Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadPulpit Commentary - 1 John 3:1 - 3:24
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
3. SECOND MAIN DIVISION. God is Love.
1Jn_3:1-24
(1) The evidence of sonship. Righteousness.
1Jn_3:1-3
The Divine birth is the outcome of the Divine love.
1Jn_3:1
Behold what manner of love! Ποταπός ; literally, "of what country," in the New Testament always implies amazement; but, as the original meaning leads us to expect, it implies marvelous quality rather than marvelous size. Love must be taken literally: the Divine love itself, and not a mere proof of it, has been given. Ποταπὴν ἀγάπην strikes the key-note of the whole section. "And the goal of this love ἵνα is that once for all (aorist) we have received the title 'children of God.'" And, whatever cavilers may say, the title is rightfully ours. (The words, "and (such) we are," are quite rightly inserted in the Revised Version after "children of God.") This is shown by the fact that the world does not recognize us as such, because from the first it did not recognize God. Had it known the Father, it would have known the children, Διὰ τοῦτο in St. John refers to what precedes (Joh_5:16, Joh_5:18; Joh_7:22; Joh_8:47; Joh_10:17; Joh_12:18, Joh_12:27, Joh_12:39); it does not merely anticipate the ὅτι which follows it. In logical phraseology we have here first the major premise, then the conclusion introduced by διὰ τοῦτο , then (to clench the argument) the minor premise introduced by ὅτι ,—
We are children of God;
Therefore the world knows us not;
For the world knows not God.
But we must beware of supposing that every one who fails to recognize our form of Christianity is necessarily of the world. St. John invariably (but comp. Rev_21:7) speaks of "children of God" τέκνα Θεοῦ , St. Paul generally of "sons of God", υἱοὶ Θεοῦ . The latter expression can apply to adopted sons; the former, strictly speaking, implies actual parentage. In saying κληθῶμεν καὶ ἐσμεν , St. John appeals to the conscious nobility of Christians: we have this magnificent title with its corresponding dignity.
1Jn_3:2
Beloved, now are we children of God, and it is not yet made manifest (or, it never yet was manifested) what we shall be. The emphatic νῦν is in opposition to οὔπω : our present state is known; our future remains still unrevealed. Again (1Jn_2:27, 1Jn_2:29), we are in doubt about the construction. What is the nominative to "shall be manifested" φανερωθῇ , "he" or "it"? The context is strongly in favour of "it," i.e., "if it shall be manifested what we shall be;" 1Jn_2:28 seems to favour "he," i.e., "if Christ shall be manifested." The context must prevail. "Our future state is not yet made manifest. We know that on its manifestation we shall find ourselves like God." The two things will be contemporaneous. The 'Speaker's Commentary' quotes the following anecdote: "When some heathen converts to Christianity were translating a Catechism into their own language, they came upon 1Jn_3:2. They stopped. 'No; it is too much,' they said; 'let us write that we shall be permitted to kiss his feet.'" Beware of inverting the meaning of the last clause, ὅτι , ὀψόμεθα κ . τ . λ .. It does not mean that the seeing God is a proof or sign of our being like him (Mat_5:8), but the cause of our being like him: "We shall be like him, because we shall see him." God is light (1Jn_1:5), and light is seen. In this life νῦν we cannot see the light of the Divine nature "as it is," but only as it is reflected; and the reflected light cannot transmit to us the nature of the Divine original, though it prepares us to receive it. Hereafter the sight, "face to face" (1Co_13:12), of the Light itself will illuminate us through end through, and we shall become like it. Rothe takes "like him" to mean like Christ (Rom_8:16, Rom_8:17, Rom_8:29; 2Co_3:18; comp. Joh_17:24; Col_3:18); comp. Rev_22:4; Rev_1:7.
1Jn_3:3
Such being our hope, based upon God's promises ἐπ ̓ αὐτῷ , of becoming like him, we must keep this prospect ever in view, and live up to it. Commentators differ as to whether αὐτῷ refers to the Father or Christ, and so also with regard to ἐκεῖνος . The best way is to take αὐτῷ as God, and ἐκεῖνος as Christ: this agrees with αὐτόν in 1Jn_3:2, with ἐκεῖνος in 1Jn_3:5, and with the common use of the two pronouns. It is doubtless possible, especially in St. John, to take ἀκεῖνος as merely recalling the person already indicated by αὐτός or otherwise, and make both pronouns here refer to God. At first sight this seems to make a better sequence between verses 2 and 3: hereafter we shall be like God; therefore here we must strive to become pure as he is. Moreover, it is of the Father that it is written, "Be ye holy; for I am holy" (Le Joh_11:44; 1Pe_1:15, 1Pe_1:16); and again, "Ye shall be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect" (Mat_5:48). But the other is simpler grammatically, and preserves the logical sequence equally well. Hereafter we shall be like God. Every one who has such a hope as this will aim at becoming like God here; even as Jesus Christ has set us an example, a perfect realization of human conformity to God.
1Jn_3:4-12
Sin is absolutely incompatible with Christ's work of redemption and our union with him (1Jn_3:4-8), and also with being born of God, as is shown by the presence or absence of brotherly love (1Jn_3:9-12).
1Jn_3:4
Once more the apostle turns from the positive to the negative. Having shown what birth from God involves, he goes on to show what it excludes. "Every one that doeth sin" evidently balances "every one that hath this hope" (1Jn_3:3), and "to do sin" is the exact opposite of "to do righteousness" (1Jn_2:29). Sin is lawlessness ἡ ἁμαρτία ἐστὶν ἡ ἀνομία . Both words having the article, the two terms are exactly equivalent—all sin is lawlessness, and all lawlessness is sin. Ἀνομία , like "lawlessness,'' expresses the ignoring of the law rather than the absence of it. "The law" means the law of God in the fullest sense, not the Mosaic Law. In short, sin is defined as the transgression of God's will.
1Jn_3:5
Two additional reasons for the absolute separation of the children of God from sin.
(1) They know well that the Son of God was manifested in the flesh to put away the sins (of the world, Joh_1:29); not mere "sins," one here and one there, but "the sins" τὰς ἁμαρτίας , whatever sins exist. Ημῶν , though strongly supported, is probably not genuine. Αἴρεν in itself means not "to take on himself, or bear," but "to take away;" it expresses the removal rather than the manner of removal. But it may represent the Hebrew nasa, which combines the two meanings (Le 10:17; 24:15; Isa_53:12).
(2) The Son of God was absolutely separated from sin.
1Jn_3:6
Every one that abideth in Christ ipso facto sinneth not; for, if he sins, he ceases to abide in him. Just in so far as he abides, he does not sin. Or it may mean that be who abides in Christ cannot deliberately and habitually sin. But then would not St. John have written, "He that abideth in Christ abideth not in sin"? But the main difficulty is in the second half. In what sense is it true that every one that sinneth hath not seen Christ? In the main two explanations are given.
(1) The Greek perfect expresses the present and permanent result of a past action, and is often equivalent to a present. No doubt; and all would be easy if we had only to deal with ὤγνωκε , which means, "he hath come to know," equivalent to "he knoweth." But does ἑώρακε ever mean "he seeth," as Alford suggests as the best rendering for a version? If St. John simply means that whoever sins thereby ceases to see and know Christ, he would hardly express himself thus.
(2) The fact of the man's sinning proves that his perception and knowledge have been imperfect, if not superficial, or even imaginary; just as the fact of Christians leaving the Church proves that they never were really members of it (1Jn_2:19). This explanation is preferable. In verse 2 we were told that seeing God will make us like God; and similarly, to see and know Christ make us like Christ. Whoever is unlike Christ, to that extent has not seen nor come to know him. The best of us, it may be, have seen but the hem of his garment.
1Jn_3:7
St. John repeats his declaration with emphasis and fresh considerations; hence the repetition of the tender address (1Jn_2:1), "Little children, let no one ever seduce you into the belief that character and practice can be separated. He that doeth righteousness is righteous; for a righteous man inevitably practices righteousness." There are always persons who endeavour to reconcile religion with moral laxity, and in St. John's day some Gnostics definitely taught that conduct was immaterial to the spiritual man, for no external acts could defile such. "The external acts," says St. John, "prove the man's spiritual character and origin. He that doeth righteousness is righteous and is of God: he that doeth sin is of the devil." Note the difference between "even as" in verses 3 and 7. There καθώς introduces a pattern as a fresh motive for self-purification; here it introduces a comparison. Christ is righteous, and his character produces nothing but righteousness; so also is it with the righteous Christian.
1Jn_3:8
The contrary position given to make the statement clear and emphatic. The devil ὁ διάβολος is the great accuser or slanderer, as in Job_1:1-22 and Job_2:1-13 (comp. Joh_13:2; Rev_2:10; Rev_12:9, Rev_12:12; Rev_20:2, Rev_20:10). The devil sinneth from the beginning ἀπ ἀρχῆς . From the beginning of what? From the beginning of sin. The devil was the first sinner, and has never ceased to sin. Other answers are: from the beginning
(1) of the devil,
(2) of the creation,
(3) of human history.
Some of these are scarcely in harmony with Scripture; none, perhaps, fit the context so well as the explanation adopted. If the devil committed the first sin, and has sinned unceasingly ever since, then whoever sins is akin to him, is morally his offspring (Joh_8:44). There is the kingdom of God and the kingdom of the evil one, and man cannot find or make a third domain; if he is not in the one he is in the other. This verse, like Joh_8:44, seems to be conclusive as to the personal existence of the devil. Ἐκ τοῦ διαβόλου balances ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ : if the one is a mere personification of a tendency, why not the other? Both should be personal or neither. "It is not true that St. John speaks so confidently of a devil because he was a Jew and was filled with Hebrew opinions. For once that the devil is introduced in the Law, the Psalms, and the Prophets, he is spoken of twenty times in any Gospel or Epistle" (Maurice), and not least in the Gentile Luke. With the latter half of verse 8. comp, verse 5. Christ's act in removing our sins from us destroys the devil's works; for by the manifestation of the Light (Joh_1:5) the darkness is dispersed and destroyed. Our sins are the evil one's works: what is sin in us is his natural occupation. (For λύειν in the sense of unbinding or dissolving, and therefore destroying—a use specially frequent in St. John—comp. Joh_2:19; Joh_5:18; Joh_7:23; Joh_10:35.) The φανέρωσις includes the whole work of Christ on earth.
1Jn_3:9-12
Sin is absolutely incompatible with being born of God, as is shown by the presence or absence of brotherly love.
1Jn_3:9
Having stated that every one that doeth sin is of the devil, St. John now states the opposite truth, but from the other side; not "every one that doeth no sin is of God," which hardly needs to be stated; but every one that is begotten of God doeth no sin, which is startling. Who, then, can be begotten of God? But the statement is similar to that in verse 6, and is to be similarly understood. So far as any man sins, his regeneration is incomplete. If the new birth from God were perfect, sin would be morally impossible οὐ δύναται ἁμαρτεῖν . The new principle of life abides and grows in him, and, under perfect conditions, it entirely prevents the old unregenerate nature from rebelling. Note that St. John does not say οὐ δύναται ἁμαρτεῖν ," cannot commit a sin," but οὐ δύναται ἁμαρτάνειν , "cannot be a sinner." An act is different from a state of sin. This is an ideal to which every Christian is bound to aspire—inability to sin. But to some extent this ideal is a fact in the case of every true Christian. There are sins which to a good man are by God's grace quite impossible. The meaning of σπέρμα αὐτοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ μένει is uncertain: either
(1) "His seed abideth in Him," i.e., those who are born of God abide in God; or
(2) "his seed abideth in him," i.e., the new principle which he has received continues to operate in the man; or
(3) "His seed abideth in him," i.e., God's quickening Gift continues to operate in the man. (For σπέρμα αὐτοῦ , in the sense of "those born of God," comp. Isa_53:10.) But this is the least probable of the three interpretations; in this sense St. John would probably have written τέκνον . Note the tense of the concluding verb, γεγέννηται , not ἐγεννήθη : his birth from God is a fact which still continues, not one that is past and gone.
1Jn_3:10
The question whether "in this" ἐν τούτῳ refers to what precedes or to what follows is here unimportant, for both are similar in meaning; and "in this" may refer to both. "By their fruits ye shall know them." The children of God do righteousness, and not sin; the children of the devil do sin, and not righteousness. Of course, moral parentage is meant in both cases. Nothing here lends any countenance to the view that the writer is a dualist and inculcates two principles of existence—God and the devil. All, whether good or bad, are God's creatures (Joh_1:3); but while all are his children by creation, some become his children spiritually also, while others become the children of Satan. St. John's "teaching about the devil is not at all agreeable to those who dwell exclusively on the sunny aspects of the world and of life, and would shut their eyes to what is dark and terrible. They like to hear of a Being who is all-gracious and loving; the vision of one who is the enemy of all that is gracious and loving shocks them—they wish to suppose that it belongs to the world's infancy, and that it disappears as we know more" (Maurice). The expression, "the children of the devil," must not be confounded with the Hebraistic expressions, "children of perdition, children of darkness," "children of light, son of death," "son of perdition," etc. As so often, St. John not only restates the case in a new form, but adds a new thought to it—he that loveth not his brother. This forms the link with the next section (verses 13-24), on brotherly love. Of all failures in doing righteousness this is the most conspicuous—failing to love one's brother. And who is my brother? The answer is the same as to the question, "And who is my neighbour?" Mankind at large. The meaning cannot be limited to the children of God. Even τοὺς ἀδελφούς (verses 14, 16) does not exclude unbelievers, still less does τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ . This is confirmed:
(1) By the fact that the opposite case (verse 13) is the children of the world hating Christians; the true opposite of Christians loving Christians would be the children of the world hating one another.
(2) By the cited example of Christ (verse 16), who died for us when we were aliens from God. Of course, if the Christian must love all men, a fortiori he must love Christians.
1Jn_3:11
Because the message ( ἀγγελία : see on 1Jn_1:5) which ye heard from the beginning is this. Not merely in the beginning, but from the beginning; it was among the first announcements, and it had never ceased to be in force. Jerome, in his 'Commentary on Galatians' (Gal_6:10), tells us that when St. John became too infirm to preach, he used often to say no more than this, "Little children, love one another." His hearers at last wearied of it, and said, "Master, why dost thou always say this?" "It is the Lord's command," he replied; "and if this alone is done, it is enough."
1Jn_3:12
The sentence is of an elliptical form, common in language. The full sense is, "Not that we should do even as Cain, who was of the evil one, and slew his brother." Cain's conduct typifies the attitude of the world towards Christians. Σφάζειν in the New Testament occurs only here and in Revelation. In the LXX and the New Testament it seems to mean "slay" without necessarily implying the cutting the throat of a victim. That Cain's works were evil is not stated in Genesis, but is inferred from God's rejection of him. Compare carefully the remarkably parallel passage, Heb_11:4. The wicked envy the good the blessedness of their goodness, and try to destroy what they cannot share. The war between good and evil is one of extermination; but the wicked would destroy the righteous, while the righteous would destroy wickedness by converting the wicked.
1Jn_3:13-24
Hate and death contrasted with love and life (1Jn_3:13-15); generous love, which has its pattern in the self-sacrifice of Christ (1Jn_3:16, 1Jn_3:17); sincere love, which is the ground of our boldness toward God, who has commanded us to love (1Jn_3:18-24).
1Jn_3:13
Human nature is the same as of old. There is still a Cain, the world, hating its Abel, the Church. Therefore marvel not, brethren, if the world hateth you. Here only does St. John use the address, "brethren," which is appropriate to the subject of brotherly love. Elsewhere his readers are "children" or "beloved." The "if" ( ει with indicative) expresses no doubt as to the fact, but states it gently and conditionally.
1Jn_3:14
We know that we have passed over out of death into life (Joh_5:24), because, etc. "We" is emphatic; whatever the world may feel about us, we have certain knowledge (not γινώσκομεν , but ἡμεῖς οἴδαμεν ). The love of the brethren is the cause, not of the passing over, but of our knowing it. It proves that we have passed. And this test every one can apply to himself; "Do I, or do I not, find the love of the brethren within me?" A Christian can no more live without love than a plant can live without growth. He that loveth not abideth in death: he has not made the passage over. There is no accusative after "loveth," τὸν ἀδελφόν being a gloss. The statement is quite general; absence of love implies an atmosphere of death.
1Jn_3:15
As in 1Jn_4:20, St. John passes at once from not loving to hating, treating the two as equivalent. He takes no account of the neutral ground of indifference. He that is not for his brother is against him. Indifference is hate quiescent, there being nothing to excite it. Love is the only security against hate. And as every one who does not love is potentially a hater, so every hater is potentially a murderer. A murderer is a hater who expresses his hatred in the most emphatic way. A hater who does not murder abstains for various reasons from this extreme way of expressing his hate. But the temper of the two men is the same; and it is obvious ( οἴδατε "ye know what needs no evidence") that every murderer is incapable of possessing eternal life. It is the murderous temper, not the act of homicide, that excludes from eternal life. St. John, of course, does not mean that murder is an unpardonable sin; but he shows that hate and death go together, as love and life, and that the two pairs are mutually exclusive. How can life and the desire to extinguish life be compatible? It is very forced to interpret ἀνθρωποκτόνος as either "destroyer of his own soul," or "destroyer of the hated man's soul," by provoking him to return hate for hate.
1Jn_3:16, 1Jn_3:17
The nature of love as shown by Christ, and its obligation on Christians. Love has been declared the criterion for distinguishing the children of God from the children of the devil. It remains to show what love is; and this is best seen in a concrete example. "The Eternal Word, incarnate and dying for the truth, inspires St. John to guard it with apostolic chivalry; but also this revelation of the heart of God melts him into tenderness towards the race which Jesus has loved so well. To St. John a lack of love for men seems sheer dishonour to the love of Christ" (Liddon).
1Jn_3:16
In this (1Jn_3:10; 1Jn_2:3)we have come to know (have acquired and possess the knowledge of) love (what love is), in that he laid down his life for us. This is better than "We have come to know love as consisting in this, that he laid down his life for us," which would have been ἐν τούτῳ οὖσαν . Cain is the type of hate; Christ, of love. Cain took his brother's life to benefit himself; Christ laid down his own life to benefit his enemies (see on Joh_10:12). This realized ideal of love we must imitate; ready to sacrifice ourselves, and even our lives, for the good of others. The effacement of another's rights and perhaps existence for one's own sake is the essence of hatred; the effacement of one's self for another's sake is the essence of love. Christ died for those who hated him; and the Christian must confront the hatred of the world with a love that is ready even to die for the haters. This shows that the "brethren" here and in 1Jn_3:14, though used primarily of Christians, does not exclude unbelievers; otherwise the parallel with Christ would be spoiled (see on 1Jn_3:10).
1Jn_3:17
"But δέ if a man not only fails to do this, but even steadily contemplates θεωρῇ another's distress, and forthwith. "The world's goods" τὸν βίον τοῦ κόσμου is literally "the world's means of life" (see on 1Jn_2:16, and Trench on 'New Testament Synonyms,' for the difference between βίος and ζώη . (For τὰ σπλάγχνα as the seat of the affections, comp. Luk_1:78; 2Co_6:12; 2Co_7:15; Php_1:8; Php_2:1; Php_1:7, Php_1:12.) The ἀπ ̓ αὐτοῦ is graphic; closes his heart and turns away from him (1Jn_2:28).
1Jn_3:18-24
As in 1Jn_2:28, St. John bursts out into personal exhortation (comp. verse 13; Joh_4:1, Joh_4:7), based upon the preceding statements. He then restates the motive in a new form both positively and negatively.
1Jn_3:18
Little children ( τεκνία , the μου being spurious). This address, as in 1Jn_2:28, introduces the summing up of the section. It may be doubted whether the absence of ἐν with the first pair λόγῳ μηδὲ τῇ γλώσσῃ and its presence with the second ἐν ἔργῳ καὶ ἀληθείᾳ indicates any marked difference, as if λόγῳ expressed the instrument, and ἐν ἔργῳ the element or sphere. This introduces a false antithesis, like "Do not dig with a stick, but dig in the earth." (For the Hebraic ἐν to express the instrument, comp. Rev_13:10.) "Nor yet with the tongue" is not a tautological addition. One may love in word only, and yet the affectionate words may be quite sincere; and this is a common case. People say kind things which they mean at the moment, but afterwards they do not take the trouble to act kindly. But to love with the tongue only is far worse. This is to say kind things which one does not mean, and which one knows to be unreal. Deeds are needed to complete the kind word; truth is needed to correct the insincere tongue.
1Jn_3:19
In this; or, hereby ἐν τούτῳ , here clearly refers to what precedes; and the thought is similar to that in 1Jn_3:14. By sincere and active love we shall come to know γνωσόμεθα that we are children of the truth. "The truth" here is almost equivalent to "God;" and we seem to have here an echo of Christ's words to Pilate, "Everyone that is of the truth heareth my voice". The construction in what follows contains several doubtful points:
(1) whether πείσομεν is coordinate with γνωσόμεθα or ἐσμέν ;
(2) if the former, whether ἐν τούτῳ goes on to πείσομεν , or is confined to γνωσόμεθα ;
(3) whether we should read ὅ τι ἐάν or ὅτι ἐὰν .
In all three cases the first alternative is perhaps preferable: And hereby we shall persuade our heart before him (that we are of the truth, and therefore have nothing to fear), whereinsoever our heart condemn us. But on the third point see Dr. Field's note in 'Otium Norvicense,' pars 3. Before him is very emphatic; it is in God's sight that the children of the truth are able to quiet their hearts, not merely in their own eyes. (For πείθω used absolutely, comp. Mat_28:14; Act_12:20; 2Co_5:11.)
1Jn_3:20
Our heart means our conscience, not the affections, which would be σπάγχνα (1Jn_3:17). If we are conscious of sincere and habitual love, this will calm us when conscience reproaches us. St. John never uses the more technical term συνείδησις , which occurs in the Acts and 1 Peter, and is very frequent in St. Paul. God is greater than our heart. It is asked whether this means that he is more merciful or more rigorous. Neither the one nor the other. It means that, although our conscience is not infallible, God is. Our hearts may be deceived; he cannot be. He knoweth all things. An awful thought for the impenitent, a blessed and encouraging thought for the penitent, He knows our sins; but he also knows our temptations, our struggles, our sorrow, and our love.
1Jn_3:21
Beloved (1Jn_2:7; 1Jn_3:2), there is a still more blessed possibility. If the consciousness of genuine love will sustain us before God when our heart reproaches us, much more may we have confidence towards him (1Jn_2:28) when it does not reproach us.
1Jn_3:22
And (as a guarantee that this confidence is not baseless or misdirected) whatsoever we ask, we receive from him. Note the present tense: λαμβάνομεν , not ληψόμεθα . Whatever the child of God asks as such, he ipso facto obtains (Joh_15:7). This is the ideal condition of things; for the child of God cannot ask what displeases his Father. And we are his children "because we keep his commandments." The ὅτι must not be connected too closely with λαμβάνομεν , as if our obedience were the cause of God's hearing our prayers. Our obedience shows that we are such as can pray efficaciously. (For the parallelism, comp. Exo_15:26; Isa_38:3.)
1Jn_3:23
And his commandment is this, that we should believe the Name, etc. "Do not forget," St. John would say, "what the full scope of his commandment is. It is not exhausted by loving the brethren; we must also believe in his Son: and the one implies the other." What is the meaning of "believing the Name πιστεύειν τῷ ὀνόματι "? We can believe a document (Joh_2:22; Joh_5:47), or a statement (Joh_5:47; Joh_12:38), or a person (Joh_10:37, Joh_10:38); but how can we believe a name? By believing those truths which the name implies: in the present case by believing that Jesus is the Saviour, is the Messiah, is the Son of God. To produce this belief and its consequence, eternal life, is the purpose of St. John's Gospel (Joh_20:31); it is also the will of God (Joh_6:40), and the command of his Son (Joh_14:1). This belief will inevitably produce as its fruit that we "love one another [present tense of what is habitual], even as Christ gave us commandment'' (Joh_13:34; Joh_15:12, Joh_15:17). Throughout the Epistle, and especially in this passage (verses 22-24), the references to Christ's farewell discourses in the Gospel are frequent. Here the main ideas of those discourses are represented—obedience to the Divine commands, particularly as to faith and love; promised answer to prayer, abiding in God; the gift of the Spirit (see on 1Jn_4:5).
1Jn_3:24
We are again in doubt as to whether αὐτοῦ and αὐτός refer to God the Father or to Christ. The former seems better on account of 1Jn_3:22; but the latter may be right (Joh_14:15; Joh_15:5). Compare the conclusion of the first main division (1Jn_2:24-28). In this (or, hereby) probably refers to what follows; the ἐν does not disprove this, in spite of the ἐκ which follows. St. John has combined two constructions: "In this we know… in that" ἐν τούτῳ γινώσκομεν … ὅτι , as in verse 16; and "From this we know… from" ἐκ τούτου γινώσκομεν … ἐκ τοῦ ; comp. 1Jn_4:6. From the Spirit which he gave us. "He" is probably the Father (Joh_14:16, Joh_14:17), and the aorist ἔδωκεν refers to the special occasion of Pentecost. Hitherto St. John has mentioned only the Father and the Son; now the Spirit also (alluded to in 1Jn_2:20, 1Jn_2:27) is introduced by name as a witness and test of the truth. The sentence forms the transition to the subject of the next section (1Jn_4:1-6), which is a sort of digression, the subject of love being mentioned in verse 7. This verse is said to have been a favourite with Spinoza.
I. LET US OPEN UP THE CONTENTS OF THIS GREAT LOVE OF GOD AS POINTED OUT IN THE TEXT. Need we ask, "What is love?" The question would have been needless were it not that human handling has so vitiated the New Testament teachings concerning it. Evidently here love is regarded in action. So looked at, love is righteousness and benevolence acting in harmony. Apart from righteousness, benevolence would be a maudlin sentimentalism, Righteousness without benevolence would seem rigid and frigid. Benevolence is the beauty of righteousness. Righteousness is the strength of benevolence. "Strength and beauty" are both in God; and, together, they make up love. Here we have:
1. Love's origin. "The Father." Here is love's fount, love's central fire. A self-kindled, self-sustaining love. Needing no pleading from without, but gushing forth spontaneously from the "righteous Father," from the very delight of loving! Yes, and loving, as the Father, all the rights of the Ruler being guarded, and his rectitude being demonstrated in a way which he appointed. This being indeed the very perfection of his love, that it is so manifested that we can say of it, "The righteousness thereof is like the great mountains." But we have here also:
2. Love's objects. "Us." The impression this makes on any one will depend on the opinion he has of himself. If he is convicted of sin, and has traced the hidden windings of evil in his own heart, it will ever be to him the marvel of marvels that the All-pure One could ever love him, and seek to purge him from guilt by the Divine process of loving!
3. Love's freeness. "Hath given to us δεδώκεν ἡμῖν ." Love not only exists for us, goes out towards us, but it is given to us, as a rich and priceless treasure. Confers on us the noblest gifts from its vast stores, and all freely (Hos_14:4).
4. Love's actual achievements. "That we should be called children of God: and such we are." We were rebels. As subjects of the great Governor, we had revolted. And love has re-made us. We have been born a second time, and have thus become children in God's family. We are such. We are called such. It is not, indeed, as yet openly manifested. "Our life is hid with Christ in God." There is no outward visible sign by which the world can distinguish us. Nor, indeed, have they the spiritual perception to discern nor the judgment to appreciate the marks of God's own. Their wisdom fails to show them God. They did not know the Christ. They do not know us. And for the same reason in every case. But their ignorance does not alter the glorious fact. "The Spirit beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God."
5. Love's ultimate intentions. "It doth not yet appear what we shall be," etc. It is not merely for the sake of what we are today that our Father loves us so. See that baby-boy in his cradle. Say, over and above the instinctive fondness of parents for their children, are there not big hopes that gather round the little one's head? It is not merely for what he is today that he is loved like this; but for what he is to be! So with us. "It doth not yet appear what we shall be." God's children are as yet so young, so immature; their evolution is as yet so incomplete, that none can tell, from what they are with all their imperfections attending them, what they will be when all the imperfections are removed and their growth is unchecked. Still, three days are before us certain.
(1) The Lord Jesus will yet be manifested£ (Col_3:4, Revised Version).
(2) Then we shall see him as he is. Not as he was when here in weakness and sorrow, but as he is in his glory, as King of men and Lord of worlds.
(3) Seeing him as he is will complete our resemblance to him.£ [This effect presupposes union to him and sympathy with him; for it will not be so with all (Rev_1:7).] This beatific vision, when we shall see face to face, will teach us more of God's love at a glance than we can now gather from half a century of thought. We shall no longer get our thoughts of God at second-hand, through earthen vessels, but direct from the Son of God himself. But will the transformation effected on us be corporeal or spiritual? Both corporeal and spiritual. For the face of the glorified in the spiritual body will be a perfect index of the perfected spirit within. Even here Divine grace impresses itself on the features. God is, literally, "the health of our countenance."£ Much more when all drawbacks are removed.
6. Such love that can and will effect all this is wonderful. "What manner of love!" It is marvelous:
(1) In its purity. We love only that which is worth loving. God loves the unworthy, in order that by love he may make them worth loving.
(2) In its methods of giving—giving the noblest Gift at the greatest cost in order to win, and by winning to save. Had he terrified us, and so driven us from him, we had been ruined. But by being drawn to him, sin dies, and we live.
(3) In its royal enrichments. First creating the new relationship of "child," and then giving the new-born child the shelter of a home, the endearments of tenderest care, and the wealth of the Father's kingdom—and all for ever! What manner of love is this?
II. SUCH LOVE IS WORTHY OF DEVOUT AND ABSORBING REGARD. "Behold!" "See!" By such a word had John's attention first been called to Jesus (Joh_1:29). By such a word would he now arrest ours and fasten it on Heaven's wondrous love, which had been the Object of his adoring gaze for more than half a century when he wrote these words. And still to each new-comer, as he reads this Epistle, the words address themselves, Look at this sight! There is no other object so gloriously enchanting. And no other object will so infinitely repay the longest and profoundest study. Then look! But:
1. How?
(1) Penitently,
(2) gratefully,
(3) appropriatingly,
(4) lovingly,
(5) adoringly.
2. When?
(1) When earth's glare bewitches you, that by the heavenly sight the world may lose its power to enthrall.
(2) When sin hangs heavy on the conscience, that you may receive the pardoning word.
(3) When storms lower o'er your pathway, that Heaven's light may disperse the gloom.
(4) When sickness weakens the frame, that you may rejoice in tribulation.
(5) When visiting the sepulcher, that you may espy the region in which there is no death.
(6) When entering the valley of the shadow of death, that it may be lit up with a heavenly glory.
3. How long? Not fitfully or occasionally, but continuously, let the sight be turned, not inwardly on your own dark, sinful self, but outwardly, on the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. Then in the clear light of God's love many a perplexity will vanish; for love is the key, and the only key, to unlock the secrets of the universe. Then doubt and dread will give place to perfect peace, and in a rapturous appropriation you will feel and say and sing, "All is mine, since the love of God is mine." Look! look! look! "till the day break, and the shadows flee away," and you see "face to face."
1Jn_3:3
I. THE CHILDREN OF GOD HAVE A DISTINCT AND SPECIFIC HOPE. This is frequently referred to by Paul (Rom_5:5; Tit_2:13; 2Th_2:16); also by Peter (1Pe_1:3); but only here by John. But with all three apostles the content of this hope is the same. It is, in fact, the possession of this hope which in the apostles' time marked off the Christian from the pagan and unbelieving world (cf. Eph_2:12; 1Th_4:13). And such is the case now. Never was it more strikingly so. Even those who are most positive as to the evolution of the race are absolutely hopeless as to the survival of the individual. But the Christian hope is both a personal and collective one. Its features, as indicated here, are twofold.
1. "This hope." The Apostle Paul, by the use of the definite article (Rom_5:5), marks it off just as distinctly. For the antecedent matter of "this," we must go back to the preceding verses, and note the three data there specified (see previous homily).
2. "In him;" rather, "upon him." The initial letter of the pronoun should be a capital, indicating that the Lord Jesus is he on whom the hope is set. He it is who is at once the central Object of the hope itself. He it is who has promised to fulfill it. His death and resurrection set the seal to its validity. He by his Spirit will consummate and crown it. The hope is set on Christ from beginning to end. These two features mark off the Christian hope from all vain and inferior ones.
II. THIS HOPE HAS IN EVERY CASE A PURIFYING POWER. This cannot be truly said concerning any other hope whatsoever. It is true of this only. He who cherishes it has the instinct of self-preservation within him; he will discipline and train his nature in doing, bearing, resisting, and thus will aim to "perfect holiness in the fear of God." And the good hope that he shall not fall short is a constant inspiration to him. There are three ways in which this may be set forth.
1. It is necessarily so from the nature of the hope itself. Hope is commonly (and truly) defined as "a compound of desire and expectation." But either element of the hope has special weight here. Desire after the beatific vision includes delight in purity; therefore he who cherishes it will aim at being pure. Expectation of the beatific vision is regulated by the Word of God. It declares, "Without holiness no man shall see the Lord;" and therefore he knows that, apart from holiness, hoping is impossible. Hence the conditions of the realization of the hope lead him to purify£ himself.
2. It is a part of God's gracious plan that it should be so.
(1) All in whom he begets this living hope he guards, guides, and trains towards its fulfillment.
(2) The elation and joy which this hope creates are in themselves a blessed means of spiritual advancement.
3. The fact that in this hope the believer is actually clinging to a living Saviour ensures it. The charm of this hope is Christ himself. But the expectation of seeing him hereafter keeps us by his side now. And, abiding in him, we grow like him, and are preparing to stand before him at his coming.
APPLICATION.
1. Let us admire the grace of God in drawing men out of sin by the force of "this blessed hope." God does not terrify and drive, but loves and wins and saves.
2. Let us use the text as a touchstone. No pretence of hope avails apart from growth in purity. A man may, indeed, apart therefrom, have some hope, but it is not "this hope."
3. To refuse to indulge such a hope is a grievous sin, since it throws doubt upon the love of God, by insinuating that he does not care enough for his creatures to prepare such good for them as the Word reveals. Let us not thus wrong our God.
4. In the presence of such solid grounds of hope as are disclosed in the gospel, how great a wrong is done to a man's own nature when his indifference or unbelief has reduced him to such a state of hopelessness that his highest achievement is that of submitting to the inevitable. We do not know, and have no intention of trying to discover, to what degree of acquiescence in this a man may attain. But it is absolutely certain that in such a case anything approximating, anything worthy to be compared with, the "joy unspeakable and full of glory" is absolutely impossible. The peace of God can never make the face radiant with heavenly brightness when once the light of hope is gone. When there is nothing to lighten the heart there can be nothing to brighten the face.
5. And when this catastrophe occurs in human nature, the spur to purity is gone. Abstractly, a ground and reason for purity may exist quite apart from any hope of immortality. This is possible. But in actual fact, take away the hope, and life's inspiration is gone! It becomes forthwith a mere question of time as to how soon the hopeless one will succumb to the maxim, "Let us eat and drink; for tomorrow we die!"
1Jn_3:4-12
I. AS IT CONCERNS THE LAW OF GOD. "Sin is the transgression of law;" literally, "lawlessness." "It is," says Westcott, "the assertion of the selfish will against a paramount authority. He who sins breaks, not only by accident or in an isolated detail, but essentially, the 'Law' which he was created to fulfill"—of right government of self, of concern for our brother, of loyalty to God. Hence the spirit of the Law is broken in its entirety, whatever form the details of his life may assume.
II. AS IT CONCERNS THE CHRIST HIMSELF. (1Jn_3:5.)
1. As to his person. "In him there is no sin." How black does a sinful, selfish life appear by the side of the life of the Lord Jesus Christ!
2. As to his work. "He was manifested to take away sins;" not only (as Paul shows in Rom_3:1-31) to demonstrate God's righteousness in forgiving sin, but also "to take away sins£ "(Revised Version)—to remove them altogether. To this end his whole earthly manifestation was directed, from the manger to the cross. And in thus doing, he would destroy "the works of the devil," who "sinneth from the beginning" (cf. Joh_12:31; Col_2:15; Heb_2:14, Heb_2:15). Hence it is clear that one who is leading a sinful life is in constant opposition to the Person, will, and work of the Son of God!
III. AS IT CONCERNS THE NEW BIRTH AS A DIVINE PRODUCT.
1. Sinning is altogether inconsistent with abiding in Christ (1Jn_3:6; cf. Joh_15:5).
2. It is altogether opposed to the true knowledge of Christ (1Jn_3:6).
3. It is contrary to the features which always mark God's children (1Jn_3:10). God's children are re-born—born to a life of righteousness and love. Hence (1Jn_3:9) whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for the seed of another life is in him.
4. It is impossible to a child of God. "He cannot sin, because he is born of God." Impossibility of sinning is one mark of the new birth. "He cannot sin." Blessed inability! Cannot be sinning, or living a life out of harmony with God's will and Word. Cannot! Why? Because in the new product of God's Spirit the principle of righteousness is so active that a sinning life is entirely out of the question. Virtue is so strong that it expels its opposite. A true child of God cannot be in alienation of spirit from his Father in heaven, even for one moment. So an honest servant cannot steal, a faithful husband cannot be unfaithful. One passionately fond of accuracy cannot be systematically inaccurate. So, also a child of God cannot be opposed to his Father's will, simply because, ex hypothesi, the product of the new birth is a child who will will as his Father wills. Into errors of judgment he may fall, by sudden gusts of temptation he may be overtaken and so surprised into a fault; but from sin, from the sin of living alien to God, he was delivered once and for ever, when, by the change in his nature, he was born again! He was "renewed… after the image of him that created him."
IV. THE SINNING LIFE IS OPPOSED TO THE EVERLASTING STATUTE OF THE GOSPEL. So the apostle argues here. The sinning life is one of lawlessness, one of selfishness. Unlovingness and unrighteousness are not of God. He who drifts away from loyalty to God will soon drift away also from consideration to man. Disloyal self-will Godward, breeds selfish isolation manward. And this is contrary to the commandme