙΏΡΑΚΕΝ ΑὐΤΌΝ , ΟὐΔῈ ἜΓΝΩΚΕΝ ΑὐΤΌΝ .
Πᾶς Ὁ ἉΜΑΡΤΆΝΩΝ is every one who leads a life in ἉΜΑΡΤΊΑ , and therefore has not come out of the ΚΌΣΜΟς into the number of God’s children;[207] such an one, says John, hath not seen, neither known αὐτόν , i.e. Christ. Lücke takes the perfects ἑώρακεν and ἔγνωκεν in present signification, the former in the meaning of “the present possession of the experience,” the latter in the meaning of “the present possession of previously obtained knowledge;” but this is not rendered necessary by the context, and hence the perfects are to be retained as such, although it must be admitted that John is considering the result as one that continues into the present. The meaning of the two verbs in their relation to one another is very differently explained; according to some commentators, ἑώρακεν signifies something inferior (Semler, Baumgarten-Crusius, Lücke in his 1st ed.), according to others, something superior (Socinus, Neander, Frommann, p. 223), to ἔγνωκεν ; with the former view οὐδέ is taken as = “and still less,” with the latter as = “and not as much as;” both are incorrect, for a difference of degree is in no way suggested; yet the two expressions are not to be regarded as synonymous, so that ἔγνωκε would only be added to bring out the spiritual meaning of ἑώρακεν (Düsterdieck), for although οὐδέ can neither be necessarily “disjunctive” (Lücke, 1st ed.) nor “conjunctive” (Lücke, 2d ed.), yet the form of the clauses shows, inasmuch as the object is put along with each verb, that οὐδέ here has a stronger emphasis, and that John wanted to express by the two verbs two distinct ideas. In order to determine these, the original signification of the words must be retained; ὁρᾷν signifies neither “the mere historical knowledge of Christ” (Lücke), nor the perseverantia communionis cum Christo (Erdmann), and γινώσκειν signifies neither “the experience of the heart,” nor even “love,” but even here ὁρᾷν means to see, and γινώσκειν to know; but the seeing of Christ takes place when the immediate consciousness of the glory of Christ has dawned upon us, so that the eye of our soul beholds Him as He is in the totality of His nature; the knowing of Him when by means of inquiring consideration the right understanding of Him has come to us, so that we are clearly conscious not only of His nature, but also of His relation to us.[208]
[205] When Weiss (and Brückner agreeing with him) says “that John here represents the Christian life as according to its nature it is and ought to be,” the expression of the apostle is explained by him also from its idealism.
[206] Besser appropriately says: “Every one who abides in Christ, to whom He once belongs, does not sin, but says ‘No’ to sin, which belongs to the old man, and resists its alien power. A Christian does not do sin, but he suffers it. His will, his Christian Ego, is not at one with sin. Hatred of sin is the common mark of the children of God; love of sin the common property of the children of the devil.” Augustine’s explanation: “in quantum in Christo manet, in tantum non peccat,” is unsatisfactory, because it would thereby appear as if the inner life of the Christian was something divided in itself; but it is more correct when he says: “Etsi infirmitate labitur, peccato tamen non consentit, quia potius gemendo luctatur.”
[207] Ebrard says this explanation is opposed to the context, because “even from ver. 4 the subject is such as are Christians, but are lacking in holiness, and it is only in ver. 6 that it is stated how far such Christians cannot be regarded as truly regenerate;” but (1) do not the unregenerate Christians still belong to the κίσμος ? and (2) does not that explanation refer precisely to the close of the 6th verse?
[208] With this interpretation that of Sander, who interprets ἑώρακεν of “spiritual intuition or beholding,” and ἔγνωκεν of the “knowledge obtained more by reflection along the lines of dialectic and inquiry,” as well as that of Myrberg, according to which the former signifies the “immediata perceptio Christi spirituali modo homini se manifestantis,” the latter the “perdurans cognitio atque intelligentia,” are in substantial agreement. Braune, it is true, assents to this view, but he erroneously thus defines the thought of the apostle: “Every one who sins, and inasmuch as he sins, is one in whom the seeing and knowing of Christ is a thing of the past, but does not continue and operate into the present,” for John plainly says of him who sins that he has not seen or known Christ. When Erdmann defines ἔγνωκεν as the cognitio Christi, quae et intuitu et intellectu non solum personae Christi verum etiam totius ejus operis indolem complectitur, this is in so far unsuitable, as the intuitu belongs precisely to the ἑώρακεν . Very unsatisfactory is Ebrard’s explanation, that ὁρᾷν is “the seeing of Christ as the light, γινώσκειν the loving knowledge.” The difference between ὁρᾷν and γινώσκειν appears also in this, that in the former the operating activity is represented rather on the side of the object, which presents itself to the eye of the soul; in the latter, rather on the side of the subject, which this verb makes the subject of consideration.