1Jn 3:5
Καὶ οἴδατε ὅτι ἐκεῖνος ἐφανερώθη, ἵνα τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν ἄρῃ, καὶ ἁμαρτία ἐν αὐτῷ οὐκ ἔστι.
Now, as every sinful work is express opposition to the commandment, the revealed will of God, so also it is further a contradiction as well to the manifestation of Christ (1Jn 3:5a) as to His person (1Jn 3:5b); for He appeared to no. other end than τὰςἁμαρτίαςἆραι [“take away sins”]. This phrase may have three meanings: either that Christ has borne our sins, or that He took them upon Himself, or that He has taken them away. At a glance it will be plain that these three interpretations are substantially very near to each other. If Jesus took sins upon Himself, that could be only in order to bear them; and if He did this, it was, however, for the sake of taking away, and with that design. On the other hand, if the word signifies here that He has borne them away, there are abundant reasons from other quarters to assure us that this was accomplished through His bearing them. Nevertheless, the decision of this point is not matter of indifference; for in the nature of the case St. John must have had expressly in view one or other of these elements. The signification of bearing we must give up at once, because St. John never elsewhere uses αἴρειν [“to take away”] in this meaning; it would be necessary, therefore, to resort to it only if the ordinary meaning was not sufficient. Our apostle uses the word either in an external and local sense for “lifting up anything,” for example, χεῖραν [“a hand”], λίθους [“stones”], and the like, or with the significance of “taking away.” Now, if αἴρειν [“to take away”] is here to mean “take on Himself,” the additional clause καὶ ἐν αὐτῷ ἁμαρτία οὐκ ἔστι [“and in him there is no sin”] must signify only that although there was no sin in Him, nevertheless He suffered Himself to be treated as a sinner,—that, in fact, not His own sin, but the sin of others lay upon Him. But there is nothing here to indicate such a thought as that; and, moreover, in this case we should have read not ἔστιν [“is”], but ἦν [“was”]. Further, the expression “take sin on Himself” would lead us to the atonement; and the idea would be strictly parallel with that expressed in chapter 2, that Jesus is the ἱλασμός περὶτῶνἁμαρτιῶν [“atoning sacrifice for sins”]. But any such remembrancer of the atonement must be supposed, as in the instance just quoted, to be applied as a consolation to those who are still and ever harassed with sin; and what the context here requires as its design is exhortation rather than comfort. In the case just supposed the meaning would be: as ye were the cause of such pains to your Lord, now show yourselves thankful; of this, however, there is not the faintest indication. But there is perfect appropriateness in the thought of a remembrancer of the redemption from sin fully accomplished by our Lord, as that redemption consists in the “doing away of sin” (the ἡμῶν [“our”], “our sins,” must be struck out). If Jesus put away sins, then no one has any part in Him who suffers himself to have any confederacy with sin. And by what means was this putting away accomplished, and the new man who τὴνδικαιοσύνην ποιεῖ [“practices righteousness”] implanted instead? This is answered by the φανερωθῇ [“may be made known”]. It is clear that the expression is larger than πάσχειν [“to suffer”] or ἀποθνήσκειν [“to die”], of which, when redemption is in question, we usually think first of all; but it is also quite distinct from the εἰς τὸν κόσμονἐλήλυθεν [“has come into the world” cf. Joh 3:19] or the σὰρξ ἐγένετο [“became flesh” cf. Joh 1:14]. On the one hand, it signifies less than those phrases, inasmuch as the manner in which His manifestation was consummated is not indicated; while at the same time more than they, inasmuch as it does declare that before the passion His work was actually efficient, although by it alone it was brought to full manifestation. The entire contents of the prologue, Joh 1:1-13,—that the Logos had been from the beginning the light and life of the world, but by means of His incarnation had manifested Himself as such in the highest sense,—lies wrapped up germiually in the φανεροῦσθαι [“to make known”]. This self-manifestation was ordered expressly with this design (ἵνα [“that”]), that sin should be made to disappear. In the fact that the ζωή [“life”] as such is made manifest, the power of death is substantially taken away through its manifestation; in the fact that the φῶςἀληθινόν [“true light”] shineth, the darkness recedes immediately and in virtue of its very shining: by a natural necessity the design of our Lord is accomplished; and in reality His entire life, which is here comprehended in the φανερωθῇ [“may be made known”], has not only a redeeming aim and tendency, but also a redeeming power. Through His whole influence, word, suffering, dying, rising again,—that is, through the whole process of His φανέρωσις [“manifestation”]; taken on all sides,—He implanted in the world subjected to sin the germ of sinlessness. According to the apostle’s view, this power was not wrapped up and concluded in His death, although it was in His death that this power was pre-eminently unfolded. The parallel passage, Joh 1:29, confirms this view of the matter; and that is peculiarly important, because the two passages cannot well be separated from each other. There we read, ὁ ἀμνὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ ὁ αἴρων τὴν ἁμαρτίαν τοῦ κόσμου [“the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world”]. The present participle in this sentence does not require to be explained by the theory that St. John brings forward into the present the element of Christ’s death; nor on the principle that the present is chosen because the effects of that death always continue to the time that now is: on either of these suppositions the present would really be treated as the future. The participle must be understood in its most proper and distinctive meaning. Already at that very time the Lord was in act to take away the sin of the world, because He was such through His whole life; already at that time He was the ἀμνὸςτοῦΘεοῦ [“Lamb of God”], because He was so through His whole life, and not first in His death became the Lamb. This aspect of the matter would have much more importance attached to it, and it would exert a healthier influence on our entire soteriology, if we conceived more justly and laid to heart more simply the words of Mat 8:17. The evangelist there regards the work of Christ as already, in the first period of it, fulfilling the prophetic word, τὰς ἀσθενείας ἡμῶν ἔλαβε, καὶ τὰς νόσους ἐβάστασεν [“He took our infirmities and carried our diseases”]: this prophetic word we are accustomed to refer to the death of Christ; but the evangelist’s use of it points directly to the view we have just been exhibiting and defending. For if our Lord through His whole activity, and specifically in His healing of the sick, bore our sorrow, so also throughout His whole life He took it away; for the former was a reality only on account of the latter. In Joh 1:29 we certainly find, in connection with the redeeming and delivering element, which is represented by αἴρειν [“to bear”], the atoning element also, as contained in the expression ἀμνὸςτοῦΘεοῦ [“Lamb of God”]; for even if we consider this to refer at once to the paschal lamb, at any rate there was an expiating and therefore sacrificial characteristic in it. It is indeed otherwise in our passage: here the υἱὸςτοῦθεοῦ [“Son of God”] is the subject: the Son of God was manifested in order to abolish sin, establish His kingdom, and destroy the kingdom of the devil (1Jn 1:8); here, therefore, prominence is given, not to the form of a Servant which our Lord assumed in order to our reconciliation with God, but to the might of the Ruler who has brought to light life and our immortality of being.
Thus the only two passages (ours and the parallel in the Gospel) which have been adduced against the interpretation of αἴρειν [“to bear”] as take away, have been seen to admit it as possible, and our own to require it absolutely. It is useless, in opposition, to urge, finally, that αἴρειν [“to bear”] is the translation of נָשָׂא [“to bear”], and that therefore it must mean bear, or at least to take upon Himself Not only may be opposed to this the fact that the Septuagint invariably reproduces “bear” by φέρειν [“to carry”] and the like, but that the נָשָׂא [“to bear”], particularly in its combination with פֶּשַׁע [“transgression”], has precisely the meaning of taking away sin; compare Psa 32:1. Thus the Old Testament gives our interpretation its full sanction. The second clause of the verse is externally to be taken as a leading proposition; for the Johannaean diction is so far Hebraizing, that it prefers the juxtaposition or co-ordination of sentences to their subordination; whence it sometimes happens that the second member of a subordinate clause is changed into a main proposition. It is precisely so here. But if we take the second hemistich as only formally independent, it is substantially to be regarded as dependent on the οἴδατε [“you perceive”]. But then what is the relation of the clause, linked with it by καί [“and”], introducing the thought of the righteousness of Jesus, to the preceding thought of His redeeming work? When we observe that the verse following is joined on to the close of this one,—as there is no sin in Jesus, there ought not to be sin in him who, for his part, belongs to Jesus,—and thus that the ἁμαρτίαςἆραι [“take away sins”] apparently comes no further into consideration, we shall obviously see in the words ἁμαρτία ἐν αὐτῷ οὐκ ἔστιν [“in him there is no sin”] the apostle’s more particular specification of the grounds of the ἁμαρτίαςἆραι [“take away sins”]. That being the case, the second hemistich only bringing out into prominence the fundamental thought of the first, this latter must be regarded as really included in the reference when we find that the following verse is formally linked only to the second clause. The concluding words of the verse thus indicate the way in which Jesus has brought to effect the ἁμαρτίαςἆραι [“take away sins”]: it is because He manifested Himself as the sinless one, and through that same manifestation communicated His sinlessness to men also. For if a mere human word or work can produce a transforming effect on him to whom it is communicated, how much more will the revelation of the righteousness of Christ be able to act transformingly on the recipients of that revelation! For the rest, ἁμαρτία ἐν αὐτῷ οὐκ ἔστιν [“in him there is no sin”] is by no means the equivalent of ἁγνόςἐστι [“he is pure”] in 1Jn 3:3 : the latter marks especially the internal habitus of the character, on the ground of which sinning is impossible; the former refers rather to the expressions of that internal quality.
