1 John 1
WestcottIntroduction to the First Epistle
INTRODUCTION
TO THE FIRST EPISTLE.
I. TEXT.
THE text of the Epistle is contained in the following authorities:
Authorities in which the Epistle is contained.
- GREEK MSS.
(a) Primary uncials:
N, Cod. Sin. sæc. IV.
A, Cod. Alex. sæc. V.
B, Cod. Vatic. sæc. IV.
C, Cod. Ephr. sæc. V. from i. I—iv. 2 ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ.
Secondary uncials:
K, Cod. Mosq. sæc. IX.
L, Cod. Angel. sæc. IX.
P, Cod. Porphyr. sæc. IX.
(β) Cursives. More than two hundred in number, including 13 (Cod. Colbert. sæc. XI. = 33 Gosp.), and 31 (Cod. Leicestr. sæc. XIV. = 69 Gosp.).
D, Codex Bezæ, sæc. VI., has lost 67 leaves after Mark XVI. 15 (Gk.), in which there can be no doubt that the Epistle was contained, for after this gap follows the Latin translation of 3 John 11—15. The Book of the Acts comes immediately afterwards.
- VERSIONS.
(a) Latin. Old Latin.
A large and important fragment, iii. 8—end, has been published by L. Ziegler (1876) from a Munich MS. (cent. VII.), which gives an African text closely akin to that of Fulgentius (quoted as F or Fris.).
xviii
TEXT.
A nearly complete text of a different (Italic?) type has been preserved by Augustine in his Expository discourses on the Epistle (i. 1—v. 12). Many other fragments are preserved in quotations.
Vulgate Latin (V. lat. vg and vg).
(β) Syriac.
Peshito (syr. vg).
Harelean (syr. hl).
(γ) Egyptian.
Memphitic (Coptic) (me).
Thebaic (Sahidic) (the).
To these may be added the Armenian and the Æthiopic¹.
The text does not present many difficult problems (ii. 20; iv. 3; v. 10). It was exposed to far fewer disturbing influences than that of the Gospels. There were no parallel texts or parallel traditions at hand (unless probably in iv. 3) to supply additions to the original words, or modifications of their form. The utmost amount of variation likely to find favour with critics of the most opposite schools is practically of very small extent, and, though no variation is without real significance, of comparatively small moment.
In the following table I have set down all the changes from the text of Stephens (1550) which I have adopted generally in accordance with the clear balance of the most ancient authority. The reader will be able to judge of their importance.
i. 3 add καὶ ὑμῖν, also to you (☒ABC).
4 γρ. ἡμεῖς, write ice (☒A*B), for γρ. ὑμῖν, we write to you.
ἡ χ. ἡμῶν, our joy (☒B), for ἡ χ. ὑμῶν (AC), your joy (doubtful).
5 ἔστιν αὕτη (☒BC), for αὕτη ἐστίν (A).
ὠγγελία, message (☒AB), for ἐπαγγελία (C), promise.
¹ I have given below the text a fairly complete view of the readings of the primary uncials and of the most ancient versions, but this limited summary, though it shews clearly the sources of the later texts, cannot supersede the study of a full apparatus critical.
TEXT.
xix οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν αὐτῷ (B), for ἐν αὐτῷ οὐκ ἔστιν (NAC).
7 Ἰησοῦ, Jesus (NBC), omit Χριστοῦ, Christ.
ii. 4 add ὅτι᾽ ἔγνωκα (NAB).
6 om. οὕτω᾽ περιπ. (AB) to walk, for so to walk.
7 ἀγαπητοί, Beloved (NABC), for ἀδελφοί, Brethren.
om. ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς (2°) (NABC), ye heard, for ye heard from the beginning.
13 ἔγραψα, I wrote (NABC), for γράφω, I write.
18 om. ὁ᾽ ἀντίχριστος (N*BC).
19 ἐξ ἡμῶν ἦσαν (BC), for ἦσαν ἐξ ἡμῶν.
20 οἴδατε πάντες (B), ye all know, for καὶ οἴδατε πάντα, and ye know all things (doubtful).
23 add ὁ ὁμολογῶν τὸν υἱὸν καὶ τὸν πατέρα ἔχει (NABC), he that confesseth the Son hath the Father also.
24 om. οὖν (NABC), therefore.
27 μένει ἐν ὑμῖν (N(A)BC), for ἐν ὑμῖν μένει.
τὸ αὐτοῦ χρίσμα ((N)BC), his unction, for τὸ αὐτὸ χρ. the same unction.
μένετε ((N)ABC), abide, for μενεῖτε, ye shall abide.
28 ἐάν (NABC), if he shall, for ὅταν, when he shall.
σχῶμεν (N*ABC), for ἔχωμεν.
ii. 1 add καὶ ἐσμέν (NABC), and such we are.
2 om. δέ (NABC), but.
5 om. ἡμῶν (AB), sins, for our sins.
13 om. μου (NABC), brethren, for my brethren.
14 om. τὸν ἀδελφόν (NAB), he that loveth not, for he that loveth not his brother.
16 θεῖναι (NABC) for τιθέναι.
18 om. μου (NABC), little children, for my little children.
add τῇ᾽ γλώσσῃ (ABC).
add ἐν᾽ ἔργῳ (NABC).
19 ἐν τούτῳ γνωσόμεθα (om. καὶ AB, γνωσόμεθα NABC), in this we shall perceive, for and in this we perceive.
τὴν καρδίαν (A*B), our heart, for τὰς κ. our hearts.
xx
TEXT.
21 om. (\hat{\eta}\mu \hat{\omega}\nu) (twice) (1. AB, 2. BC). 22 (\hat{a}\pi^{\prime}a\hat{v}\tau \omega (\mathbb{A}\mathbb{A}\mathbb{B}\mathbb{C})) for (\pi \alpha \rho^{\prime}a\hat{v}\tau \omega)
iv. 3 om. Χριστὸν ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθότα (AB), Christ come in flesh.
10 (\hat{\eta}\gamma \alpha \pi \eta \kappa \alpha \mu \varepsilon \nu) (B), have loved, for (\hat{\eta}\gamma \alpha \pi \eta \sigma \alpha \mu \varepsilon \nu), love (doubtful). 12 (\hat{\nu}\hat{\nu}\hat{\eta}\hat{\mu}\hat{\nu}\hat{\nu}\hat{\sigma}\hat{\tau}\hat{\nu}) (B) for (\hat{\sigma}\hat{\sigma}\hat{\tau}\hat{\nu}\hat{\nu}\hat{\eta}\hat{\mu}\hat{\nu}) 15 add Xpuro (B), Christ (doubtful). 16 add (\mu \acute{\varepsilon}\nu \epsilon (\mathbb{A}\mathbb{B})) , God abideth (doubtful). 19 om. (\alpha \hat{\nu}\tau \hat{\nu} \nu) (AB), we love, for we love him. 20 ou (B) for (\pi \tilde{\omega} s) cannot love, for how can he love?
v. 1 om. καὶ (B), also.
2 (\pi \omega \hat{\omega}\mu \varepsilon \nu) (B), do, for (\tau \eta \rho \hat{\omega}\mu \varepsilon \nu), observe. 5 (\tau \dot{\iota}\varsigma \dot{\varepsilon}\sigma \tau \nu \delta \dot{\varepsilon} (B)) , but who is? for who is? (doubtful). 6 om. (\hat{\sigma}) (AB), Jesus Christ, for Jesus the Christ. add (\hat{\nu}^{\prime}\tau \hat{\varphi}\alpha \hat{\mu}) and in the blood, for and the blood.
6, 7 om. ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ…ἐν τῇ γῇ (κAB), in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth.
9 ὅτι (κAB), that, for ἦν, which.
10 αὐτῷ or αὐτῷ for ἑαυτῷ.
11 ὁ θεὸς ἡμῖν (B), for ἡμῖν ὁ θεός.
13 ἵνα…αἰώνιον, τοῖς πιστ…θεοῦ (κ*B) for τοῖς πιστ…θεοῦ, ἵνα αἰώνιον, that ye may know that ye have eternal life, even unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God, for unto you…God, that ye may…life.
om. καὶ ἵνα πιστ. εἰς τὸ ὄν. τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ (κAB), and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.
15 ἢ ἐάν for ὁ ἄν.
ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ (κB) for παρ’ αὐτοῦ.
18 τηρεῖ αὐτόν (A*B), keepeth him, for τηρεῖ ἑαυτόν, keepeth himself.
20 γινώσκομεν (κAB) for γινώσκωμεν.
om. ἡ (κAB).
21 ἑαυτὰ (κ*B) for ἑαυτούς.
om. Ἀμήν (κAB).
TEXT.
xxi
To these may be added a few variations which are more or less probable:
ii. 2 μόνων (B) for μόνον.
10 οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν αὐτῷ (order) (RAC).
25 ὑμῖν (B) for ἡμῖν.
29 add καὶ πᾶς (RAC).
iii. 7 παιδία (AC) τεκνία.
23 πιστεύωμεν (RAC) for πιστεύσωμεν.
iv. 2 ἐληλυθέναι (B) for ἐληλυθότα.
3 λύει for μὴ ὁμολογεῖ.
v. 6 μόνῳ (B) for μόνον.
In v. 10 it may be questioned whether ὁ μὴ πιστεύων should not stand absolutely, τῷ θεῷ and τῷ υἱῷ being two attempts to define the sense.
It will be seen that there is in the majority of cases a clear preponderance if not a complete agreement of the most ancient Greek MSS. for the reading adopted. The mass of later Greek MSS. give in most cases the reading which is rejected, but not unfrequently they are fairly divided between the rival readings (e.g. ii. 4, 7, 13, 23, 24; iii. 1, 13, 16, &c.). The reading of the most ancient Greek MSS. is generally supported by important representatives of the early versions and by some later MSS. But in a very few cases a reading is taken on small ancient authority alone which would be inadequate if the reading were considered by itself (iv. 10, 15; v. 5).
But not to enter now into the details of evidence it will be obvious upon a consideration of the contexts that the most ancient reading gives in very many cases that shade of colouring to the passage which at once approves itself to be original (e.g. i. 7; ii. 7, 19, 27; iii. 1, 2, 5, 14; iv. 3, 19; v. 6, 18). In other cases the most ancient reading easily explains the origin of the recent reading while the converse change is unintelligible (e.g. ii. 23; v. 13; see also i. 4, 5; ii. 4, 13, 18, 20, 24, 27, 28; iii. 13, 18; v. 2, 9). In
Superiority of the most ancient text.
xxii
TEXT.
one place only (iv. 20) does the reading of the more recent type of Greek MSS. appear at first sight to be intrinsically more likely.
The variants offer good examples of conflate readings (ii. 15 τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ πατρός; comp. 3 John 12 ὑπὸ αὐτῆς τῆς ἐκκλησίας καὶ τῆς ἀληθείας); of omissions by homesteleuton (ii. 27 f.; iv. 6, 21; v. 2 f.; and especially ii. 23); of the addition and omission of the final N, represented by a line over the vowel (ii. 13, 14): of itacism (iv. 2).
The text of B is, as elsewhere, of paramount excellence. It appears to be in error in very few cases:
i. 2 + δ’ ἑωράκαμεν.
ii. 14 τὸ ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς.
25 ὑμῖν, comp. iii. 1.
27 χάρισμα.
iii. 21 ἔχει.
Some of the readings which it gives are more or less doubtful:
ii. 2 μόνον. Comp. v. 6.
14 om. τοῦ θεοῦ.
24 om. ἐν before τῷ πατρί.
27 ἀλλὰ for ἀλλ’ ὡς.
29 om. καί.
iii. 15 ἑαυτοῦ for αὐτοῦ.
23 πιστεύσωμεν.
iv. 2 ἐληλυθέναι.
10 ἠγαπήκαμεν.
15 add Χριστός.
v. 5 τίς ἐστιν δέ.
6 μόνῳ. Comp. ii. 2.
It is not, as far as I can judge, ever in error (unless in iii. 7) when it is supported by some other primary uncial or version:
i. 5 οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν αὐτῷ B 13 31 syr. vg me the.
ii. 6 om. οὗτος AB syr. vg latt the.
20 om. καί (2°) B the.
πάντες SB the.
TEXT.
xxiii iii. 5 om. ἡμῶν AB 13 lat. vg syr. hl me.
19 om. καί (1°) AB lat. vg syr. hl me. τὴν καρδίαν A*B syr. vg the.
21 om. ἡμῶν (1°) AB 13. om. ἡμῶν (2°) BC.
iv. 3 om. Χρ. ἐν σ. ἐλ. AB lat. vg me.
12 ἐν ἡμῖν ἐστίν ℵB.
19 om. αὐτόν AB (the).
20 οὐ δύναται ℵB syr. hl the.
v. 1 om. καί (2°) B 13 (lat. vg) the.
2 ποιῶμεν B lat. vg syr me the.
18 αὐτόν A*B.
(iv. 21 is not a case in point.)
The text of ℵ contains many errors, some of which remain un- The text of corrected, and not a few peculiar false readings:
i. 3 ὃ ἀκηκ. καὶ ἑωρ. καὶ ἀπαγγέλλ.
5 ἡ απαγγελίας corrected to ἡ ἀγάπη τῆς ἐπαγγελίας.
ii. 3 φυλαξωμεν (1ª m.).
4 om. ἐν τούτῳ. ἡ ἀλ. τοῦ θεοῦ.
8 ἀλ. καὶ ἐν.
9 μισῶν, ψευστής ἐστιν καὶ ἐν τ. σκ.
13 τὸ πονηρόν. Comp. v. 8 τὸν ἀλ.; v. 1.
24 ἀκηκόατε (twice). ἐν τῷ π. καὶ ἐκ τῷ υἱῷ.
26 ταῦτα δέ.
27 πνεῦμα (1ª m.). ἀληθής.
28 om. καὶ νῦν…αὐτῶ. ἐν τῇ παρ. ἀ. ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ.
iii. 5 οἴδαμεν.
οὐκ ἔ. ἐν αὐτῷ.
14 μεταβέβηκεν.
xxiv
TEXT.
21 ἀδελφοί.
22 αἰτώμεθα.
iv. 2 γινώσκομεν.
3 ὅτι ἀκηκ. ὅτι.
ὅμ. Ἰησοῦν κύριον. Comp. 1 Cor. xii. 3.
8 om. ὁ μὴ ἀγ…θεόν (1ª m.): om. τὸν θ. (8°).
9 ζῶμεν.
17 μεθ’ ἡμῶν ἐν ἡμῖν.
τῇ ἀγάπῃ τῆς κρ.
ἐσόμεθα.
20 om. ὅτι.
v. 1 τὸ γεγεννημένον. Comp. v. 20; ii. 13.
7 οἱ τρεῖς.
9 τὴν μαρτ. τοῦ θεοῦ (1ª m.).
10 ἐμαρτύρηκεν.
οὐκ ἐπίστευκεν.
20 τὸ ἀληθινόν (1ª m.).
In several cases it has false readings in common with A and with C respectively:
8A.
iii. 21 add ἡμῶν after καταγινώσκη.
v. 6 add καὶ πνεύματος after αἵματος.
8C.
i. 9 add ἡμῶν after ἀμαρτίας (2°).
ii. 6 add οὕτως.
iii. 5 add ἡμῶν after ἀμαρτίας.
11 ἐπαγγελία.
13 add καί.
19 add καί.
21 add ἡμῶν after καρδία.
The text of A, which represents a far more ancient type in this Epistle than in the Gospels, contains many peculiar readings, in which it has often the support of the Vulgate:
TEXT.
XXV i. 6 ἐὰν + γάρ.
7 μετ’ αὐτοῖ (some lat).
ii. 2 ἐστ. ἰλ. lat. vg.
8 σκιά.
ἐν αὐτ. ἄλ.
27 om. καί before καθὼς.
iii. 20 om. ὅτι 2°, lat. vg me the.
23 τῷ ὀν. αὐτοῦ Ἱ. Χ.
iv. 6 ἐν τούτῳ lat. vg me the.
7 add τὸν θεόν.
8 οὐ γινώσκει.
10 ἐκεῖνος for αὐτός.
15 ὁμολογῇ.
16 πιστεύομεν (lat. vg) me.
19 add οὖν lat. vg.
ὁ θεός for αὐτός lat. vg.
21 ἀπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ lat. vg.
v. 6 πνεύματι for αἵματι.
10 add τοῦ θεοῦ lat. vg me.
τῷ υἱῷ lat. vg.
οὐκ ἐπίστευσεν.
11 αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ ζ.
14 ὄνομα for θέλημα.
16 μὴ ἁμαρτ. ἀμ. μὴ πρ. θ.
20 ἀληθινὸν θεόν lat. vg me.
om. Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ lat. vg.
The peculiar readings of C have no appearance of genuineness :
The text of Cod. Eph. C.
i. 4 add in fin. ἐν ἡμῖν.
9 om. ἡμᾶς.
ii. 21 om. πᾶν.
iii. 20 κύριος (for θεός).
iv. 2 Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν.
C xxvi
TEXT.
In several places it gives a correction which was adopted widely:
i. 3 om. δέ.
5 ἐπαγγελία.
ii. 4 om. ὅτι.
iii. 14 add τὸν ἀδελφόν.
The Latin Vulgate.
The Vulgate Latin Version is for the most part very close to the early Greek text. It represents however in some cases readings which are not now noted from Greek MSS.:
ii. 1 sed et si: καὶ ἐὰν δέ (Did).
12 remittuntur (ἡ ἀφίονται).
iii. 17 qui habuerit: om. δέ.
iv. 3 qui solvit (λύει) Jesum Christum.
hic est antichristus, quod.
4 eum: αὐτόν.
16 caritati + Dei.
v. 6 Christus for τὸ πνεῦμα.
7 unum sunt for εἰς τὸ ἓν εἰσιν.
9 test. Dei + quod majus est.
15 et scimus (Ἀ*Α omit καὶ ἐάν).
Other readings are preserved in some later copies:
ii. 10 in nobis non est.
27 maneat: μενέτω.
iii. 6 + et omnis.
16 + Dei.
iv. 2 cognoscitur: γνώσκεται.
v. 16 scit: εἰδῇ.
ut roget quis: ἵνα ἐρωτήσῃ τις
17 om. οὐ.
It agrees with 8 alone in ii. 8 (+ et in ipso), and with B 31* in ii. 25 (vobis).
Some peculiarities of order may perhaps represent real variations:
i. 9 fidelis et iustus est.
ii. 5 verbum eius.
TEXT.
xxvii iv. 3 nunc iam in mundo est.
12 vidit umquam.
17 nobiscum caritas.
In three places ‘sicut est’ represents ὡς, καθ’ὡς, i. 7; iii. 3, 7.
Variations in other passages may be simply due to interpretation: i. 4 scripsimus, ii. 18 nunc autem, id. 20 sed vos, iii. 19 suademus, iv. 20 videt (2).
The peculiarities of interpretation in the following places are worthy of remark. Many of them are touched upon afterwards:
i. 3 ut…sit.
ii. 2 pro totius mundi [peccatis].
16 conc. carnis est…quæ non est.
21 non…quasi ignorantibus…sed quasi scientibus…
iii. 1 ut nominemur et simus.
10 qui non est iustus.
14 translati sumus.
v. 4 quæ vincit.
15 quas postulamus.
16 petit.
18 generatio dei (ἡ γέννησις τοῦ θεοῦ).
20 ut cognoscamus…ut simus.
But caution is necessary in constructing the Greek text which the version represents. The same words are not always rendered in the same way in like contexts. Thus παράγεται is rendered transierunt in ii. 8 and transibit (transit) (though both forms may possibly represent transiit) in ii. 17; τηρεῖν is rendered in three consecutive verses by observare, custodire, servare (ii. 3, 4, 5); φῶς is rendered by lux (i. 5, 7; ii. 9), and by lumen (ii. 7, 10); γινώσκομεν in the same connexion is translated scimus (ii. 3, 5, 18; iii. 24), cognoscimus (iii. 19; iv. 6; v. 2), and intellegimus (iv. 13).
C 2 xxviii
TITLE.
II. TITLE.
Titles in MSS.
In Cod. Vat. B and Cod. Alex. A the title is simply Ἰωάνου (-άννου) ā, Of John I. In Cod. Sin. & this is further defined Ἰ. ἐπιστολὴ ā, The first Epistle of John; and in Cod. Angelicus L (sec. IX.) it becomes ἐπιστολὴ καθολικὴ τοῦ ἁγίου ἀποστόλου Ἰ., The Catholic Epistle of the holy Apostle John; while Cod. Porphyra P (sec. IX.) gives Ἰ. τοῦ εὐαγγελιστοῦ καὶ ἀποστῶλαι ἐπιστολὴ ā, The first Epistle of John the Evangelist and Apostle.
One heading from a later MS. (per) is worth quoting: βροντῆς υἱὸς Ἰ. τάδε χριστιανοῖσιν, John, a son of thunder [saith] these things to Christians.
The title Catholic.
The Epistle is commonly spoken of as ἐπιστολὴ καθολικὴ, ‘a catholic, general, epistle.’ The meaning of the epithet is well given by Œcumenus (sec. X.). Καθολικὰ λέγονται αὗται οἷονεὶ ἐγκύκλιοι. Οὐ γὰρ ἀφωρισμένως ἔθνεὶ ἐνὶ ἢ πόλει ὡς ὁ θεῖος Παῦλος, οἷον Ῥωμαίοις ἢ Κορινθίοις, προσφωνεῖ ταύτας τὰς ἐπιστολὰς ὁ τῶν τοιούτων τοῦ κυρίου μαθητῶν θίασος, ἀλλὰ καθόλου τοῖς πιστοῖς, ἤτει Ἰουδαίοις τοῖς ἐν τῇ διασπορᾷ, ὡς καὶ ὁ Πέτρος, ἢ καὶ πᾶσι τοῖς ὑπὸ τὴν αὐτὴν πίστιν Χριστιανοῖς τελοῦσιν (Praf. ad Comm. in Ep. Jac.).
The word occurs in this connexion from the close of the second century onwards. Thus Clement of Alexandria (Strom. IV. c. 15, § 99, p. 606 P.) speaks of the letter contained in Acts xv. 23 ff. as ἡ ἐπιστολὴ ἡ καθολικὴ τῶν ἀποστόλων ἀπάντων…διακομισθεῖσα εἰς τοὺς πιστοὺς… Origen uses the epithet of the First Epistle of St Peter (cf. Euseb. H. E. VI. 25), 1 John, Jude (in the Latin translation), and of the (apocryphal) letter of Barnabas (c. Cels. I. 63). So also the word is used of letters with a general application (though specially addressed) which made no claim to canonical authority (Euseb. H. E. IV. 23; comp. v. 18).
In this sense the word was appropriately applied to the letters of James, 1 Peter, 1 John, which formed the centre of the collection of non Pauline Epistles. It was then extended to 2 Peter and Jude,
TITLE.
xxix which are perfectly general in their address; and so (less accurately) to 2, 3 John, which were taken in close connexion with 1 John.
By a singular error the group of letters was called in the later Western Church ‘canonical’ (canonicæ) in place of ‘catholic.’ Junilius (c. A. D. 550) had spoken of the letters of James, 2 Peter, Jude, 2, 3 John as added by very many to the collection of Canonical books (quæ apostolorum Canonicæ nuncupantur). Cassiodorus following shortly afterwards adopted the epithet apparently as a peculiar title of the whole group (de inst. div. Litt. 8), though he extends it also to the whole collection of apostolic epistles. From him it passed into common use in this limited sense (comp. Decr. Gelus. § 6 vv. ll. Hist. of N. T. Canon, p. 572).
III. FORM.
In catalogues of the Books of the New Testament the writing is always called a ’letter,’ but the question arises In what sense can it be so called? It has no address, no subscription; no name is contained in it of person or place: there is no direct trace of the author, no indication of any special destination. In these respects it is distinguished from the Epistle of St James and from the Epistles to the Ephesians and to the Hebrews, which come nearest to it. The Epistle of St James ends abruptly, but it has a formal salutation. The Epistle to the Ephesians has a salutation, though it is probable that in different copies the names of different churches were inserted, and it has a formal close: the Epistle to the Hebrews has a formal close with several personal details. The writing of St John is destitute of all that is local or special.
But while this is so, the writing is at the same time instinct from first to last with intense personal feeling. The author is not dealing with abstractions but with life and living men. He is bound to them and they to him: the crown of his joy and their joy is the fulness of their faith (i. 4). He appeals to them as
XXX
FORM.
one who is acquainted both with their position and with their history (ii. 12 ff.).
He speaks in teaching and in counsel with the directness of personal experience (i. 1 ff.). He has a clear view of the dangers and of the strength of those whom he addresses (ii. 12 ff.; 7, 22, 27; iii. 2, 13 f.; iv. 1, 4 ff.; v. 13, 18 ff.). But all individual relationship and sympathy is seen in the light of a fellowship spiritual and eternal to which it is contributory.
A Pastoral.
Thus perhaps we can best look at the writing not as a Letter called out by any particular circumstances, but as a Pastoral addressed to those who had been carefully trained and had lived long in the Faith; and, more particularly, to those who were familiar either with the teaching contained in the Fourth Gospel or with the record itself. The substance of the Gospel is a commentary on the Epistle: the Epistle is (so to speak) the condensed moral and practical application of the Gospel.
IV. AUTHORSHIP, DATE, PLACE OF WRITING.
The authorship inseparable from that of the Gospel.
The question of the authorship of the Epistle cannot be discussed as an isolated question. The writing is so closely connected with the Fourth Gospel in vocabulary, style, thought, scope, that these two books cannot but be regarded as works of the same author (see § viii)¹. The proofs which are given elsewhere to establish the fact that the Fourth Gospel was written by the Apostle St John extend to the Epistle also. Every paragraph of the Epistle reveals to the student its underlying dependence upon the record preserved in the Gospel. The teaching which it conveys is in every part the outcome of the life which is quickened by the Evangelist’s witness to Christ. It is not that the author of the
¹ The arguments which have been alleged to support the opinion that the Books were by different authors, do not seem to me to need serious examination. They could not be urged if the books were not detached from life and criticised without regard to their main characteristics. Huther has examined them in detail. Eud. § 3.
AUTHORSHIP, DATE, PLACE OF WRITING.
xxxi
Epistle directly uses the materials contained in the Gospel: he has found in them his starting-point and his inspiration, but at once he goes on to deal independently with problems which are before him.
A single illustration will suffice to shew the general relations of the two Books. Let any one compare the Introduction to the Gospel (John i. 1—18) with the Introduction to the Epistle (1 John i. 1—4), and it will be seen how the same mind deals with the same ideas in different connexions. No theory of conscious imitation can reasonably explain the subtle coincidences and differences in these two short crucial passages. And here a close comparison can be fairly made, because the Evangelist writes in this case not as a narrator of the Lord’s words, but in his own person¹.
It may be added that the writer of the Epistle speaks throughout with the authority of an apostle. He claims naturally and simply an immediate knowledge of the fundamental facts of the Gospel (i. 1; iv. 14), and that special knowledge which was possessed only by the most intimate disciples of the Lord (i. 1 ἐψηλαφήσαμεν).
But while the two writings are thus closely connected, there is no sufficient evidence to determine the relative dates of the Epistle and of the Gospel as written. The difference in the treatment of common topics and in the use of common language leads to no certain conclusion. Such variations are sufficiently accounted for by the different nature of the two writings; and there is every reason to believe that the Fourth Gospel was shaped by the Apostle in oral teaching long before it was published or committed to writing. It can only be said with confidence that the Epistle presupposes in those for whom it was composed a familiar acquaintance with the characteristic truths which are preserved for us in the Gospel.
The conclusion as to the authorship of the Epistle which is obtained from internal evidence is supported by external evidence
The connexion between the two one of life not of external dependence.
The relative dates of the two Books uncertain.
External evidence.
¹ Compare also i. 3 f., v. 13 with John xx. 31. See § ix.
xxxii
AUTHORSHIP, DATE, PLACE OF WRITING.
Probably written late and at Ephesus.
as strong as the circumstances allow us to expect. It was used by Papias (Euseb. H. E. III. 39), by Polycarp (ad Phil. c. 7), and by Irenæus, the disciple of Polycarp (III. 16, 18). It is mentioned in the Muratorian fragment ‘as received in the Catholic Church,’ according to the more probable rendering, or as ‘reckoned among the Catholic Epistles’. It was included in the oldest Versions of the East (Syriae) and West (Latin). It was quoted by the earliest fathers of Africa and Alexandria, whose writings have been preserved, Tertullian and Clement; and till recent times was ‘universally acknowledged’ (Euseb. H. E. III. 25; Hieron. de vier. ill. 9).
There is no direct evidence to shew, when and where it was written. The circumstances of the Christian Society point clearly to a late date, and this may be fixed with reasonable likelihood in the last decade of the first century. The later years of St John were spent at Ephesus; and, in the absence of any other indication, it is natural to suppose that it was written there.
The specific form of false teaching which is directly condemned in the Epistle (iv. 3) suggests the same conclusion. Cerinthus, who is known to have maintained it, taught in Asia Minor at the end of the first century, and is placed by tradition in immediate connexion with St John (comp. § vi).
V. DESTINATION.
Addressed to a circle of Asiatic Churches.
This being so, it seems to follow that the writing was addressed primarily to the circle of Asiatic Churches, of which Ephesus was the centre. Universal tradition and such direct evidence as there is from Asiatic writings alike confirm this view. Nor is there any evidence against it, for the strange statement which gained currency through Augustine (Quæst. Evang. II. 39) that the Epistle was addressed ’to the Parthians’ (epistola ad Parthos) is obviously a blunder, and is wholly unsupported by any independent authority.
¹ Superscripti Johannis duas in catholica (all. catholicis) habentur. Comp. Hist. of N. T. Canon, p. 537.
² In one Latin MS., referred to by Sabatier, the Epistle is said to bear the title, Epistola ad Sparthos. This
CHARACTER.
xxxiii
VI. CHARACTER.
The exact destination of the Letter is however of no real moment. The colouring is not local but moral; and it offers a vivid picture of a Christian Society which is without parallel in the New Testament. The storm which St Paul foretold in his Pastoral Epistles (2 Tim. iii. 1; iv. 3), and in his address to the Ephesian elders (Acts xx. 29 f.), had broken over the Church. Jerusalem had been destroyed. The visible centre of the Theocracy had been removed. The Church stood out alone as the Body through which the Holy Spirit worked among men. And in correspondence with this change the typical form of trial was altered. Outward dangers were overcome. The world was indeed perilous; but it was rather by its seductions than by its hostility. There is no trace of any recent or impending persecution. Now the main temptations are from within. Perhaps a period of tranquillity gave occasion for internal dissensions as well as for internal development.
Two general characteristics of the Epistle are due to this change in the position of the Church. On the one side the missionary work of the Society no longer occupies a first place in the Apostle’s thoughts; and on the other, the topics of debate are changed.
At first sight there is something almost unintelligible in the tone in which St John speaks of ’the world.’ He regards it without wonder and without sorrow. For him ’love’ is identical with ’love of the brethren.’ The difficulty however disappears when his has led to the conjecture that it was originally epistola ad Sparsos (comp. 1 Pet. i. 1). It is however more probable that the title is a corruption of πρὸς παρθένους. In a fragment of the Latin translation of the Outlines of Clement of Alexandria, it is said: secunda Johannis epistola quæ ad virgines scripta simplicissima est (p. 1010 P.); and a late cursive MS. (62) has for the subscription of the second Epistle, Ἱ. β πρὸς Πάρθους. This title may easily have been extended to the first Epistle, and then misinterpreted. So Cassiodorus extends the title ad Parthos to the Epistles of St John generally: Epistolæ Petri ad gentes …Johannis ad Parthos (de instit. div. litt. xiv.). Bede’s statement that ‘Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria,’ was ‘among the many ecclesiastical writers who affirm that it was written to the Parthians’ (Prol. super vii. Canon. Epp.), cannot be accepted without corroborative evidence.
The Book answers to a new age of the Church.
The world overcome.
xxxiv
CHARACTER.
point of sight is realised. According to his view, which answers to the eternal order of things, the world exists indeed, but more as a semblance than as a reality. It is overcome finally and for ever. It is on the point of vanishing. This outward consummation is in God’s hands. And over against ’the world’ there is the Church, the organised Christian society, the depository of the Truth and the witness for the Truth. By this therefore all that need be done to proclaim the Gospel to those without is done naturally and effectively in virtue of its very existence. It must overcome the darkness by shining. There is therefore no need for eager exhortation to spread the word. St Paul wrote while the conflict was undecided. St John has seen its close.
The Jewish controversy closed.
This paramount office of the Church to witness to and to embody the Truth, concentrated attention upon the central idea of its message in itself and not in its relation to other systems. The first controversies which fill the history of the Acts and St Paul’s Epistles are over. There is no trace of any conflict between advocates of the Law and of the Gospel, between champions of works and faith. The difference of Jew and Gentile, and the question of circumcision, have no place in the composition. The names themselves do not occur (yet see 3 John 7). There is nothing even to shew to which body the readers originally belonged, for v. 21 cannot be confined to a literal interpretation. The main questions of debate are gathered round the Person and Work of the Lord. On the one side He was represented as a mere man (Ebionism): on the other side He was represented as a mere phantom (Docetism): a third party endeavoured to combine these two opinions, and supposed that the divine element, Christ, was united with the man Jesus at His Baptism and left Him before the Passion (Cerinthianism).
The main question that of the Person of Christ.
The Epistle gives no evidence that St John had to contend with Ebionistic error. The false teaching with which he deals is Docetic and specifically Cerinthian. In respect of the Docetic heresy generally Jerome’s words are striking: apostolic adhuc in saculo superstitibus, adhuc apud Judaeum Christi sanguine recenti, phantasma
CHARACTER.
XXXV
Domini corpus asserebatur (Dial. adv. Lucifer. § 23). Ignatius writes against it in urgent language :
Ad Trall. 9, 10, Κωφώθητε οὖν ὅταν ὑμῖν χωρὶς Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ λαλῇ τις, τοῦ ἐκ γένους Δαυίδ, τοῦ ἐκ Μαρίας, ὃς ἀληθῶς ἐγεννήθη, ἔφαγέν τε καὶ ἔπιεν, ἀληθῶς ἐδιώχθη ἐπὶ Ποντίου Πιλάτου, ἀληθῶς ἐσταυρώθη καὶ ἀπέθανεν…ὃς καὶ ἀληθῶς ἠγέρθη ἀπὸ νεκρῶν…Εἰ δέ, ὥσπερ τινὲς ἄθεοι ὄντες…λέγουσιν τὸ δοκεῖν πεπονθέναι αὐτὸν αὐτοὶ τὸ δοκεῖν ὄντες, ἐγὼ τί δέδευαι ;
Ad Smyrn. 2, ἀληθῶς ἔπαθεν ὡς καὶ ἀληθῶς ἀνέστησεν ἑαυτόν· οὐχ ὥσπερ ἄπιστοί τινες λέγουσιν τὸ δοκεῖν αὐτὸν πεπονθέναι, αὐτοὶ τὸ δοκεῖν ὄντες. Comp. cc. 1, 5, 12.
Ad Ephes. 7, εἷς ἰατρός ἐστιν, σαρκικός τε καὶ πνευματικός, γεννητὸς καὶ ἀγέννητος, ἐν σαρκὶ γενόμενος θεός, ἐν θανάτῳ ζωὴ ἀληθινή, καὶ ἐκ Μαρίας καὶ ἐκ θεοῦ πρῶτον παθητὸς καὶ τότε ἀπαθής. Comp. c. 18.
So also Polycarp :
Ad Phil. c. 7, πᾶς γὰρ ὃς ἂν μὴ ὁμολογῇ Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθέναι ἀντίχριστός ἐστι· καὶ ὃς ἂν μὴ ὁμολογῇ τὸ μαρτύριον τοῦ σταυροῦ ἐκ τοῦ διαβόλου ἐστι¹.
Irenæus characterises in particular the opinions of Cerinthus Cerinthianism. very clearly : [Cerinthus] Jesum subjicit non ex Virgine natum, impossibile enim hoc ei visum est ; fuisse autem eum Joseph et Mariæ filium…et plus potuisse justitia et prudentia et sapientia præ omnibus, et post baptismum descendisse in eum Christum ab ea principalitate quæ est super omnia…in fine autem revolasse iterum Christum de Jesu, et Jesum passum esse et resurrexisse : Christum autem impassibilem perseverasse existentem spiritalem².
In the presence of these false views St John unfolds the Truth, Against this false
¹ The so-called ‘Gospel according to Peter’ is said to have favoured their views (Serapion, ap. Euseb. H. E. VI. 12).
² Iren. adv. haer. I. 26. 1. Comp. Epiph. Haer. XXVIII. 1. For the story of St John’s refusal to be under the same roof with Cerinthus, see Iren. ap. Euseb. H. E. IV. 14 (Iren. adv. haer. III. 3. 4, on the authority of Polycarp). It is strange that either
St John or Cerinthus should have visited the baths at Ephesus. This difficulty however was not felt by Irenæus. The Christology of Nestorianism pressed to its logical consequences is not distinguishable, as it appears, from that of Cerinthus. The more extreme Docetæ regarded the manifestation of the Lord as being in appearance only (φαντασία), like the Theophanies in the Old Testament.
xxxvi
CHARACTER.
teaching St John prevalent again the tropical not in the form of argument but of announcement. He declares that Jesus Christ has come (iv. 2), and is coming (2 Ep. 7) in the flesh (comp. v. 6). He shews that the denial of the Incarnate Son is practically the denial of the Father, the denial of God (ii. 22; v. 20). It is the rejection of that power by which alone true life is possible through a divine fellowship (i. 2 f.).
as the old Truth.
But in insisting on these truths St John disclaims all appearance of bringing forward new points. His readers know implicitly all that he can tell them. He simply pleads that they should yield themselves to the guidance of the Spirit which they had received. So they would realise what in fact they already possessed (ii. 7, 24; iii. 11). Perhaps it may be inferred from the stress which St John lays on the identity of the original word with the teaching which he represented, that some had ventured to charge him also with innovation. Such an accusation would have superficial plausibility; and the Epistle deals with it conclusively either by anticipation or in view of actual opponents.
The latter specially applicable at present from its circumstances, and
Thus this latest of the Epistles is a voice from the midst of the Christian Church revealed at last in its independence. Many who read it had, in all probability, grown up as Christians. A Christianity of habit was now possible. The spiritual circumstances of those to whom it was first sent are like our own. The words need no accommodation to make them bear directly upon ourselves.
from its teaching.
And while the Christological errors which St John meets exist more or less at all times, they seem to have gained a dangerous prevalence now. Modern realism, which has found an ally in art, by striving to give distinctness to the actual outward features of the Lord’s Life, seems to tend more and more to an Ebonitic Christology. Modern idealism, on the other hand, which aims at securing the pure spiritual conception free from all associations of time and place, is a new Docetism. Nor would it be hard to shew that popular Christology is largely though unconsciously affected by Corinthian tendencies. The separation of Jesus, the Son of Man, from Christ, the Son of God, is constantly made to the destruction of the One, indivisible Person of our Lord and Saviour. We have
CHARACTER.
xxxvii indeed no power to follow such revelations of Scripture into supposed consequences, but our strength is to hold with absolute firmness the apostolic words as St John has delivered them to us.
The teaching of St John in his Epistle thus turns upon the Person of Christ. Under this aspect it is important to observe that it is intensely practical. St John everywhere presents moral ideas resting upon facts and realised in life. The foundation on which conviction is based is historical experience (i. 1 ff.; iv. 14). This, as furnishing the materials for that knowledge which St John’s readers had ‘heard from the beginning,’ is set over against mere speculation (ii. 24). Truth is never stated in a speculative form, but as a motive and a help for action. The writer does not set before his readers propositions about Christ, but the Living Christ Himself for present fellowship. And yet while this is so, the Epistle contains scarcely anything in detail of Christ’s Life. He came in the flesh, ‘by water and blood;’ the Life was manifested; He walked as we are bound to walk. He laid down His Life for us; He is to be manifested yet again; this is all. There is no mention of the Cross or of the Resurrection. But Christ having died lives as our Advocate. (Compare Addit. Note on v. 6.)
The facts of the Gospel the basis and motive for action.
The apprehension of the historical manifestation of the Life of Christ is thus pressed as the prevailing and sufficient motive for godlike conduct; and at the same time mere right opinion, apart from conduct, is exposed in its nothingness. Simply to say, ‘we have fellowship with God,’ ‘we are in the light,’ we ‘know God,’ is shewn to be delusion if the corresponding action is wanting (i. 6, ii. 9, 4).
Intellectual assent in itself insufficient.
The Epistle, as has been already said, comes from the midst of the Christian Church to the members of the Church. It is the voice of an unquestioned teacher to disciples who are assumed to be anxious to fulfil their calling. In virtue of the circumstances of its composition it takes the widest range in the survey of the Gospel, and completes and harmonises the earlier forms of apostolic teaching. St John’s doctrine of ’love’ reconciles the complementary doctrines of ‘faith’ and ‘works.’ His view of the primal revelation ’that
Wide range of the Epistle.
xxxviii
CHARACTER.
which was from the beginning…concerning the word of life,’ places Judaism in its true position as part of the discipline of the world, and vindicates for Christianity its claim to universality. His doctrine of ‘Jesus Christ come in flesh’ affirms at once the historical and the transcendental aspects of His Person. His exhibition of a present divine fellowship for man, issuing in a future transfiguration of man to the divine likeness, offers a view of life able to meet human weakness and human aspiration.
Silence as to Old Testament and ecclesiastical organisation.
Two other peculiarities of the Epistle seem to be due to the same causes which determined this catholicity of teaching. Alone of all the writings of the New Testament except the two shorter letters and the Epistle to Philemon, it contains no quotations or clear reminiscences of the language of the Old Testament (yet see iii. 12). And again, while the Christian Society is everywhere contemplated in its definite spiritual completeness, nothing is said on any detail of ritual or organisation.
VII. OBJECT.
The object of the Epistle (as of the Gospel) positive.
The object of the Epistle corresponds with its character. It is presented under a twofold form:
(i) i. 3, f. ὁ ἐωράκαμεν καὶ ἀκηκόαμεν ἀπαγγέλλομεν καὶ ὑμῖν, ἵνα καὶ ὑμεῖς κοινωνίαν ἔχητε μεθ’ ἡμῶν, καὶ ἡ κοινωνία δὲ ἡ ἡμετέρα μετὰ τοῦ πατρός καὶ μετὰ τοῦ νέου αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ· καὶ ταῦτα γράφομεν ἡμεῖς ἵνα ἡ χαρὰ ἡμῶν (v. ὑμῶν) ᾖ πεπληρωμένη.
That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you also, that ye also may have fellowship with us: yea, and our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ: and these things we write, that our joy may be fulfilled.
(ii) v. 13 ταῦτα ἔγραψα ὑμῖν ἵνα εἴδητε ὅτι ζωὴν ἔχετε αἰώνιον, τοῖς παστεύουσιν εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ νέου τοῦ θεοῦ.
These things have I written unto you, that ye may know that ye have eternal life, even unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God.
OBJECT.
xxxix
With these must be compared the account given of the object of the Gospel:
(iii) John xx. 31 ταῦτα δὲ γέγραπται ἵνα πιστεύσητε ὅτι Ἰησοῦς ἐστὶν ὁ Χριστὸς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, καὶ ἵνα πιστεύοντες ζωὴν ἔχητε ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι αὐτοῦ.
But these are written, that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye may have life in his name.
There is a complete harmony between the three. The acceptance of the revelation of Jesus—the Son of man—as the Christ, the Son of God (iii), brings the power of life (ii), and this life is fellowship with man and with God in Christ (i). Life, in other words, life eternal, is in Christ Jesus, and is realised in all its extent in union with Him: it is death to be apart from Him.
The pursuit of such a theme necessarily involves the condemnation and refutation of corresponding errors. But St John’s method is to confute the error by the exposition of the truth realised in life. His object is polemical only so far as the clear unfolding of the essence of right teaching necessarily shews all error in its real character. In other words St John writes to call out a welcome for what he knows to be the Gospel and not to overthrow this or that false opinion.
VIII. STYLE AND LANGUAGE.
The style of the Epistle bears a close resemblance to that of the Gospel both in vocabulary and structure. There is in both the same emphatic repetition of fundamental words and phrases,—’truth,’ ’love,’ ’light,’ ‘in the light,’ ‘being born of God,’ ‘being’ or ‘abiding in God’—and the same monotonous simplicity of construction.
The particles are singularly few. For example γάρ occurs only three times: ii. 19; iv. 20; v. 3 (2 John 11; 3 John 3, 7); δέ nine times (about one-third of its average frequency); μέν τε and οὖν (3 John 8) do not occur at all (the last is twice wrongly in common xl
STYLE AND LANGUAGE.
text). The absence of ὄν is the more remarkable because it is the characteristic particle of the narrative of the Gospel, where St John seems to dwell on the connexion of facts which might be overlooked; ὅτι, ’that’ and ‘because,’ is very frequent; and it is constantly found where γάρ might have been expected.
The common particle of connexion is καί. This conjunction takes its peculiar colour from the sentences which are thus added one to the other: e.g. i. 5; ii. 3; and it is used not uncommonly when a particle of logical sequence might have been expected: e.g. iii. 3, 16.
Very frequently the sentences and clauses follow one another without any particles: e.g. ii. 22—24; iv. 4—6; 7—10; 11—13. See also ii. 5, 6; 9, 10; iii. 2; 4, 5; 9, 10.
Sometimes they are brought into an impressive parallelism by the repetition of a clause:
i. 6, 8, 10 (ἐὰν εἴπωμεν).
v. 18—20 (οἴδαμεν).
St John develops his ideas by parallelism.
These different usages are different adaptations of St John’s characteristic principle of composition: he explains and develops his ideas by parallelism or (which answers to the same tone of thought) by antagonism.
It is not of course maintained that this method of writing is the result of studied choice. It is, as far as we may presume to judge, the spontaneous expression of the Apostle’s vision of the Truth, opening out in its fulness before the eye of the believer, complete in its own majesty, requiring to be described and not to be drawn out by processes of reasoning.
In this respect and generally it will be felt that the writing is thoroughly Hebraistic in tone, and yet it does not contain one quotation or verbal reminiscence from the Old Testament.
Characteristic words.
Of significant verbal coincidences of language between the Epistles and Gospel the following may be noticed. The words are either exceptionally frequent in these writings or peculiar to them:
κύσμος (moral) (John i. 10 note).
STYLE AND LANGUAGE.
xli φῶς (1 John i. 5 note).
σκοτία (σκότος) (i. 6 note).
φανεροῦν (i. 2 note).
φαίνειν (ii. 8 note).
ἐωρακέναι (i. 1 note).
θεῶσθαι (θεωρεῖν only once in the Epistles: 1 John iii. 17 (John i. 14 note).
θάνατος (spiritual) (iii. 14 note).
ζωὴ αἰώνιος (ἡ αἰώνιος ζ., ἡ ζ. ἡ αἰ.) (Add. note on v. 20).
ἡ ἀλήθεια (i. 6 note).
ὁ ἀληθινὸς θεός (v. 20 note).
τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας (iv. 6 note).
μαρτυρεῖν, μαρτυρία (i. 2 note).
τεκνία (ii. 1 note).
παιδία (ii. 14 note).
ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός (Add. note on iv. 9).
ἀγαπᾶν ἀλλήλους, τὸν ἀδελφόν, τοὺς ἀδ. (iii. 11 note).
νικᾶν (ii. 13 note).
μένειν, εἶναι, ἐν τινι (ii. 5 note).
τὴν ψυχὴν τιθέναι (iii. 16 note).
The frequent use of ἵνα when the idea of purpose is not directly obvious; and the elliptical use of ἀλλ’ ἵνα, are both characteristic of these books (iii. 11; ii. 19 notes).
In addition to these verbal coincidences there are also larger Verbal coincidences of expression. Of these the most important are the following:
i. 2, 3 ἡ ζωὴ ἐφανερώθη καὶ ἐωράκαμεν καὶ μαρτυροῦμεν…ὁ ἐωράκαμεν καὶ ἀκηκόαμεν ἀπαγγέλλομεν καὶ ὑμῖν.
id. 4 ταῦτα γράφομεν ἡμεῖς ἵνα ἡ χαρὰ ὑμῶν ᾖ πεπληρωμένη.
w.
GOSPEL OF ST JOHN.
iii. 11 ὃ ἐωράκαμεν μαρτυροῦμεν.
xvi. 24 αἰτεῖτε καὶ λήμψεσθε ἵνα ἡ χαρὰ ὑμῶν ᾖ πεπληρωμένη.
d xlii
STYLE AND LANGUAGE.
I EPISTLE OF ST JOHN.
ii. 11 ὁ μισῶν τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ …ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ περιπατεῖ καὶ οὐκ οἶδεν ποῦ ὑπάγει.
id. 14 ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν ὑμῖν μένει.
id. 17 ὁ ποιῶν τὸ θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ μένει εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα.
iii. 5 ἁμαρτία ἐν αὐτῷ οὐκ ἔστιν.
id. 8 ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς ὁ διάβολος ἁμαρτάνει.
id. 13 μὴ θαυμάζετε, ἀδελφοί, εἰ μισεῖ ὑμᾶς ὁ κόσμος.
id. 14 οἴδαμεν ὅτι μεταβεβή- καμεν ἐκ τοῦ θανάτου εἰς τὴν ζωὴν ὅτι ἀγαπῶμεν τοὺς ἀδελφούς.
id. 16 ἐκεῖνος ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ ἔθηκεν.
id. 22 ὃ ἂν αἰτῶμεν λαμβάνομεν …ὅτι…τὰ ἀρεστὰ ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ ποιοῦμεν.
id. 23 αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ ἐντολὴ αὐτοῦ ἵνα…ἀγαπῶμεν ἀλλήλους καθὼς ἔδωκεν ἐντολὴν ἡμῖν. Comp. iv. 11.
iv. 6 ἡμεῖς ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐσμέν· ὁ γινώσκων τὸν θεὸν ἀκούει ἡμῶν, ὃς οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ (a) οὐκ ἀκούει ἡμῶν. (b)
GOSPEL OF ST JOHN.
xii. 35…
ὁ περιπατῶν ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ οὐκ οἶδεν ποῦ ὑπάγει.
v. 38 τὸν λόγον αὐτοῦ οὐκ ἔχετε μένοντα ἐν ὑμῖν.
viii. 35 ὁ υἱὸς μένει εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα.
viii. 46 τίς ἐξ ὑμῶν ἐλέγχει με περὶ ἁμαρτίας;
viii. 44 ἐκεῖνος [ὁ διάβολος] ἀνθρωποκτόνος ἦν ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς.
xv. 18 εἰ ὁ κόσμος ὑμᾶς μισεῖ γινώ- σκετε ὅτι ἐμὲ πρῶτον ὑμῶν μεμί- σηκεν.
v. 24 ὁ τὸν λόγον μου ἀκούων… μεταβέβηκεν ἐκ τοῦ θανάτου eis τὴν ζωήν.
x. 15 τὴν ψυχὴν μου τίθημι ὑπὲρ tῶν προβάτων.
viii. 29 οὐκ ἀφῆκέν με μόνον ὅτι ἐγὼ τὰ ἀρεστὰ αὐτῷ ποιῶ πάντοτε.
xiii. 34 ἐντολὴν καινὴν δίδωμι ὑμῖν ἵνα ἀγαπᾶτε ἀλλήλους καθὼς ἠγάπησα ὑμᾶς ἵνα…
viii. 47 ὁ ὢν ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ τὰ ῥήματα τοῦ θεοῦ ἀκούει· ὑμεῖς οὐκ ἀκούετε (b) ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ οὐκ ἐστε (a)
STYLE AND LANGUAGE.
xliii
I EPISTLE OF ST JOHN.
iv. 15 ὃς ἐὰν ὁμολογήσῃ ὅτι Ἰησοῦς [Χριστός] ἐστιν ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, ὁ θεὸς ἐν αὐτῷ μένει καὶ αὐτὸς ἐν τῷ θεῷ. Comp. v. 16; iii. 24.
id. 16 ἐγνώκαμεν καὶ πεπιστεύκαμεν.
id. 16 ὁ μένων ἐν τῇ ἀγάπῃ ἐν τῷ θεῷ μένει.
v. 4, f. αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ νίκη ἡ νικήσασα τὸν κόσμον, ἡ πίστις ἡμῶν.
τίς ἐστιν ὁ νικῶν τὸν κόσμον…
id. 9 ἡ μαρτυρία τοῦ θεοῦ μείζων ἐστίν, ὅτι αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ μαρτυρία τοῦ θεοῦ, ὅτι μεμαρτύρηκεν περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ.
id. 20 δέδωκεν ἡμῖν διάνοιαν ἵνα γιγνώσκομεν τὸν ἀληθινόν· καὶ ἐσμεν ἐν τῷ ἀληθινῷ, ἐν τῷ υἱῷ αὐτοῦ [Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ]. οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἀληθινὸς θεός, καὶ ζωὴ αἰώνιος.
GOSPEL OF ST JOHN.
vi. 56 ὁ τρώγων μου τὴν σάρκα καὶ πίνων μου τὸ αἷμα ἐν ἐμοὶ μένει κἀγὼ ἐν αὐτῷ. Comp. xiv. 17.
vi. 69 πεπιστεύκαμεν καὶ ἐγνώκαμεν.
xv. 10 ἐὰν τὰς ἐντολάς μου τηρήσητε μενεῖτε ἐν τῇ ἀγάπῃ μου. Comp. v. 9 μείνατε ἐν τῇ ἀ. τῇ ἐμῇ.
xvi. 33 θαρσεῖτε ἐγὼ νενίκηκα τὸν κόσμον.
v. 32 ἄλλος ἐστὶν ὁ μαρτυρῶν περὶ ἐμοῦ καὶ οἶδα ὅτι ἀληθής ἐστιν ἡ μαρτυρία ἦν μαρτυρεῖ περὶ ἐμοῦ.
xvii. 3 αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ αἰώνιος ζωὴ ἵνα γινώσκωσι σὲ τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν θεὸν καὶ ὃν ἀπέστειλας Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν.
IX. THE EPISTLES AND THE GOSPEL.
The last two passages (1 John v. 20; John xvii. 3), which have been quoted, illustrate vividly the relation between the Epistles and the Gospel. Both passages contain the same fundamental ideas: Eternal life is the progressive recognition (ἵνα γινώσκωσι) of God; and the power of this growing knowledge is given in His Son Jesus Christ. But the ideas are presented differently d 2 xliv
THE EPISTLES AND THE GOSPEL.
in the two places. The Gospel gives the historic revelation; the Epistle shews the revelation as it has been apprehended in the life of the Society and of the believer.
The two complementary.
This fundamental difference can be presented in another form. In the Epistle the aim of St John is to lay open what is the significance of the spiritual truths of the Faith for present human life. In the Gospel his aim is to make clear that the true human life of the Lord is a manifestation of divine love, that ‘Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.’ Or, to put the contrast in an epigrammatic form, the theme of the Epistle is, ’the Christ is Jesus’; the theme of the Gospel is, ‘Jesus is the Christ.’ In the former the writer starts from certain acknowledged spiritual conceptions and points out that they have their foundation in history and their necessary embodiment in conduct. In the latter he shews how the works and words of Jesus of Nazareth establish that in Him the hope of Israel and the hope of humanity was fulfilled. So it is that the Gospel is a continuous record of the unfolding of the ‘glory’ of Christ. In the Epistles alone of all the books of the New Testament (except the Epistle to Philemon), the word ‘glory’ does not occur. Perhaps too it is significant that the word ‘heaven’ also is absent from them.
The differences answer to differences between a History and a Pastoral.
Several differences in detail in the topics or form of teaching in the books have been already noticed. These belong to the differences in the positions occupied by a historian and a preacher. The teaching of the Lord which St John has preserved was given, as He Himself said, ‘in proverbs’; through the experience of Christian life, the Spirit, ‘sent in His Name,’ enabled the Apostle to speak ‘plainly’ (John xvi. 25).
The Coming (παρουνία).
Some other differences still require to be noticed. These also spring from the historical circumstances of the writing. The first regards the doctrine of ’the Coming,’ ’the Presence’ (ἡ παρουνία) of Christ. In the Gospel St John does not record the eschatological discourses of the Lord—they had found their first fulfilment when he wrote—and he preserves simply the general promise of a ‘Coming’ (xiv. 3; xxi. 22). By the side of these he records the
THE EPISTLES AND THE GOSPEL.
xlv references to the ‘judgment’ (v. 28 f.), and to ’the last day’ (vi. 40, 44). In the Epistle he uses the term ’the Presence’ (ii. 28), which is found in all the groups of New Testament writings, and speaks of a future ‘manifestation’ of the Ascended Christ (l. c.: iii. 2). As He ‘came in flesh’ (iv. 2), so He is still ‘coming in flesh’ (2 John 7). And the importance of this fact is pressed in its spiritual bearing. By denying it ‘Antichrists’ displayed their real nature. They sought to substitute a doctrine for a living Saviour.
St John’s treatment of the present work of Christ stands in close connexion with this view of His future work. As the Holy Spirit is sent to believers as their Advocate on earth, so He is their Advocate with the Father in heaven (c. ii. 2). The two thoughts are complementary; and the heavenly advocacy of Christ rests upon His own promise in the Gospel (John xiv. 13 f.), though it must not be interpreted as excluding the Father’s spontaneous love (John xvi. 26 f.).
The exposition of the doctrine of ‘propitiation’ and ‘cleansing’ which is found in the Epistle (c. ii. 2; iv. 10 Ἰλασμός; i. 7, 9 καθαρίζειν) is an application of the discourse at Capernaum (see especially John vi. 51, 56 f.); and it is specially remarkable that while the thoughts of the discourse are used, nothing is taken from the language. So again the peculiar description of the spiritual endowment of believers as an ‘unction’ (χρίσμα, c. ii. 20) perfectly embodies the words in John xx. 21 ff.; the disciples are in a true sense ‘Christs’ in virtue of the Life of ’the Christ’ (John xiv. 19; comp. Apoc. i. 6). Once more, the cardinal phrase ‘born of God’ (c. ii. 29, &c.), which occurs in the introduction to the Gospel (i. 13), but not in the record of the Lord’s words, shews in another example how the original language of the Lord was shaped under the guidance of the Spirit to fullest use.
It seems scarcely necessary to remark that such differences between the Epistles and the Gospel are not only not indicative of any difference of authorship, but on the contrary furnish a strong proof that they are the products of one mind. The Epistles give later xlvi
THE EPISTLES AND THE GOSPEL.
growths of common and characteristic ideas. No imitator of the Gospel could have combined elements of likeness and unlikeness in such a manner; and on the other hand, the substance of the Gospel adequately explains the more defined teaching of the first Epistle. The one writing stands to the other in an intelligible connexion of life.
X. PLAN.
No plan can be complete.
It is extremely difficult to determine with certainty the structure of the Epistle. No single arrangement is able to take account of the complex development of thought which it offers, and of the many connexions which exist between its different parts. The following arrangement, which is followed out into detail in the notes, seems to me to give on the whole the truest and clearest view of the sequence of the exposition.
Outline followed.
INTRODUCTION.
The facts of the Gospel issuing in fellowship and joy (i. 1—4).
A. THE PROBLEM OF LIFE AND THOSE TO WHOM IT IS PROPOSED (i. 5—ii. 17).
I. The Nature of God and the consequent relation of man to God (i. 5-10). II. The remedy for Sin and the sign that it is effectual (ii. 1-6). III. Obedience in love and light in actual life (ii. 7-11). IV. Things temporal and eternal (ii. 12-17).
B. THE CONFLICT OF TRUTH AND FALSEHOOD WITHOUT AND WITHIN (ii. 18—iv. 6).
I. The revelation of Falsehood and Truth (ii. 18-29). II. The children of God and the children of the Devil (iii. 1-12). III. Brotherhood in Christ and the hatred of the world (iii. 13-24). IV. The rival spirits of Truth and Error (iv. 1-6).
PLAN.
xlvii
C. THE CHRISTIAN LIFE: THE VICTORY OF FAITH (iv. 7—v. 21).
I. The spirit of the Christian life: God and Love (iv. 7-21). II. The power of the Christian life: the Victory and Witness of Faith (v. 1-12). III. The activity and confidence of the Christian life: Epilogue (v. 13-21).
The thought of a fellowship between God and man, made possible and in part realised in the Christian Church, runs through the whole Epistle. From this it begins: Our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son, Jesus Christ (i. 3). In this it closes: We are in Him that is True, in His Son Jesus Christ (v. 20).
In the additional Notes I have endeavoured to illustrate the main points in the development of this thought. These notes when taken in proper order will serve as an introduction to the study of the doctrine of St John. For this purpose they are most conveniently grouped in the following manner:
I. THE DOCTRINE OF GOD.
The idea of God: note on iv. 8; comp. iv. 12.
The Divine Name: 3 John 7.
The Holy Trinity: v. 20.
The Divine Fatherhood: i. 2.
II. THE DOCTRINE OF FINITE BEING.
Creation: note on ii. 17.
God and man: ii. 9.
The nature of man: iii. 19.
The Devil: ii. 13.
Sin: i. 9; comp. v. 16.
The world (note on Gospel of St John i. 10).
Antichrist: ii. 18.
III. THE DOCTRINE OF REDEMPTION AND CONSUMMATION.
The Incarnation: note on iii. 5.
The titles of Christ: iii. 23; comp. iv. 9; v. 1.
Propitiation: ii. 2.
xlviii
PLAN.
The virtue of Christ’s Blood: i. 7.
Divine Sonship: iii. 1.
Divine Fellowship: iv. 15.
The titles of believers: iii. 14.
Eternal Life: v. 20.
For St John’s view of the Bases of Belief I may be allowed to refer to what I have said in regard to his teaching on ’the Truth,’ ’the Light,’ ’the Witness’ in the Introduction to the Gospel, pp. xliv. ff.
1 John 1:1
- Tertullian twice quotes the verse (omitting ὁ ἦν ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς) as if he read ὁ ἑωράκαμεν, ὁ ἀκηκόαμεν, τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς ἡμῶν ἐθεασάμεθα καὶ αἱ χεῖρες…(adv. Prax. 15, quod vidimus, quod audivimus, oculis nostris vidimus et manus…; de An. 17). Probably the transposition came from v. 3. This being adopted, the omission of ὁ before ἐθεασάμεθα became necessary. The same transposition occurs in the free quotation contained in the Muratorian Fragment, quæ vidimus oculis nostris et auribus audivimus et manus nostræ palpaverunt hæc scripsimus vobis (N. T. Canon, p. 535). In v. 3 & harl transpose conversely and read ὁ ἀκηκ. καὶ ἑωρ.
INTRODUCTION. THE FACTS OF THE GOSPEL ISSUING IN FELLOWSHIP AND JOY. (I. 1—4.)
This preface to the Epistle corresponds in a remarkable manner with the preface to the Gospel (John i. 1—18); but the two passages are complementary and not parallel. The introduction to the Gospel treats of the personal Word (ὁ λόγος), and so naturally leads up to the record of His work on earth: the introduction to the Epistle treats of the revelation of life (ὁ λόγος τῆς ζωῆς) which culminated in the Incarnation, and leads up to a view of the position and privileges and duties of the Christian. In the former the Apostle sets forth the Being of the Word in relation to God and to the world (John i. 1, 2—5), the historic manifestation of the Word generally (6—13), the Incarnation as apprehended by personal experience (14—18). In the latter he states first the various parts which are united in the fulness of the apostolic testimony (1 John i. 1); then he dwells specially on the historic manifestation of the Life (i. 2); and lastly, he points out the personal results of this manifestation (i. 3, 4). Thus there is a harmonious correspondence between the two sections regulated by the primary difference of subject. In each the main subject is described first (John i. 1, 2—5: 1 John i. 1): then the historical manifestation of it (John i. 6—13: 1 John i. 2): then its personal apprehension (John i. 14—18: 1 John i. 3 f.). Comp. Introd. § 7.
¹ That which was from the beginning, that which we have heard, that which we have seen with our eyes, that which we beheld and our hands handled, concerning the word of life—² and the life was manifested, and we have seen, and bear witness, and declare unto you the life, even the life eternal, which was with the Father and was manifested to us—³ that which we have seen and heard (I say) declare we unto you also, that you also may have fellowship with us; yea and our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ; ⁴ and these things write we that our (your) joy may be fulfilled.
St John throughout this section uses the plural (contrast ii. 1, 7, &c.) as speaking in the name of the apostolic body of which he was the last surviving representative.
1—3. That which was…that which we have seen and heard declare we… The construction of the passage is broken by the parenthesis of v. 2, which may for the moment be dismissed from consideration. The beginning of v. 3 (ὁ ἑωράκ. καὶ ἀκηκ.) thus stands out clearly as a resumption of the construction and (in part) of the words of v. 1. The relatives in the two verses (ὁ ἀκηκ., ὁ ἑωράκ.) must therefore be identical in meaning; and the simple resumptive clause gives the clue to the interpretation of the original more complex clause. Now in v. 3 there can be no doubt that the relative ὂ is strictly neuter, ’that which’: it can have no direct personal reference. The sense is perfectly simple: ’that which we have heard, we declare…’ If to such a sentence the phrase, ‘concerning the word of life’ (περὶ τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς) be added, there can still be no doubt as to the meaning. ‘The word of life’ is the subject as to which the Apostle has gained the knowledge which he desires to communicate to others: ’that which we…have heard concerning the word of life we declare…’ So far the general interpretation of the passage appears to be quite clear; nor can the addition of other clauses in v. 1 alter it. Whatever view be adopted as to the meaning of the phrase, ’the word of life,’ it can only be taken, according to the natural structure of the sentence, as the object of the various modes of regard successively enumerated. The apparent harshness of combining the clause ‘concerning the word of life’ with ’that which was from the beginning,’ and ’that which…our hands handled,’ is removed by the intervening phrases; and the preposition (περὶ) ‘concerning,’ ‘in regard to,’ is comprehensive in its application. The ordinary construction by which the clause is treated as co-ordinate with the clauses which precede: ’that which was from the beginning, that which we have heard…even concerning the word of life…we declare to you,’ seems to be made impossible (1) by the resumptive words in v. 3, (2) by the break after v. 1, (3) by the extreme abruptness of the change in the form of the object of we declare.
- The contents of this verse correspond closely with John i. 1, 9, 14 In the beginning was the Word… There was the Light, the true Light, which lighteth every man, coming into the world… And the Word became flesh… But, as has been already noticed, here the thought is of the revelation and not of the Person.
ὁ ἦν…ὁ ἀκηκ., ὁ ἑωρ., ὁ ἐθ…ἐψηλάφησαν] That which was…that which…, that which…that which…handled. These four clauses, separated by the repeated relative, which follow one another in a perfect sequence from the most abstract (ὁ ἦν ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς) to the most material aspect of divine revelation (ὁ ἐθ…αἱ χ. ἐψηλάφησαν), bring into distinct prominence the different elements of the apostolic message. Of this, part extended to the utmost limits of time, being absolutely when time began: part was gradually unfolded in the course of human history. The succession of tenses marks clearly three parts of the message: that which was (ἦν)… that which we have heard (ἀκηκόαμεν) …, that which we beheld…(ἐθεασάμεθα…). That which we understand by the eternal purpose of God (Eph. i. 4), the relation of the Father to the Son (John xvii. 5), the acceptance of man in the Beloved (Eph. i. 6), was already, and entered as a factor into the development of finite being, when the succession of life began (ἦν ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς, was from the beginning). But these truths were gra-
dually realised in the course of ages, through the teaching of patriarchs, lawgivers, and prophets, and lastly of the Son Himself, Whose words are still pregnant with instruction (ὁ ἀκηκόαμεν, which we have heard); and above all, through the Presence of Christ, the lessons of Whose Life abide unchangeable with the Church and are realised in its life (ὁ ἑωράκαμεν τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς ἡμῶν, which we have seen with our eyes). And this Presence of Christ itself, as a historic fact, was the presence of One truly man. The perfection of His manhood was attested by the direct witness of those who were sensibly convinced of it (ὁ ἐθεασάμεθα, κ.τ.λ., which we beheld and our hands handled). All the elements which may be described as the eternal, the historical, the personal, belong to the one subject, to the fulness of which they contribute, even ’the word of life.’
As there is a succession of time in the sequence of the clauses, so there is also a climax of personal experience, from that which was remotest in apprehension to that which was most immediate (that which was from the beginning…that which our hands handled).
ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς] from the beginning. Comp. c. ii. 7 note. ‘From the beginning’ is contrasted with in the beginning (John i. 1). The latter marks what was already at the initial point, looking to that which is eternal, supra-temporal: the former looks to that which starting at the initial point has been operative in time. The latter deals with absolute being (ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν); the former with temporal development. Compare ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου (Apoc. xiii. 8, xvii. 8; Heb. iv. 3, ix. 26) as contrasted with πρὸ κατ. κ. (John xvii. 24; 1 Pet. i. 20).
The absence of the definite article both here and in John i. 1 is to be traced back finally to Gen. i. 1 (Lxx.). The beginning is not regarded as a definite concrete fact, but in its character, according to man’s apprehension, ’that to which we look as beginning.’ The use of ἐσχάτη ὥρα in c. ii. 18, ἔσχαται ἡμέραι 2 Tim. iii. 1 is similar. Compare iii. 10 ποιεῖν δικ. note.
The Greek commentators justly dwell on the grandeur of the claim which St John makes for the Christian Revelation as coeval in some sense with creation: θεολογῶν ἐξηγεῖται μὴ νεώτερον εἶναι τὸ καθ’ ἡμᾶς μυστήριον, ἀλλ’ ἐξ ἀρχῆς μὲν καὶ ἀεὶ τυγχάνειν αὐτὸ νῦν δὲ πεφανερώσθαι ἐν τῷ κυρίῳ, ὃς ἔστι ζωὴ αἰώνιος καὶ θεὸς ἀληθινός (Theophlet. Argum.). And again in a note upon the verse: τοῦτο καὶ πρὸς Ἰουδαίους καὶ πρὸς Ἕλληνας οἱ ὡς νεώτερον διαβάλλουσι τὸ καθ’ ἡμᾶς μυστήριον (id. ad loc.).
The ‘hearing’ ‘concerning the word of life’ is not to be limited to the actual preaching of the Lord during His visible presence, though it includes this. It embraces the whole divine preparation for the Advent provided by the teaching of Lawgiver and Prophets (comp. Heb. i. 1) fulfilled at last by Christ. This the Apostles had ‘heard’ faithfully when the Jewish people had not heard (John v. 37; Luke xvi. 29). So also the ‘seeing,’ as it appears, reaches beyond the personal vision of the Lord. The condition of Jew and Gentile, the civil and religious institutions by which St John was surrounded (Acts xvii. 28), the effects which the Gospel wrought, revealed to the eye of the Apostle something of ’the Life.’ ‘Hearing’ and ‘seeing’ are combined in the work of the seer: Apoc. xxii. 8.
The clear reference to the Risen Christ in the word ‘handled,’ makes it probable that the special manifestation indicated by the two aorists (ἐθεασάμεθα, ἐψηλάφησαν) is that given to the Apostles by the Lord after the Resurrection, which is in fact the revelation of Himself as He remains with His Church by the Spirit. The
two words are united with one relative, and they express in ascending order the ground of the Apostle’s personal belief in the reality of the true humanity of Christ as He is (we beheld…and handled).
Thus there is a survey of the whole course of revelation in the four clauses, more complete than has been already indicated. The personal experience of the Presence of Christ is crowned by the witness to the Risen Christ. This witness of what he had actually experienced is part of the message which the Apostle had to give (comp. Acts i. 22). The Resurrection was the final revelation of life. At the same time the four clauses bind together inseparably the divine and human. There is, as we have seen, but one subject whether this is revealed as eternal (that which was from the beginning), or through the experience of sense (that which our hands handled).
ἀκηκόαμεν] have heard, xx. 3, 5, iv. 3; John iv. 42, v. 37, xviii. 21. The perfect in every case preserves its full force.
ἐωράκ. τ. ὀφθ.] have seen with our eyes. The addition with our eyes, like our hands below, emphasises the idea of direct personal outward experience in a matter marvellous in itself. The vision was not of the soul within, but in life. Comp. Deut. iii. 21, iv. 3, xi. 7, xxi. 7; Zech. ix. 8; Eclus. xvi. 5. See also John xx. 27.
On sight and hearing, see Philo, de Sacr. A. et C. § 22, i. 178.
ὁ ἑωράκαμεν…ὁ ἑθεασάμεθα…] quod vidimus…quod perspeximus V., which we have seen…which we beheld. The general relation of these clauses has been touched upon already. They offer also contrasts in detail. The change of tense marks the difference between that which was permanent in the lessons of the manifestation of the Lord, and that which was once shewn to special witnesses. The change of the verbs also is significant. Θεάσθαι, like θεωρεῖν, expresses the calm, intent, continuous contemplation of an object which remains before the spectator. Comp. John i. 14 n. On the other hand the emphatic addition of τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς ἡμῶν to ἑωράκαμεν emphasises the personal nature of the witness as ἑθεασάμεθα emphasises its exactness. Generally the first two verbs (heard, seen) express the fact, and the second two (beheld, handled) the definite investigation by the observer.
Bede (ad loc.) brings out the moral element in ἑθεασάμεθα: Non solum quippe corporalibus oculis sicut ceteri Dominum viderunt sed et perspexerunt, cujus divinam quoque virtutem spiritualibus oculis cernebant.
ἐψηλάφησαν] contrectaverunt V. (all. tractaverunt, palpaverunt, perscrutata sunt), handled. There can be no doubt that the exact word is used with a distinct reference to the invitation of the Lord after His Resurrection: Handle me… (Luke xxiv. 39 ψηλαφήσατέ με). The tacit reference is the more worthy of notice because St John does not mention the fact of the Resurrection in his Epistle; nor does he use the word in his own narrative of the Resurrection. From early times it has been observed that St John used the term to mark the solid ground of the Apostolic conviction: οὐ γὰρ ὡς ἔτυχε συγκατεθέμεθα τῷ ὀφθέντι (Theophlet. ad loc.).
περὶ τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς] de verbo vitæ V. (de sermone vitæ, Tert.), concerning the word of life, that is the message of life, or, according to the more modern idiom, the revelation of life. The word (ὁ λόγος) conveys the notion of a connected whole (sermo), and is not merely an isolated utterance (ῥήμα comp. John vi. 68 ῥήματα ζωῆς αἰωνίου). Hence the word of life is the whole message from God to man, which tells of life, or, perhaps, out of
which life springs, which beginning to be spoken by the prophets, was at last fully proclaimed by one who was His Son (Hebr. i. 1, 2). Christ is, indeed, Himself THE WORD, but in the present passage the obvious reference is to the whole Gospel, of which He is the centre and sum, and not to Himself personally. This follows both from the context and from the appended genitive (τῆς ζωῆς). It is the life and not the word which is said to have been manifested; and again in the four passages where ὁ λόγος is used personally (John i. 1 ter, 14) the term is absolute. On the other hand we have ὁ λόγος τῆς βασιλείας (Matt. xiii. 19), ὁ λόγος τῆς σωτηρίας ταύτης (Acts xiii. 26), ὁ λόγος τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῦ (Acts xx. 32), ὁ λόγος ὁ τοῦ σταυροῦ (2 Cor. i. 18), ὁ λόγος τῆς καταλλαγῆς (2 Cor. v. 19), ὁ λόγος τῆς ἀληθείας τοῦ εὐαγγελίου (Col. i. 5), ὁ λόγος τῆς ἀληθείας (2 Tim. ii. 15; comp. λόγ. ἀληθείας James i. 18), in all of which the genitive describes the subject of the tidings or record. There can then be no reason for departing from the general analogy of this universal usage here, since it gives an admirable sense, and the personal interpretation of ’the word of life’ is not supported by any parallel. Moreover, a modification of the phrase itself occurs in St Paul, λόγον ζωῆς ἐπέχειν (Phil. ii. 16: compare also Titus i. 2, 3 ἐπ’ ἐλπίδι ζωῆς αἰωνίου ἦν ἐπηγγείλατο…ἐφανέρωσεν δὲ… τὸν λόγον αὐτοῦ…: John vi. 68; Acts v. 20). The personal interpretation could not fail to present itself to later readers, in whose speculation ’the Word’ occupied a far larger place than it occupies in the writings of St John, and to become popular. In a most true sense Christ is the gospel; and the name of the triumphant conqueror in Apoc. xix. 13 (ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ: comp. Acts vi. 7, xv. 6 &c.) shews the natural transition in meaning from ’the Word of God’ to Him who is ’the Word of God.’ Comp. John x. 35.
The Peshito Syriac (not Harel.) appears to support the interpretation which has been given: that which is the word of life.
The sense of the genitive τῆς ζωῆς, of life, is doubtful. According to general usage noticed above, it would specify the contents of the message: ’the revelation which proclaims and presents life to men.’ It must however be noticed that in other connexions St John uses the words (τῆς ζωῆς) to describe the character of that to which they are applied, as life-giving, or life-sustaining: τὸ ξύλον τῆς ζωῆς (Apoc. ii. 7 &c.), ὁ στέφανος τῆς ζωῆς (Apoc. ii. 10), ζωῆς πηγαὶ ὑδάτων (Apoc. vii. 17), τὸ ὕδωρ τῆς ζωῆς (Apoc. xxi. 6 &c.), ἡ βίβλος τῆς ζωῆς (Apoc. iii. 5 &c.), and more particularly ὁ ἄρτος τῆς ζωῆς (John vi. 35), τὸ φῶς τῆς ζωῆς (John viii. 12), which suggest such a sense as ’the life-containing, life-communicating word.’ The context here, which speaks of the manifestation of the life, appears at first sight to require the former interpretation; for it is easy to pass from the idea of the life as the subject of the divine revelation to the life made manifest, while the conception of life as characteristic of the word does not prepare the way for the transition so directly. On the other side the usage of the Gospel is of great weight; and it is not difficult to see how the thought of the revelation, which from first to last was inspired by and diffused life, leads to the thought that the life itself was personally manifested.
It is most probable that the two interpretations are not to be sharply separated. The revelation proclaims that which it includes; it has, announces, gives life. In Christ life as the subject and life as the character of the Revelation were absolutely united. See Additional Note on v. 20.
The preposition (περί) is used in a wide sense, ‘in regard to,’ ‘in the
ἐψηλάφησαν, περὶ τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς,—²καὶ ἡ ζωή matter of.² Comp. John xvi. 8. The subject is not simply a message, but all that had been made clear through manifold experience ‘concerning’ it.
If we now look back over the verse it is not difficult to see why St John chose the neuter form (that which was and not Him that was), and why he limited the record of his experience by the addition concerning the word of life. He does not announce Christ or the revelation of life, but he announces something relating to both. Christ is indeed the one subject of his letter, yet not the Person of Christ absolutely but what he had himself come directly to know of Him. Nor yet again does the apostle write all that he had come to know of Christ by manifold intercourse, but just so much as illustrated the whole revelation of life (comp. John xx. 30 f.). His pastoral is not a Gospel nor a dogmatic exposition of truth, but an application of the Truth to life.
1 John 1:2
- The whole verse is parenthetical. Elsewhere St John interrupts the construction by the introduction of a reflective comment (r. 3 b; c. ii. 27, John i. 14, 16, iii. 1, 16 ff., 31 ff., xix. 35, 2 John 2), and pauses after some critical statement to consider and realise its significance. And so here the mention of the whole ‘revelation of life,’ which extends throughout time, leads him to rest for a moment upon the one supreme fact up to which or from which all revelation comes. ‘Concerning the word of life,’ he seems to say, ‘Yes, concerning that revelation which deals with life and which brings life in all its manifold relations; and yet while our thoughts embrace this vast range which it includes, we may never forget that the life itself was shewn to us in a personal form. What we have to declare is not a word (λόγος) only: it is a fact.’
The simple statement is given first (the life was manifested), and then subject and predicate are more fully explained (’the life eternal which was with the Father,’ ‘was manifested to us’). The phrase, the life was manifested, recalls the corresponding phrase in the prologue to the Gospel, the Word became flesh. The latter regards the single fact of the Incarnation of the Word Who ‘was God’; this regards the exhibition in its purity and fulness of the divine movement. And yet further, in the Gospel St John speaks directly of a Person: here he is speaking of the revelation which he had received of the energy of a Person. The full difference is felt if for a moment the predicates are transferred. The reality of the Incarnation would be undeclared if it were said: ’the Word was manifested’; the manifoldness of the operations of life would be circumscribed if it were said: ’the life became flesh.’ The manifestation of the life was a consequence of the Incarnation of the Word, but it is not co-extensive with it.
καὶ ἡ ζωή] and the life… This use of the simplest conjunction (καί) is characteristic of St John. It seems to mark the succession of contemplation as distinguished from the sequence of reasoning. Thought is added to thought as in the interpretation of a vast scene open all at once before the eyes, of which the parts are realised one after the other.
ἡ ζωή] the life, John xiv. 6 n., xi. 25 n. The usage of the word in John i. 4 is somewhat different. Here life is regarded as final and absolute: there life is the particular revelation of life given in finite creation. Christ is the life which He brings, and which is realised by believers in Him. In Him ’the life’ became visible. Comp. c. v. 11, 12, 20; Col. iii. 4; Rom. v. 10, vi. 23; 2 Cor. iv. 10;
- καὶ ὁ ἐωράκαμεν, Β (ἐορ.); καὶ ὁ ἐωρ. μαρτ. Dion Alex. (Migne, P. Gr. x. 1248). The insertion or omission of o before εορᾶκαμεν (so B) was equally easy; but ἐφανερώθη seems to require the direct connexion of ἐωράκαμεν with τὴν 5. τ. αί.
2 Tim. i. 1. But the term ’the life’ is not to be regarded as simply a personal name equivalent to the Word: it expresses one aspect of His Being and Working. Looking to Him we see under the conditions of present human being the embodied ideal of life, which is fellowship with God and with man in God.
ἐφανερώθη] manifestata est V. (below apparuit), was manifested. The word is used of the revelation of the Lord at His first coming (c. iii. 5, 8; John i. 31; comp. c. iv. 9; John vii. 4; 1 Pet. i. 20; 1 Tim. iii. 16; Heb. ix. 26); of His revelation after the Resurrection (John xxi. 14, 1; [Mark] xvi. 12, 14); and of the future revelation (c. ii. 28; comp. 1 Pet. v. 4; Col. iii. 4). In all these ways the Word Incarnate and glorified is made known as ’the Life.’ ἐωράκαμεν… μαρτυροῦμεν… ἀπαγγέλλομεν…] seen… bear witness… declare… The three verbs give in due sequence the ideas of personal experience, responsible affirmation, authoritative announcement, which are combined in the apostolic message. The first two verbs are probably used absolutely, though the object of the third (the life eternal) is potentially included in them. Comp. John i. 34, xix. 35. So Augustine, et vidimus et testes sumus.
ἐωράκαμεν] John xix. 35, i. 34, xiv. 7, 9. It is worthy of notice that this is the only part of the verb which is used by St John in the Gospel and Epistles (ὅρα μή, Apoc. xix. 10; xxii. 9; not xviii. 18; nor John vi. 2); and in these books it is singularly frequent.
Severus (Cramer Cat. ad loc.), comparing these words with iv. 12 θεὸν οὐδεὶς πώποτε τεθέαται, no man hath beheld God at any time, remarks: τῷ σεσαρκῶσθαι καὶ ἐπηνθρωπηκέναι θεατὸς καὶ ψηλαφητὸς γενέσθαι εὐδόκησεν [ὁ λόγος], οὐχ ὁ ἦν θεαθεὶς καὶ ψηλαφηθεὶς ἀλλ’ ὁ γέγονεν· εἷς γὰρ ὑπάρχων καὶ ἀδιαίρετος ὁ αὐτὸς ἦν καὶ θεατὸς καὶ ἀθέατος καὶ ἀφῇ μὴ ὑποπίπτων καὶ ψηλαφώμενος…
μαρτυροῦμεν] Comp. iv. 14; John xxi. 24. For the characteristic use of the idea of witness in St John see Introd. to Gospel of St John, pp. xlv. ff.
Augustine dwells on the associations of the Greek μάρτυρες which were lost in the Latin testes: Ergo hoc dixit Vidimus et testes sumus: Vidimus et martyres sumus; testimonium enim dicendo…cum displiceret ipsum testimonium hominibus adversus quos dicebatur, passi sunt omnia quae passi sunt martyres (ad loc.).
ἀπαγγέλλομεν] adnunciamus V., ive declare. The word occurs again in St John’s writings in John xvi. 25 (it is falsely read iv. 51, xx. 18). In the Synoptists and Acts it is not uncommon in the sense of ‘bearing back a message from one to another.’ This fundamental idea underlies the use here and in John xvi. 25. The message comes from a Divine Presence and expresses a Divine purpose.
Comp. 1 Cor. xiv. 25; Heb. ii. 12 (LXX.); v. 5 note.
The application of the words must not be confined to the Epistle, which is in fact distinguished from the general proclamation of the Gospel (v. 4, καὶ ταῦτα γράφομεν), but rather understood of the whole apostolic ministry. More particularly perhaps we may see a description of that teaching which St John embodied in his Gospel.
γέλλομεν ὑμῖν τὴν ζωὴν τὴν αἰώνιον ἥτις ἦν πρὸς τὸν τὴν ζ. τὴν αἱ.] the eternal life, more exactly, the life, even the life eternal. The phrase used in the beginning of the verse is first taken up and then more fully developed. This form of expression in which the two elements of the idea are regarded separately is found in the N. T. only here and in ii. 25. The simpler form ἡ αἰώνιος ζωή is also very rare (John xvii. 3; Acts xiii. 46; 1 Tim. vi. 12), and in each case where it occurs describes the special Messianic gift brought by Christ (the eternal life) as distinguished from the general conception (ζωὴ αἰώνιος, life eternal).
This ’eternal life’ is seen in this passage to be the divine life, the life that is and which was visibly shewn in Christ, and not merely an unending continuance (Heb. vii. 16, ζ. ἀκατάλυτος). Comp. John xvii. 3. The equivalent phrase appears to occur first in Dan. xii. 2 (לְחַיֵּי עוֹלָם). Comp. 2
For the use of the article (ἡ ζ. ἡ αἱ.) see c. ii. 7 (ἡ ἐντ. ἡ π.) note; and for the idea of ’eternal life’ the Additional Note on v. 20.
ἥτις ἦν…] which was… This clause not only defines but in part confirms the former statement. The relative is not the simple relative (ἡ), but the ‘qualitative’ relative (ἥτις). Comp. John viii. 53 (ὅστις ἀπέθανεν); Apoc. i. 7; ii. 24; xi. 8; xx. 4. ‘We declare with authority’—such is the apostle’s meaning—’the life which is truly eternal, seeing that the life of which we speak was with the Father, and so is independent of the conditions of time; and it was manifested to us apostles, and so has been brought within the sphere of our knowledge.’ ἦν πρὸς τ. π.] erat apud patrem V., was with the Father. Comp. John i. 1, 2. The life was not ‘in the Father,’ nor in fellowship (μετά) or in combination (σί᾿) with Him, but realised with Him for its object and law (ἦν πρὸς). That which is true of the Word as a Person, is true necessarily of the Word in action, and so of the Life which finds expression in action. The verb (ἦν) describes continuous and not past existence; or rather, it suggests under the forms of human thought an existence which is beyond time (Apoc. iv. 11 ἦσαν; John i. 3 f.).
τὸν πατέρα] The Father, the title of God when regarded relatively, as the ‘One God, of whom (ἐξ οὗ) are all things’ (1 Cor. viii. 6). The relation itself is defined more exactly either in reference to the material world: James i. 17 ὁ πατὴρ τῶν φώτων; or to men: Matt. v. 16 ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν, &c.; or, more commonly and peculiarly, to our Lord, ’the Son’: Matt. vii. 21 ὁ πατὴρ μου, &c. The difference of the paternal relation of the One Father to Christ and to Christians is indicated in a very remarkable manner in John xx. 17 (ἀναβαίνω πρὸς τὸν πατέρα μου καὶ πατ. ὑμῶν) where the unity of the Person is shewn by the one article common to the two clauses, and the distinctness of the relations by the repetition of the title with the proper personal pronoun. The simple title ὁ πατὴρ occurs rarely in the Synoptic Gospels, and always with reference to ’the Son’: Matt. xi. 27||Luke x. 22; Matt. xxiv. 36||Mark xiii. 32; Luke ix. 26; Matt. xxiii. 19. (But comp. Luke xi. 13 ὁ π. ὁ ἐξ οὐρανοῦ; the usage in Matt. xi. 26||Luke x. 21; Mark xiv. 36 is different.) In the Acts it is found only in the opening chapters; i. 4, 7; ii. 33. In St Paul only Rom. vi. 4 (ἡγέρθη…διὰ τῆς δόξης τοῦ π.); 1 Cor. viii. 6 (εἷς θεὸς ὁ πατήρ); Eph. ii. 18 (τὴν προσαγωγὴν…πρὸς τὸν πατέρα); and not at all in the Epistles of St Peter, St James or St Jude, or in the Apocalypse. In St John’s Gospel, on the contrary, and in his Epistles (i. ii.) the term is very frequent.
Additional Note on i. 2. The Fatherhood of God.
The idea of the Divine Fatherhood, answering to that of human sonship and childship (see Additional Note on iii. 1), occupies an important place in the writings of St John. It cannot be rightly understood without reference to its development in the Old Testament and in the Synoptic Gospels.
In the Old Testament the general notion of Fatherhood was made personal by the special covenants which He was pleased to establish with representative men. He thus became the ‘Father’ of the chosen people in a peculiar sense (Ex. iv. 22; Deut. xxxii. 6; comp. i. 31, viii. 5; Is. lxiii. 16, lxiv. 8; comp. xliii. 1, 6, 21, xliv. 2, 24, xlvi. 3 ff.; Jer. xxxi. 9, 20; Hos. xi. 1; Mal. ii. 10; comp. i. 6); and each member of the nation was His child (Deut. xiv. 1; Is. i. 2, xxx. 1, 9, xliii. 6, lxiii. 8; Jer. iii. 4, 19; comp. Matt. xv. 24, 26). But this sonship was regarded as an exceptional blessing. It belonged to the nation as ‘priests and kings’ to the Lord; and so we find that the relationship of privilege, in which all the children of Israel shared in some manner, was in an especial degree the characteristic of the theocratic minister (comp. Ps. lxxxii. 6). Of the king, the representative head of the royal nation, God said ‘Thou art my Son, this day,’ that is at the moment of the solemn consecration, ‘have I begotten thee’ (Ps. ii. 7); and again, ‘He shall cry unto me: Thou art my Father, my God, and the rock of my salvation. Also I will make him my firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth’ (Ps. lxxxix. 26 f.; comp. 2 Sam. vii. 12 ff.). Comp. Ecclus. xxiii. 1, 4.
It will however be observed on a study of the passages that the idea of Fatherhood in the Old Testament is determined by the conceptions of an Eastern household, and further that it is nowhere extended to men generally. God is the great Head of the family which looks back to Him as its Author. His ‘children’ owe Him absolute obedience and reverence: they are ‘in His hand’: and conversely He offers them wise counsel and protection. But the ruling thought throughout is that of authority and not of love. The relationship is derived from a peculiar manifestation of God’s Providence to one race (Ex. iv. 22; Hos. xi. 1), and not from the original connexion of man as man with God. If the nobility of sonship is to be extended to Gentiles, it is by their incorporation in the chosen family (Ps. lxxxvii).
So far the conception of a Divine Fatherhood is (broadly speaking) in the national among the Jews as it was physical in the Gentile world. But in the Gospels the idea of Sonship is spiritual and personal. God is revealed as the Giver and Sustainer (Matt. vii. 9 ff.) of a life like His own, to those who were created in His image, after His likeness, but who have been alienated from Him (Luke xv. 11 ff.). The original capacity of man to receive God is declared, and at the same time the will of God to satisfy it. Both facts are set forth once for all in the person of Him who was both the Son of man and the Son of God.
This idea realised in Christ.
The idea of the Divine Fatherhood and of the Divine Sonship as realised in Christ appears in His first recorded words and in His dedication to His public ministry. The words spoken in the Temple: ‘Wüst ye not that I must be in my Father’s house?’ (Luke ii. 49 ἐν τοῖς τοῦ πατρός) appear to mark in the Lord, from the human side, the quickened consciousness of His mission at a crisis of His life, while as yet the local limitations of worship are fully recognised (contrast John iv. 21). The voice at the Baptism declares decisively the authority of acknowledged Sonship as that in which He is to accomplish His work (Matt. iii. 17 and parallels; comp. John i. 34).
Declared in the Sermon on the Mount.
In the Sermon on the Mount the idea of God’s Fatherhood in relation both to Christ and to the disciples is exhibited most prominently. The first notice of the sonship of men is remarkable and if rightly interpreted most significant: ‘Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called sons of God’ (Matt. v. 9). This benediction is seen in its true light by comparison with the angelic hymn: ‘On earth peace among men of wellpleasing’ (Luke ii. 14). The peace of which Christ speaks is that of reunited humanity (comp. Eph. ii. 14 ff.). The blessing of sonship is for those who, quickened by God’s Spirit (Rom. viii. 14), help to realise on earth that inward brotherhood of which He has given the foundation and the pledge.
The teaching which follows the beatitude enforces and unfolds this thought. The sign of Sonship is to be found in god-like works which cannot but be referred at once to their true and heavenly origin (Matt. v. 16). These are to be in range no less universal than the most universal gifts of God, the rain and the sunshine (v. 44 ff.; Luke vi. 35 ff.), in order that the fulness of divine sonship may be attained and manifested (c. 45 ὅπως γέννησθε υἱοὶ τοῦ π. ὑ. τοῦ ἐν οὐρ.; Luke vi. 35 ἔσεσθε υἱοὶ ὑψίατου). At the same time the standard of judgment, even all-knowing love, impresses a new character upon action (Matt. vi. 1, 4, 6, 18). The obligations of kindred to others follow from the privilege of kindred with the common Father (Matt. vi. 14 f.; Mark xi. 25 f.). The Father’s knowledge anticipates the petitions of the children (Matt. vi. 8; Luke xii. 30), and duly provides for their wants (Matt. vi. 26 ff.; Luke xii. 24 ff.). Here and elsewhere the laws of natural affection are extended to spiritual relations (Matt. vii. 9 ff.; Luke xi. 11 ff.).
The elevation of the idea in the New Testament.
From these passages it will be seen how immeasurably the conception of Fatherhood is extended by the Lord beyond that in the Old Testament. The bond is moral, and not physical: it is personal and human, and not national. It suggests thoughts of character, of duty, of confidence which belong to a believer as such and not peculiarly to those who stand in particular outward circumstances. In the few other passages in the Synoptic Gospels in which the title ‘your Father’ occurs, it has the same force: it conveys implicitly grounds of trust and the certainty of future triumph (Matt. x. 20, 29; Luke xii. 32). The ’name’ of Him whom the Lord made known was, it may be said truly, ’the Father,’ even as the name of Him who sent Moses was ‘Jehovah,’ ’the absolute,’ ’the self-existent’. And in this con-
¹ There is really no strict representative of the name Jehovah in the New Testament except in the ὁ ὢν of the
Apocalypse, and even there it is modified: Apoc. i. 4, 8, iv. 8 (ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἔρχ.), xi. 17, xvi. 5 (ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν).
nexion the first petition of the Lord’s Prayer gains a new meaning : Our Father which art in heaven, hallowed be Thy name—the supreme revelation of Fatherhood (Matt. vi. 9; comp. Luke xi. 2).
The revelation of the Father is indeed distinctly claimed by the Lord for Himself alone (Matt. xi. 27; Luke x. 22). True discipleship to Him is the fulfilment of ‘His Father’s’ will (Matt. vii. 21). He pronounces with authority upon the divine counsels and the divine working, as being of ‘His Father’ (Matt. xv. 13, xvi. 17, xviii. 10, 14, 19, 35, xxv. 34, xxvi. 29; Luke xxii. 29). He speaks of ‘His Father’s promise’ (Luke xxiv. 49), and of ‘His Father’s presence’ (Matt. x. 32 f.) with the confidence of a Son. But with the confidence of a Son the Lord maintains also the dependence of a Son. Every prayer which He makes will be answered (Matt. xxvi. 53), yet He places Himself wholly in ‘His Father’s’ hands (Matt. xxvi. 39, 42); and He reserves some things for His Father alone (Matt. xx. 23).
Such a revelation of the Divine Fatherhood through the Son to sons definitely distinguishes the Christian doctrine of God from Pantheism and Theism. As against Pantheism it shews God as distinct from and raised immeasurably above the world; as against Theism it shews God as entering into a living fellowship with men, as taking humanity into personal union with Himself. The unseen King of the divine Kingdom is made known as One to whom His people can draw near with the confidence of children¹.
The revelation of God as the Father is specially brought out by St John; but in a somewhat different form from that in which it is found in the Synoptists. Two titles occur commonly in the Gospel in relation to Christ: (a) The Father; and (b) My Father. Both of these occur in the Synoptists each nine or ten times. But on the other hand St John never uses the phrases ὁ πατήρ μου ὁ ἐν οὐρανοῖς (ὁ οὐράνιος), ὁ πατήρ ὑμῶν ὁ ἐν οὐρανοῖς, which occur each nine times in the Synoptic Gospels; nor does he use the phrase ὁ πατήρ ὑμῶν except xx. 17 (in contrast); nor yet the Pauline phrase ὁ πατήρ ἡμῶν in his own writings. In the Epistles he uses
¹ The simple title ‘my Father’ is comparatively rare in the Synoptic Gospels. It is not found in St Mark (comp. viii. 38; Matt. xvi. 27). It occurs in St Luke:
ii. 49 (ἐν τοῖς τοῦ π. μ.) x. 22 (parallel to Matt. xi. 27) xxii. 29 (καθὼς διέθετό μοι ὁ π. μ. βασιλείαν) xxiv. 49 (τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν τοῦ π. μ.) In St Matthew it is found more frequently xi. 27 πάντα μοι παρεδόθη ὑπὸ τοῦ π. μ. xx. 23 οἷς ἡτοίμασται ὑπὸ τοῦ π. μ. xxv. 34 οἱ εὐλογημένοι τοῦ π. μ. xxvi. 29 ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ π. μ. —— 39, 42 Πάτερ μου xxvi. 53 παρακάλεσαι τὸν πατέρα μου.
But most frequently with the addition ὁ ἐν (τοῖς) οὐρανοῖς (ὁ οὐράνιος).
uniformly the absolute title ὁ πατήρ (comp. 2 John 3) without any addition; and in the Apoc. ὁ πατήρ αὐτοῦ (μου) but not ὁ πατήρ.
in contrast with that in the Synoptists.
These differences though minute are really significant. St John in his latest writings regards the relation of the Divine Fatherhood in its eternal, that is, in its present, realisation, and not in regard to another order. Or to look at the truth from another point of view, St John presents to us the Sonship of Christ, the foundation of the sonship of men, from its absolute side, while the Synoptists connect it with the fulfilment of the office of the Messianic King.
The title ’the Father.’
The full sense of the title ’the Father’ will be seen by an examination of the passages in which the titles ὁ πατήρ and ὁ θεός occur in close connexion:
1 John ii. 13 ff. τὸν πατέρα…τοῦ θεοῦ…τοῦ πατρός…τοῦ πατρός…τοῦ θεοῦ.
The title ‘my Father.’
The title ‘my Father’ as used by the Lord marks the special relation of God to the Son Incarnate, and so, mediately, to man in virtue of the Incarnation, and to all revelation as leading up to it. It is found John ii. 16, v. 17, 43, vi. 32, 40, viii. 19, 49, 54, x. 18, 25, 29, 37, xiv. 2, 7, 20, 21, 23, xv. 1, 8, 15, 23, 24, xx. 17.
The relation of the two titles.
As to the relation of the two titles ’the Father’ and ‘my Father,’ it may be said generally that ’the former suggests those thoughts which spring from the consideration of the moral connexion of God and man in virtue of the creation of man ‘in the image of God,’ while the latter points to those which spring from what has been made known to us in the course of the history of the world, the revelation of the connexion of the Incarnate Son with God and with man. ‘The Father’ corresponds under this aspect with the group of ideas gathered up in the Lord’s title ’the Son of man’ (comp. John vi. 27, viii. 28); and ‘my Father’ with those which are gathered up in the titles, ’the Son of God,’ ’the Christ.’
The first instances in which the Lord uses the two titles seem to mark their meaning.
ii. 16 ὁ οἶκος τοῦ π. μου, comp. Luke ii. 49.
iv. 21, 23 προσκυνεῖν τῷ πατρί, comp. Matt. xi. 27.
And the first great discourse which lays the foundation of the Lord’s claims unfolds the relation of the Son to the Father and to men, and so of men to the Father (John v. 19 ff.).
In this discourse it will be noticed that the title ‘my Father’ is found at the beginning and the end (vv. 17, 43), but elsewhere only the absolute titles ’the Father,’ ’the Son.’
The two titles occur not unfrequently in close connexion, e.g.:
They are found also in phrases otherwise identical to which they give a sensible difference of colour.
John xiv. 11 ἐγὼ ἐν τῷ πατρὶ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἐν ἐμοί.
If we try to go a little further into detail we notice the title ’the Father’:
(1) In relation to men:
John iv. 21—3 προσκυνεῖν τῷ πατρὶ.
1 John ii. 1 παράκλητον ἔχομεν πρὸς τὸν π. (note).
2 John 4 ἐντολὴν ἐλάβομεν παρὰ τοῦ π.
(2) In relation to the Son absolutely:
John i. 18 ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ π.
- iii. 35 ὁ π. ἀγαπᾷ τὸν υἱόν (comp. xv. 9). - v. 26 ὁ π…τῷ υἱῷ ἔδωκεν.
John vi. 46 οὗτος ἑώρακεν τὸν π.
57 kayo zoi dia tov n. x.29 eyo kai o n. ev eou. xiv.28 oπ.μεiζων μού εστιν. Xvi.15 TAVTA OoA Exei O T. Epa Eotiv.
1 John i. 2 ἦτις ἦν πρὸς τὸν π.
2 John 3 τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ π.
— 9 καὶ τὸν π. καὶ τὸν υἱὸν ἔχει (comp. 1 John ii. 22 ff.).
(3) In relation to the Mission of the Son—’the Father that sent me’:
John v. 23 ὁ π. ὁ πέμψας αὐτόν.
36 a deodokov ooi oπ…aprtupei oπ oπ. μe aetostalkov. 37, viii. 16, 18, xii. 49, xiv. 24 o nepuas me natnp. vi.44 oπ. o πéμψaε με. X.36ov oπ. nyiaosev kai aetostielev. xx.21 kaohos aetostalkov me oπ.
Comp. xvi. 27 f. παρὰ τοῦ π., ἐκ τοῦ π. ἐξῆλθον.
1 John iv. 14 ὁ π. ἀπέσταλκεν τὸν υἱόν.
— i. 3, ii. 22, 23, 24 ὁ π., ὁ υἱός.
(4) More particularly in relation to the form of the Mission:
vi.27 o vios tov avpou…touov o n. eopayioe. viii.28 kaohos eioaegov me o n. taota laha. 38 a eyo eopaka npapai T. laha. xii. 50 kaohos eipnkev moi o n. ouvos laha. xiv.31 kaohos evtohyn eodokov moi o n. ouvos noia. XV.10 kaohos eyo tou n. taevtohos teripnka. xviii. 11 to notipov o deodokov moi o n.
(5) And also to the active communion between the Father and the Son in the accomplishment of it:
vi.37 o diodovov oπ. x.15 yivwokai me o n. kayo yivwokw tov n. 38 ev epoi o n. kayo ev to xiv.10 o n. ev epoi meoww noei ta epya auto. 11 eyo ev to n. kai o n. ev epoi. 31 ayamw tov n. xvi.32 oπ.μετ’εμοδ εστιν.
(6) And to the consummation of the Mission:
xiv.12 eyo npov tov n. nopeouai. 13 iva oobaoo o n. ev to vi. 16 epaotnwo tov n. kai aalov npaknytov dwoei. 28, xvi. 28 nopeouai npovs tov n. xvi.10 npov tov n. vnaow. 17 vnaow npov tov n.
Comp. xiii. 1 ἵνα μεταβῇ…πρὸς τὸν π.
(7) And to the Mission of the Spirit:
In each respect the particular relation is traced up to the primal relation of the perfect divine love expressed in the idea of Fatherhood and Sonship.
The title ‘my Father’ is far more rare than ’the Father,’ though it has been not unfrequently substituted for it in the later texts in order to bring out a more obvious sense. It fixes attention, as has been already remarked, upon the actual circumstances of Christ as the Incarnate Son, as serving to convey the true idea of God as Father.
Hence it is used
(1) Specially in connexion with the office of Christ as the Fulfillment of the old Covenant, the Interpreter of the God of Israel Who had been misunderstood by the Jews. Looking to Christ, to His acts and words, Israel might see the true character of the Lord. The Son was the revelation of His Father:
John ii. 16 τὸν οἶκον τοῦ π. μ.
(2) And more widely of the particular aspect under which Christ presented the divine character in His own Person and Life:
John vi. 40 τὸ θέλημα τοῦ π. μ.
Thus we can see the full force of the phrase ‘I came in My Father’s name,’ and not simply ‘in the Father’s name.’ Christ consummated the earlier teaching and presented in a pattern of complete sacrifice the fulfilment of that love which is the source of being:
Comp. xvii. 6, 11, 12, 26 (τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ π.).
‘My Father’ in the revelation of Christ brings ’the Father’ close to us (comp. Heb. ii. 11 ff.).
‘The living Father.’
Still one other title must be noticed ’the living Father,’ John vi. 57. This phrase is unique, though it corresponds to the common title ’the living God’ (Apoc. vii. 2 θεοῦ ζῶντος, xv. 7 τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ζῶντος εἰς τοὺς αἰ. Matt. xvi. 10 ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θ. τοῦ ζ. &c.). In the view which it gives of the continuous activity of the divine love it completes the view of the divine sovereignty given by the phrase ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν αἰώνων, 1 Tim. i. 17; Apoc. xv. 3.
1 John 1:3
- ὁ ἀκηκ. καὶ ἐωρ. Ἡ harl: see v. 1. +καὶ ἀπαγγ. Ἡ am. -καὶ ὑμῖν, 5o vg me. -δὲ 5o Co. Hence Aug. Ambr. vg et societas nostra sit (ἵνα…ἔχητε καὶ ἡ ἡ κοινωνία ἡ ἡμετέρα…)
Comp. John iv. 21 add. note; and the additional note on this passage.
In this place the idea of Fatherhood comes into prominence in connexion with life (the life was with the Father). In the Gospel the absolute idea of Godhead is placed in connexion with the Word (John i. 1 ὁλ. ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, the Word was with God). In both passages a glimpse is given of the essential relations of the Divine Persons, and we learn that the idea of Father lies in the Deity itself and finds fulfilment in the Deity. The simplest conception which we can form of God in Himself as absolutely perfect and self-sufficing includes Tripersonality.
ἐφαν. ἡμῖν] apparuit nobis V. (manifestata est in nobis Aug., palam facta est, &c. all.) was manifested to us. The general statement given before (was manifested) is made personal. Actual experience is the foundation of St John’s testimony.
- In the parenthesis (c. 2) St John has described the subject of his message as ‘the life eternal’: he now describes it as ‘that which we have seen and heard’. The fulness of apostolic experience, the far-reaching knowledge of the Son of God, is indeed identical with the life. By appropriating that knowledge of the Son the life is appropriated.
Life is manifested in fellowship; and in regarding the end of his message St John looks at once to a twofold fellowship, human and divine, a fellowship with the Church and with God. He contemplates first the fellowship which exists in the Christian body itself, and then rises from this to the thought of the wider privileges of such fellowship as resting on a divine basis. (Manifeste ostendit B. Johannes quia quicunque societatem cum Deo habere desiderant primo ecclesiae societati debent adunari… (Bede).
ὁ ἐωρ. καὶ ἀκηκ.] that which we have seen and heard… The transposition of the verbs in this resumptive clause (v. 1 heard…seen…) is natural and significant. Before the Apostle was advancing up to the Incarnation, now he is starting from it. At the same time the two elements of experience are brought together and not (as before) separated by the repeated relative (v. 1 that which…that which…).
καὶ ὑμῖν] unto you also. The revelation was not for those only to whom it was first given; but for them also who ‘had not seen.’ The message was for ’them also’ that ’they also’ might enjoy the fruits of it. There is no redundancy in the repeated καί.
This thought is well brought out by Augustine, who asks the question: Minus ergo sumus felices quam illi qui viderunt et audierunt? and answers it by recalling the history of St Thomas (John xx. 26 ff.) who rose by Faith above touch: Tetigit hominem, confessus est Deum. Et Dominus consolans nos qui ipsum jam in cælo sedentem manu contractare non possumus sed fide contingere, ait illi Quia vidisti credidisti, beati qui non viderunt et credunt. Nos descripti sumus, nos designati sumus. Fiat ergo in nobis beatitudo quam Dominus prædixit futuram: manifestata est ipsa vita in carne…ut res quæ solo corde videri potest videretur et oculis, ut corda sanaret (Aug. ad loc.).
ἔχητε μεθ’ ἡμῶν· καὶ ἡ κοινωνία δὲ ἡ ἡμετέρα μετὰ τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ μετὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ· ⁴καὶ ἵνα…μεθ’ ἡμῶν] ut et vos societatem habeatis nobiscum V., that ye also may have fellowship with us, i.e. ‘may be united with us, the apostolic body, in the bonds of Christian communion’ (comp. vv. 6, 7; iv. 6) by the apprehension of the fulness of the truth; that you may enjoy to the uttermost by spiritual power what we gained in the outward experience of life (John xx. 29). The last of the apostles points to the unbroken succession of the heritage of Faith. It will be observed that St John always assumes that ‘knowledge’ carries with it the corresponding action (e.g. ii. 3). The words cannot without violence be made to give the sense: ’that ye may have the same fellowship [with God and Christ] as we have.’
The phrase κοινωνία ἔχειν, as distinguished from the simple verb κοινωνεῖν (2 John 11; 1 Pet. iv. 13; Phil. iv. 15), expresses not only the mere fact, but also the enjoyment, the conscious realisation, of fellowship. Comp. v. 8 (ἀμαρτίαν ἔχειν) note.
κοιν. μεθ’ ἡμῶν] fellowship with. The preposition (μετὰ) emphasises the mutual action of those who are united. Κοινωνία is also used with a genitive of the person (1 Cor. i. 9), as in the case of things (1 Cor. x. 16; Phil. iii. 10), when the thought is of a blessing imparted by fellowship in the person, or of a fellowship springing from the person (2 Cor. xiii. 13). The word is also used absolutely Acts ii. 42.
καὶ ἡ κοιν. δέ…] et societas nostra sit V., Aug., yea and our fellowship… The connecting particles (καί…δέ) and the possessive pronoun (ἡ κ. ἡ ἡμετέρα) are both emphatic. The particles lay stress on the characteristics of the fellowship which are to be brought forward: the possessive in place of the personal pronoun marks that which peculiarly distinguishes Christians rather than simply that which they enjoy. ‘And the fellowship itself in fact to which we call you, the fellowship which is truly Christian fellowship, &c.’
For καί…δέ… compare John vi. 51; viii. 16, 17; xv. 27; 3 John 12. The combination occurs sparingly throughout the N. T. The δέ serves as the conjunction, while καί emphasises the words to which it is attached.
For ἡ κοιν. ἡ ἡμετέρα compare John xv. 9 n. (ἡ ἀγ. ἡ ἐμή), 11, 12; xvii. 13, 24; xviii. 36, &c.; c. ii. 7 note.
The insertion of the δέ makes the false construction (Latt.) ‘and that our fellowship may be…’ impossible. The whole clause is like v. 2 (see note), a development of the preceding idea over which the apostle lingers as it were in personal reflection. For the foundation of the thought see John xvii. 20 f.
μετὰ τοῦ π…I. X.] with the Father… his Son Jesus Christ… The thought prepared in vv. 1, 2 now finds full expression. The revelation of ’the life’ had brought men into connexion with ’the Father.’ ‘The life’ was apprehended in a true human personality in virtue of the Incarnation, and so men could have fellowship with the life and with the source of life. Through the Son God was revealed and apprehended as Father. It must also be observed that ‘fellowship with the Father’ and ‘fellowship with His Son’ are directly co-ordinated (with…and with…). Such co-ordination implies sameness of essence. And yet further: the fellowship with the Father is not only said to be established through the Son: the fellowship with the Father is involved in fellowship with the Son (comp. ii. 23). The consummation of this fellowship is the ‘being in God’ (c. v. 20) ‘a quo fontaliter omnia pro-
1 John 1:4
- ἡμεῖς ΝΑ*B the: ὑμῖν 5 A**C vg syrr me. In such a case the evidence of verss. is of little weight.
(ἡ χ.) ἡμῶν ΝΒ the; ὑμῶν 5AC me. The later MSS. and the Latin and Syriac verss. are divided. The confusion of ἡμ. and ὑμ. in the best authorities is so constant that a positive decision on the reading here is impossible. It may be noticed that C*, reading ὑμῶν, adds ἐν ἡμῖν and some verss. reading ἡμῶν add ἐν ὑμῖν at the end of the clause. Comp. ii. 8, 25; iii. 1; v. 4.
Some copies of Vulg. read ut+gaudeatis et gaudium vestrum (nostrum) sit plenum.
cedunt, in quo finaliter omnes sancti fruibiliter requiescunt’ (Th. Kemp. i. 15. 2).
τοῦ υἱοῦ αὖ. [I. X.] His Son Jesus Christ. By the use of this full title St John brings out now both aspects of the Lord’s Person (‘His Son,’ ‘Jesus Christ’) which he had indicated before (‘which was with the Father,’ ‘our hands handled’). The full title is found again in iii. 23; v. 20 (l); 2 John 3; 1 Cor. i. 9; 2 Cor. i. 19. Compare also i. 7 (iv. 15; v. 5); 1 Thess. i. 10; Heb. iv. 14. In each case it will be seen to be significant in all its elements.
- καὶ ταῦτα] and these things. The apostolic message which had been regarded before in its unity (ὅ that which) is now regarded in some special aspects of its manifold power. St John embraces in ’the vision of his heart’ (Eph. i. 18) all that his letter contains, though it was then unwritten.
The phrase, these things, is not however co-extensive with that which. St John has present to his mind both the general revelation of the Gospel (we declare) of which the end was to create spiritual fellowship between God and man and men; and the particular view of it which he purposes to lay before his readers (we write) with a view to establishing the fulness of joy in the Church.
γράφομεν ἡμεῖς] write we. Both the pronoun and the verb are emphatic. The proclamation (ev. 2, 3)
was presented in an abiding form: not spoken only but written, so far as there was need, that it might work its full effect. And it was written by those who had full authority to write. Nor is it fanciful to suppose that by the stress laid on the word write, which is emphasised by the absence of a personal object (the to you of the common text is to be omitted), St John looks forward to his apostolic service to later ages.
The plural (γράφομεν) which belongs to the form of the apostolic message stands in contrast with the personal address (γράφω) which immediately follows in c. ii. 1. Elsewhere in the epistle the verb occurs only in the singular (ii. 7 f., 12 ff., 21, 26; v. 13).
ἵνα ἡ χ. ἡμῶν (v. ὑμῶν) ἢ πεπληρ.] that our (or your) joy may be fulfilled. The fulfilment of Christian joy depends upon the realisation of fellowship. The same thought underlies the other passages where the phrase occurs (see next note). Fellowship with Christ, and fellowship with the brethren, fellowship with Christ in the brethren, and with the brethren in Christ, is the measure of the fulness of joy. Both readings (ἡμῶν and ὑμῶν) are well supported and both give good sense. The object of the apostle may be regarded either as to the fulfilment of his work relatively to himself, or as to the fulfilment of his work relatively to his disciples. The joy of the apostle as well as the joy
⁵ Καὶ ἔστιν αὕτη ἡ ἀγγελία ἦν ἀκηκόαμεν ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ
1 John 1:5
- καὶ ἔστιν αὕτη NBC; καὶ αὕτη ἐστίν 5ᵃ A vg.
ἡ ἀγγελία NᶻAB vg: ἡ ἐπαγγελία 5ᵃ C me the.
N had originally η απαγγελία, which the scribe himself altered by letters written above to ἡ ἀγάπη τῆς ἐπαγγελίας. Comp. iii. 11; ii. 25.
of the disciples is secured by the same result.
πεπληρωμένη] plenum (V., Aug.) fulfilled. The phrase is characteristic. Comp. 2 John 12; John iii. 29, xv. 11, xvi. 24; xvii. 13. For the use of the resolved form see iv. 12 n. Gaudium doctorum fit plenum cum multos prædicando ad sanctæ ecclesie societatem…perduent (Bede). Comp. Phil. ii. 2.
A. THE PROBLEM OF LIFE AND THOSE TO WHOM IT IS PROPOSED (i. 5—ii. 17).
I. 5—10. THE NATURE OF GOD AND THE CONSEQUENT RELATION OF MAN TO GOD.
The section contains 1 the description of the Being of God (v. 5); and then 2 the description of man’s relation to God as thus made known (6—10), in answer to the three typical false pleas (i) of the indifference of moral action in regard to spiritual fellowship (6, 7); (ii) of the unreality of sinfulness as a permanent consequence of wrong action (8, 9); and (iii) of actual personal freedom from sinful deeds (10). These pleas are shewn to depend (1) on immediate denial of what is distinctly known (6); (2) on self-deception (8); and (3) on disregard of divine revelation (10).
-
The Nature of God (i. 5).
-
⁵ And this is the message which we have heard from him and announce to you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. The connexion of this verse with what precedes is not at once obvious. The declaration which it contains as to the nature of God is not, as far as we know, a direct repetition of any words of the Lord; nor is it clear at first sight how it gathers up what has been already said of ’the revelation of life’ as apprehended in apostolic experience. Fuller consideration appears to shew that the idea of spiritual fellowship furnishes the clue to the course of St John’s thought. Fellowship must repose upon mutual knowledge. If we have fellowship with God we must know truly what He is and what we are, and the latter knowledge flows from the former. The revelation of life from first to last is the progressive manifestation of God and the progressive assimilation to God. The revelation through the Incarnation completes all that was revealed before: Christ came ’not to destroy but to fulfil’: and this revelation is briefly comprehended in the words ‘God is light,’ absolutely pure, glorious, self-communicating from His very nature. He imparts Himself, and man was made to receive Him; and, in spite of sin, man can receive Him. Thus the fundamental ideas of Christianity lie in this announcement: ‘God is light’; and man turns to the Light as being himself created in the image of God (Gen. i. 27; 1 Cor. xi. 7) and re-created in Christ (Eph. ii. 10; Col. iii. 10). This message is really ’the Gospel.’
Hæ sententia B. Johannes…divinæ puritatis excellentiam monstrat quam nos quoque imitari jubemur dicente
καὶ ἀναγγέλλομεν ὑμῖν, ὅτι ὁ θεὸς φῶς ἐστὶν καὶ σκοτία ipso: Sancti estote quoniam ego sanctus Dominus Deus vester Lev. xix. 2 (Bede).
καί…] And… The declaration is the simple development of the statement in v. 3: ‘We declare unto you what we have seen and heard, in order to establish your fellowship with us, and to fulfil our joy. And this is the message which has such divine power.’ ἔστιν αὕτη] this is the message. The original order (lost in V. et hac est) in which the substantive verb stands first with unusual emphasis (καὶ ἔστιν αὕτη), marks the absoluteness, the permanence, of the message. The ‘is’ is not merely a copula, but predicates existence in itself. Comp. c. v. 16, 17; ii. 15 note; John v. 45, viii. 50, 54. The exact form of expression is unique. On the other hand see c. ii. 25; iii. 11, 23; v. 4, 9, 11, 14 and 2 John 6.
ἀγγελία] adnuntiatio V., message. The word occurs only here and iii. 11 in the N. T., and it is rare in the LXX. The corresponding verb occurs in the N. T. only in John xx. 18. The simplest word appears to be chosen to describe the divine communication. The announcement as to the nature of God is a personal revelation and not a discovery. God gives tidings of Himself and so only can man know Him.
ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ] from him, that is, the Son of the Father, Jesus Christ, in whom the life was manifested, and who has been the main subject of the preceding verses.
The ‘from’ (ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ) marks the ultimate and not necessarily the immediate source (παρ’ αὐτοῦ). The phrase ἀκούειν ἀπό is not found elsewhere in St John (but see Acts ix. 13) while ἀκούειν παρά is frequent: John i. 40; vi. 45; vii. 51; viii. 26, 38, 40; xv. 15. The ‘message’ which the Apostle announces had been heard not only from the lips of Christ but in fact also from all those in whom
He had spoken in earlier times (1 Pet. i. 11). He was the source even where He was not the speaker. Comp. 1 Cor. xi. 23 παρέλαβον ἀπό, and c. ii. 27 note.
ἀναγγέλλομεν] adnuntiamus, V., we announce. The simple verb and its derivatives convey shades of meaning which cannot be preserved in a version. Ἀγγέλλειν simply ’to bring tidings’ occurs only John xx. 18. Ἀναγγέλλειν to report, with the additional idea of bringing the tidings up to or back to the person receiving them. Ἀπαγγέλλειν to announce with a distinct reference to the source or place from which the message comes. Καταγγέλλειν to proclaim with authority, as commissioned to spread the tidings throughout those who hear them. In ἀναγγέλλειν the recipient, in ἀπαγγέλλειν the origin, in καταγγέλλειν the relation of the bearer and hearer of the message, are respectively most prominent. (1) Thus ἀναγγ. has in nine cases a personal pronoun (ὑμῖν, ἡμῖν) after it, and in the two remaining places where it occurs (Acts xv. 4; xix. 18) the persons to whom the announcement is made are placed in clear prominence. The word is not found in the Synoptic Gospels (Mark v. 14, 19 false readings). For its meaning compare 1 Pet. i. 12 ἀνῶν ἀνηγγέλη ὑμῖν, tidings which were lately brought as far as up to you. Acts xx. 20, 27 τοῦ μὴ ἀναγγεῖλαι ὑμῖν, not to extend my declaration of the Gospel even to you; John xvi. 13, 14, 15; Acts xv. 4; 2 Cor. vii. 7; Acts xiv. 27. (2) The proper sense of ἀπαγγ., again, is seen clearly Matt. ii. 8 ἀπαγγ. μοι, from the place where you find the Christ, Mark xvi. 13 ἀπηγγ. τοῖς λοιποῖς, from Emmaus where the revelation was made; [John iv. 51 ἀπηγγ. λέγοντες, from his house where the sick child lay;] 1 Cor. xiv. 25 ἀπαγγ., from the assembly at which he was moved. The word is frequent in the Synoptic
Gospels and in the Acts; elsewhere, in addition to the places quoted, it occurs only 1 Thess. i. 9; 1 John i. 2, 3. (Heb. ii. 12 LXX.) Comp. v. 2 note. (3) Καταγγέλλειν is found only in Acts (καταγγελεύς Acts xvii. 18) and St Paul. Its force appears Acts xvi. 21 καταγγέλλουσιν ἔθη, xvii. 3 ὃν ἐγὼ καταγγέλλω, &c.
In connexion with these words it may be noticed that St John never uses in his Gospel or Epistles εὐαγγέλιον (or cognates). Cf. Apoc. xiv. 6; x. 7.
ὅτι…ἐστὶν καὶ…οὐκ ἔστιν…] The combination of the positive and negative statements brings out (1) the idea of God’s nature, and (2) the perfect realisation of the idea: He is light essentially, and in fact He is perfect, unmixed, light. The form of the negative statement is remarkable: ‘Darkness there is not in Him, no, not in any way.’ Οὐδεὶς is added similarly to a sentence already complete in John xix. 11 (vi. 63; xii. 19). The double negative is lost in the Latin: tenebræ in eo non sunt ullæ.
Positive and negative statements are combined vv. 6, 8; ii. 4, 27; v. 12. John i. 3, 5, 20; ii. 25; iii. 16 (20).
ὁ θεὸς φῶς ἐστίν] Deus lux est, V., God is light. The statement is made absolutely as to the nature of God, and not directly as to His action: as to what He is, and not as to what He does. It is not said that He is ‘a light,’ as one out of many, through Whom or from Whom illumination comes; nor again, that He is ’the light,’ in relation to created beings. But it is said simply ‘He is light.’ The words are designed to give us some conception of His Being. Comp. Philo de Somn. i. p. 632 πρῶτος μὲν ὁ θεὸς φῶς ἐστὶ…καὶ οὐ μόνον φῶς ἀλλὰ καὶ παντὸς ἑτέρου φωτὸς ἀρχέτυπον, μᾶλλον δὲ ἀρχιτέρμον πρεσβύτερον καὶ ἀνώτερον…
Thus the phrase is at once distinguished from the cognate phrases which are defined by some addition; as when creation, so far as it is a manifestation of the life of the Word, that is, as Life, is spoken of as being ’the light of men’ (John i. 4 f.): or when ’the light, the true light, which lighteth every man’ is spoken of as ‘coming into the world’ (John i. 9; comp. c. ii. 8); or when Christ—the Incarnate Word—declares Himself to be ’the light of the world’ (John viii. 12; ix. 5; comp. xii. 46); or ’the light’ (John iii. 19 f., xii. 35 f.): or when Christians, as representing Christ, are also called by Him ’the light of the world’ (Matt. v. 14).
On the other hand it is closely parallel with two other phrases in St John’s writings with which it must be compared and combined: God is spirit (John iv. 24) and God is love (c. iv. 8, 16).
To a certain degree this phrase unites the two others. It includes the thought of immateriality, which finds its most complete expression in the idea of ‘spirit,’ and that of ‘diffusiveness,’ which finds its most complete expression in the idea of ’love.’ But to these thoughts it adds those of purity and glory, which find their most complete expression in relation to man as he is in the idea of ‘fire’ (Heb. xii. 29).
In order to enter into the meaning of the revelation given in the words, it is necessary to take account both of the biblical application of the term ’light’ and of the thoughts which are naturally suggested by a consideration of the nature of light.
In each region of being ’light’ represents the noblest manifestation of that energy to which it is applied. Physically ’light’ embodies the idea of splendour, glory: intellectually of truth: morally of holiness.
Again: in virtue of light, life and action become possible. Light may exist close beside us and yet we ourselves be in darkness, wholly unconscious of its presence, unless some object intervene and itself become
visible by reflecting into our eyes that which we had not before seen. Comp. Philo de præm. et pæn. ii. 415 ὁ θεὸς ἑαυτοῦ φέγγος ὡν δι’ αὐτοῦ μόνον θεωρεῖται. See also Ps. xxxvi. 10. As light it cannot but propagate itself; and, as far as its own nature is concerned, propagate itself without bound. All that limits is darkness.
It must not however be supposed that in speaking of God as ’light’ St John is speaking metaphorically, as if earthly ’light’ were the reality to which God is likened. On the contrary according to his thought the earthly light, with all its associations, is but a reflection in the finite and sensible world of the heavenly light. Through the reflection we rise, according to our power, to the reality.
This being so, the description of God as ’light’ is fitted to bring before us the conception that He is in Himself unapproachable, infinite, omnipresent, unchangeable, the source of life, of safety, of the transfiguration of all things.
And yet more than this the phrase has a direct bearing upon the economy of Redemption. It implies that God in Himself is absolutely holy; and at the same time that it is His nature to impart Himself without limit.
The first fact carries with it the condition of man’s fellowship with Him. The second fact suggests that He will make some provision for the redemption and atonement of man fallen, in accordance with the purpose of creation.
The revelation of the Word, the Life, of ‘Jesus, the Son of God,’ fulfils the condition and the hope. By this we apprehend in all fulness that God is light, self-communicating, making the darkness felt to be what it is, conquering the darkness, while He claims from man complete self-surrender to His influence.
Here then as in every other place the revelation of the nature of God is not a satisfaction of speculative questionings: it is the groundwork of practical results.
God is light: therefore men must walk in the light.
God is spirit: therefore men must worship in spirit (John iv. 24).
God is love: therefore the manifestation of love is the sign of divine childship (iv. 7, 8, 16).
Comp. Heb. xii. 29.
See Additional Note on iv. 8.
The general opposition of light and darkness, which occurs throughout all Scripture, as throughout all literature, in its manifold partial applications, gives additional meaning to the phrase.
| Category of Light. | Category of Darkness. | | — | — | | truth | falsehood. | | good | evil. | | joy | sorrow. | | safety | peril. | | life | death. |
Compare Matt. iv. 16; Luke i. 79; xi 35 f.; John iii. 19, 20; 1 Pet. ii. 9; 2 Cor. iv. 6; vi. 14; Ps. xxvii. 1 (and Hupfeld’s note).
καὶ σκοτία…] The light which God is, is infinite, unbounded by any outline, and absolutely pure. It follows that all that is in darkness, all that is darkness, is excluded from fellowship with God by His very nature. There is in Him nothing which has affinity to it.
In speaking of ’light’ and ‘darkness’ it is probable that St John had before him the Zoroastrian speculations on the two opposing spiritual powers which influenced Christian thought at a very early date. Comp. Basilides, fragm. Quidam enim [barbarorum] dixerunt initia omnium duo esse quibus bona et mala associaverunt, ipsa dicentes initia sine initio esse et ingenita: id est, in principiis lucem fuisse ac tenebras, quæ ex semetipsis essent non quæ esse dicebantur (ap. Iren. Stieren, i. p. 901).
⁶ Ἐὰν εἴπωμεν ὅτι οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν αὐτῷ B me the: ἐν αὐτῷ οὐκ ἔστιν 5 SAC vg. 6. ἐὰν + γάρ A.
- The relation of men to God (i. 6—10).
The revelation of what God is determines man’s relation to Him; for it is assumed that man knows (or can know) what he himself is in himself. The declaration of the majesty of God therefore raises the question of the possibility of man’s fellowship with Him; of the possibility, that is, of the fulfilment of the Apostle’s purpose (v. 3). How can the message ‘God is light’ issue in our communion with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ? The answer lies, as we have seen, in the fact that it is of the essence of light-nature to communicate itself. The true sense of what God is takes us out of ourselves. He gives Himself: we must welcome Him; and so reflecting His glory we become like Him (2 Cor. iii. 18; 1 John iii. 2).
But this ‘assimilation to God’ (ὁμοίωσις τῷ θεῷ κατὰ τὸ δυνατόν) requires a frank recognition of what we are. St John therefore considers the three false views which man is tempted to take of his position. He may deny the reality of sin (6, 7), or his responsibility for sin (8, 9), or the fact of sin in his own case (10). By doing this he makes fellowship with God, as He has been made known, impossible for himself. On the other hand, God has made provision for the realisation of fellowship between Himself and man in spite of sin.
The contrasts and consequences involved in this view of man’s relation to God can be placed clearly in a symmetrical form (vv. 6, 8, 10):
⁶ If we say We have fellowship with Him, and walk in the darkness, we lie, and we do not the truth.
⁸ If we say We have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.
¹⁰ If we say We have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us.
On the other hand (vv. 7, 9):
But if we walk in the light, as He is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanseth us from all sin.
¹¹ If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
The third contrast passes into a different form (ii. 1 f.).
The whole description refers to the general character and tendency of life, and not to the absolute fulfilment of the character in detail.
The progress in the development of the thought is obvious from the parallelisms. ‘We lie,’ ‘we deceive ourselves,’ ‘we make Him a liar’: we are false, that is, to our own knowledge; we persuade ourselves that falsehood is truth; we dare to set ourselves above God. And again: ‘we do not the truth,’ ’the truth is not in us,’ ‘His word is not in us’: we do not carry into act that which we have recognised as our ruling principle; the Truth, to which conscience bears witness, is not the spring and law of our life; we have broken off our vital connexion with the Truth when it comes to us as ’the Word of God’ with a present, personal force.
Corresponding to this growth of falsehood we have a view of the general character of the Christian
life, a life of spiritual fellowship and sanctification; and then of its detailed realisation in spite of partial failures.
1 John 1:6
- ἑὰν εἴπωμεν] St John considers only the case of professing Christians. In doing this he unites himself with those whom he addresses; and recognises the fact that he no less than his fellow-Christians has to guard against the temptations to which the three types of false doctrine correspond.
The exact form of expression (ἑὰν εἴπωμεν) is found only in this passage (vv. 6, 8, 10; comp. iv. 20 ἑὰν τις εἴπῃ). It contemplates a direct assertion of the several statements, and not simply the mental conception of them.
ὅτι] The particle here and in vv. 8, 10 seems to be recitative. Comp. ii. 4; iv. 20; John i. 20, 32; iv. 17, 25; vi. 14; vii. 12; ix. 9, 23, 41.
κοιν. ἔχομεν μετ’ αὐτοῦ] with Him, i.e. with God (the Father), the subject which immediately precedes.
The statement is the simple assertion of the enjoyment of the privileges of the Christian faith, v. 3, note: “If we claim to have reached the end of Christian effort…” καὶ ἐν τῷ σκ. περ.] The compatibility of indifference to moral action with the possession of true faith has been maintained by enthusiasts in all times of religious excitement. Comp. c. ii. 4; iii. 6; 3 John 11.
For early forms of the false teaching see Iren. i. 6, 2; Clem. Alex. Strom. iii. 4 §§ 31 f.; 5 § 40. Comp. Jude v. 4.
ἐν τῷ σκ. περ.] walk in the darkness, choose and use the darkness as our sphere of action. The question is not directly of the specific character of special acts, but of the whole region of life outward and inward. The darkness (τὸ σκότος) is the absolute opposite of ’the light.’
To choose this as our sphere of movement is necessarily to shun fellowship with God. Part of the thought included in ‘walking in darkness’ may be expressed by saying that we seek to hide part of our lives from ourselves, from our neighbour, from God. Comp. John iii. 20.
For the phrase see Is. ix. 2; John viii. 12 (ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ). Comp. Matt. iv. 16; Luke i. 79; Rom. ii. 19. Σκότος occurs in St John only here and John iii. 19 note.
The image of ‘walking,’ resting on the Old Testament הָלַךְ, ixx. περιπατεῖν, is not found applied to conduct in classical writers, but is common in St John and St Paul. The word is not found in this sense in St James or St Peter, and in the Synoptic group of writings only in Mark vii. 5; Acts xxi. 21. St John, it may be added, does not use ἀναστροφή, ἀναστρέφασθαι, which are common in St Peter and occur in St Paul and St James; nor πορεύεσθαι, which is found in St Luke (Gosp. Acts), St Peter (1, 2), and St Jude. Such ‘walking’ is not to be limited to mere outward conduct, but covers the whole activity of life.
ψευδόμεθα…οὐ ποιοῦμεν…] The combination of the positive and negative expressions here again (v. 5) presents the two sides of the thought. Men who profess to combine fellowship with God with the choice of darkness as their sphere of life, actively affirm what they know to be false; and on the other hand, they neglect to carry out in deed what they claim to hold. The two clauses (lie…do) correspond with the two which precede (say… walk).
ψευδόμεθα] The assertion is not only false in fact, but known to be false: it is at variance with man’s nature. Comp. James iii. 14.
ἐὰν δὲ ἐν τῷ φωτὶ περιπατῶμεν ὡς αὐτὸς ἔστιν ἐν τῷ οὐ ποιῶμεν τὴν ἀλήθειαν] non facimus veritatem V., we do not the truth (syr vg gives do not advance in…). Truth is not only in thought and word, but also in action. ‘The Truth’ (ἡ ἀλήθεια) which reaches to every part of human nature—the sum of all that ‘is’—must find expression in a form answering to the whole man. ‘I act,’ in the words of Whichcote, ‘and therefore I am.’ Comp. John iii. 21 note; Neh. ix. 33 (LXX.).
In the Old Testament the phrase ’to do mercy and truth’ LXX. occurs not unfrequently: Gen. xlvii. 29; Josh. ii. 14; 2 Sam. ii. 6; xv. 20, &c. Contrast ποιεῖν ψεῦδος, Apoc. xxi. 27.
1 John 1:7
- ‘Walking in the darkness’ is fatal to fellowship with God, but such fellowship is still possible. The Christian can in his measure imitate God (Eph. v. 1); and as he does so, he realises fellowship with the brethren, which is the visible sign of fellowship with God. At the same time Christ’s Blood cleanseth him constantly, and little by little, from all sin. The chosen rule of life—the ‘walking in light’—is more and more perfectly embodied in deed. The failure which is revealed in the presence of God is removed.
God is in the light absolutely and unalterably: man moves in the light from stage to stage as he advances to the fulness of his growth; and under the action of the light he is himself transfigured.
The process of this great change is written significantly in the N. T. Christ by resurrection from the dead first proclaimed light (Acts xxvi. 23), that is life reflecting the divine glory; to this God has called us (1 Pet. ii. 9); and opened our eyes to look on the illumination of the gospel of the glory of Christ who is the image of God (2 Cor. iv. 4); who made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in the light (Col. i. 12). By believing on the light we become sons of light (John xii. 36: comp. Luke xvi. 8; 1 Thess. v. 5); and finally are ourselves light in the Lord (Eph. v. 8).
‘Walking in the light’ brings two main results in regard to our relation to men and to God. We realise fellowship one with another, and in the vision of God’s holiness we become conscious of our own sin. That fellowship is the pledge of a divine fellowship: that consciousness calls out the application of the virtue of Christ’s life given for us and to us.
ἐὰν δέ…] but if we walk… There is a sharp contrast between the vain profession of fellowship and godlike action. But, setting aside mere words, if we walk in the light…
ἐν τῷ φ. περιπ.] The one absolute light is opposed to the darkness. To choose the light as the sphere of life is to live and move as in the revealed presence of God. Comp. Is. ii. 5; li. 4.
The thought of walking in light and in darkness soon found expression in the allegory of ‘The two ways.’ Barn. Ep. xviii. ff. Doctrine of the Apostles, 1—6.
ὡς αὐτὸς…] sicut et ipse Latt., as He Himself is in the light. God is light, and He is in the light. Being light He radiates as it were His glory and dwells in this light unapproachable (1 Tim. vi. 16). The realm of perfect truth and purity in which He is completely corresponds to His own nature. Under another aspect light is His garment (Ps. civ. 2), which at once veils and reveals His Majesty.
Bede expresses well the contrast of περιπατεῖν and εἶναι: Notanda distinctio verborum… Ambulant… justi in luce cum virtutum operibus servientes ad meliora proficiunt… Deus autem sine aliquo profectu semper bonus, justus, verusque existit.
- μετ’ ἀλλήλων: A* (appy) tol Cl Al Tert (followed by J. C. domini nostri) read μετ’ αὐτοῦ; harl has cum deo. The readings are evidently interpretative glosses.
Ἰησοῦ NBC syrr the: + χριστοῦ 5° A vg me.
καθαρίζει: some auths., including A, read the future (καθαρίσει or καθαριεῖ).
αὐτός] He Himself, our Lord and King. Comp. Deut. xxxii. 39; Is. xlii. 4 (Cheyne); xliii. 10; Jer. v. 12; Ps. cii. 28 (הוּא).
κοιν. ἔχ. μετ’ ἀλλ.] societatem habemus ad invicem V., we have fellowship one with another, that is brother with brother: we enjoy the fulness of Christian communion. The transcendental fellowship with God which the false Christian claimed becomes for us a practical fellowship in actual life. True fellowship with God comes through men. Love of the brethren is the proof of the love of God: fellowship with the brethren is the proof of fellowship with God.
St John does not repeat the phrase which he has quoted from the vain professors of Christianity (we have fellowship with Him, v. 6), but gives that which is its true equivalent according to the conditions of our being. Comp. v. 3.
The supposition that μετ’ ἀλλήλων means ‘we with God and God with us’ is against the apostolic form of language (John xx. 17), and also against the general form of St John’s argument, for he takes the fellowship of Christians as the visible sign and correlative of fellowship with God: iv. 7, 12. Comp. iii. 11, 23.
καὶ τὸ αἷμα…] and the blood… This clause is coordinate with that which goes before. The two results of ‘walking in the light’ are intimately bound together. Active fellowship shews the reality of that larger spiritual life, which is life in God; and at the same time the action of Christ upon the members of His
Body brings about that real sinlessness which is essential to union with God.
The case taken is that of those who are in Christ’s Body. The question is not of ‘justification,’ but of ‘sanctification.’ ‘Walking in the light’ is presupposed, as the condition for this application of the virtue of Christ’s Life and Death. See Additional Note.
Ἰησοῦ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ] Jesus His Son. The union of the two natures in the one Person is clearly marked by the contrast ‘Jesus’ (not Jesus Christ), ‘His Son.’ Compare (iv. 15); v. 5; Heb. iv. 14; (Gal. iv. 4 ff.); and for the full title v. 3 note. Here the human name (Jesus) brings out the possibility of the communication of Christ’s Blood; and the divine name brings out its all-sufficing efficacy.
Mire… ait et sanguis Jesu filii eius: Filius quippe Dei in divinitatis natura sanguinem habere non potuit; sed quia idem Filius Dei etiam Filius hominis factus est recte propter unitatem personæ eius Filii Dei sanguinem appellat ut verum eum corpus assumpsisse, verum pro nobis sanguinem fudisse demonstraret (Bede). So Ignatius (ad Eph. 1) ventures to write ἐν αἵματι θεοῦ. Comp. Lightfoot on Clem. Rom. i. 2 παθήματα αὐτοῦ, and the Additional Note in the Appendix, pp. 400 ff.
For the title see Additional Note on. iii. 23.
καθαρίζει] emundat V., purgabit Aug., cleanseth. Comp. John xiii. 10. The thought is not of the forgiveness of sin only, but of the removal of sin. The sin is done away; and the purifying action is exerted continuously.
The idea of ‘cleansing’ is specially connected with the fitting preparation for divine service and divine fellowship. Ritual ‘cleanness’ was the condition for the participation in the privileges of approach to God, under the Old Covenant. So ’the blood of Christ’ cleanses the conscience for service to Him Who is a Living God (Heb. ix. 13 f., 22 f.). He gave Himself for us, to cleanse for Himself a peculiar people (Tit. ii. 14). He cleansed the Church to present it to Himself in glory (Eph. v. 26 f.).
The fulness of the thought is expressed in Matt. v. 8, were the blessing of ’the clean (καθαροί) in heart’ is that they shall see God (comp. 1 John iii. 2).
ἀ. πάσης ἀμ.] from all sin, so that men are made like to God, in Whom is no darkness (v. 5). The thought here is of ‘sin’ and not of ‘sins’: of the spring, the principle, and not of the separate manifestations. For the singular compare c. iii. 8 f.; John i. 29: for the plural v. 9; ii. 2, 12; iv. 10; Apoc. i. 5.
The sing. and plur. are used in significant connexion, John viii. 21, 24.
For the use of πᾶς with abstract nouns (π. ἀμ. ‘sin in all its many forms’) see James i. 2 πᾶσα χαρά, 2 Cor. xii. 12 πᾶσα ὑπομονή, Eph. i. 8 πᾶσα σοφία, 2 Pet. i. 5 πᾶσα σπουδή. Contrast 1 Pet. v. 7 πᾶσα ἡ μέριμνα, John v. 22 (τὴν κρίσιν πᾶσαν), xvi. 13 (τὴν ἀλήθειαν πᾶσαν).
Additional Note on i. 7. The idea of Christ’s Blood in the New Testament¹.
The idea of Blood in the O. T.
The interpretation of the passages in the New Testament which refer to the blessings obtained by the ‘Blood’ of Christ must rest finally upon the interpretation given to the use of Blood in the sacrificial system of the O. T. Our own natural associations with Blood tend, if not to mislead, at least to obscure the ideas which it suggested to a Jew.
The seat of Life: and
And here it is obvious that the place occupied by Blood in the Jewish sacrifices was connected with the general conception attached to it throughout the Pentateuch. The Blood is the seat of Life in such a sense that it can be spoken of directly as the Life itself (נָפֶשׁ Gen. ix. 4; Deut. xii. 23). More exactly the Life is said to be ‘in the Blood’ (Lev. xvii. 11). Hence it was forbidden to eat flesh with the blood (Gen. ix. 4; Lev. vii. 26 f.; xvii. 11 ff.; Deut. xii. 23 f.): a man might not use another’s life for the support of his physical life.
living when shed.
For it must be observed that by the outpouring of the Blood the life which was in it was not destroyed, though it was separated from the organism which it had before quickened: Gen. iv. 10; comp. Heb. xii. 24 (παρὰ τὸν Ἄβελ); Apoc. vi. 10.
Appointed for an atonement.
This prohibition of the use of Blood as food gave occasion for the clearest declaration of its significance in sacrifice (Lev. xvii. 11): I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will eat him off from among the people. For the soul—life (נָפֶשׁ) of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls—lives (עַל־נַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם), for the Blood, it atones through the soul—life (בְּנָפֶשׁ יָכְפֹר), i.e. its atoning virtue lies not in its material substance but in the life of which it is the ‘vehicle.’ Moreover, the
¹ On the subject of this note I may refer to the very suggestive note of Dr Milligan, The Resurrection of our Lord, pp. 263 ff.
Blood already shed is distinctly treated as living. When it is sprinkled ‘upon the altar’ it makes atonement in virtue of the ’life’ which is in it.
Thus two distinct ideas were included in the sacrifice of a victim, the death of the victim by the shedding of its blood, and the liberation, so to speak, of the principle of life by which it had been animated, so that this life became available for another end¹. The ritual of sacrifice took account of both these moments in the symbolic act. The slaughtering of the victim, which was properly the work of the offerer, was sharply separated from the sprinkling of the blood, which was the exclusive work of the priest. The death was inflicted by him who in his representative acknowledged the due punishment of his sin; the bringing near to God of the life so rendered up was the office of the appointed mediators between God and men. Death and life were both exhibited, death as the consequence of sin, and life made by the divine appointment a source of life. And it is worthy of notice that these two thoughts of the shedding and of the sprinkling of the Blood, which embrace the two elements in the conception of atonement, were equally expressed by the one word aiμπεκχυσία, sanguinis effusio (fusio) V., outpouring of blood (Heb. ix. 22). Thus the life was first surrendered and then united with God.
So far the thoughts suggested by the Jewish animal sacrifices seem to be clear; but they were necessarily imperfect and transitional. The union between the offerer and the offering was conventional and not real. The victim was irrational, so that there could be no true fellowship between it and the offender. Its death was involuntary, so that it could not embody in the highest form surrender to the divine will.
All that was foreshadowed by the Mosaic sacrificial system, all that was from the nature of the case wanting in it, Christ supplied. With Him, the Son of Man, all men are made capable of vital union: in Him all men find their true life. His sacrifice of Himself, through life and through death, was in every part a reasonable service. He endured the Cross at the hands of men. He was at once ‘offered’ and ‘offered Himself’ (Heb. ix. 14, 28); and by His own blood He entered in once for all into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us (Heb. ix. 12).
Thus in accordance with the typical teaching of the Levitical ordinances the Blood of Christ represents Christ’s Life (1) as rendered in free self-sacrifice to God for men, and (2) as brought into perfect fellowship with God, having been set free by death. The Blood of Christ is, as shed, the Life of Christ given for men, and, as offered, the Life of Christ now given to men, the Life which is the spring of their life (John xii. 24). In each case the efficacy of the Life of Christ depends, from man’s side, on the incorporation of the believer ‘in Christ.’
It will be evident from what has been said that while the thought of Christ’s Blood (as shed) includes all that is involved in Christ’s Death, the Death of Christ, on the other hand, expresses only a part, the initial part,
¹ Compare Philo, qu. det. pot. ins. § 23, i. 207 M.: ἡ μὲν οὖν κοινὴ πρὸς τὰ ἄλογα δύναμις οὐσίαν ἔλαχεν αἷμα· ἡ δὲ ἐκ τῆς λογικῆς ἀπορρνεῖσα πηγῆς, τὸ πνεῦμα… τύπον τινὰ καὶ χαρακτῆρα θείας δυνόμεως, ἦν ὀνόματι κυρίῳ Μωυσῆς εἰκόνα καλεῖ…
Two aspects of its use: (1) shedding, (2) sprinkling.
The Levitical use necessarily symbolical and imperfect.
The idea fulfilled in Christ.
Christ’s Blood (1) shed (Death), (2) offered to God (Life).
The idea of Christ’s Blood always includes that of Christ’s Life. Usage of St John.
of the whole conception of Christ’s Blood. The Blood always includes the thought of the life preserved and active beyond death.
This conception of the Blood of Christ is fully brought out in the fundamental passage, John vi. 53-56. Participation in Christ’s Blood is participation in His life (r. 56). But at the same time it is implied throughout that it is only through His Death-His violent Death-that His Blood can be made available for men.
In the other passages of St John’s writings, where reference is made to the Blood of Christ, now one part of the whole conception and now the other predominates. In Apoc. i. 5 τῷ ἀγαπῶντι ἡμᾶς καὶ λύσαντι ἡμᾶς ἐκ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν ἐν τῷ αἵματι αὐτοῦ, and in Apoc. v. 9 ὅτι ἐσφάγης καὶ ἠγόρασας τῷ Θεῷ ἐν τῷ αἵματι, the idea of the single act, the pouring out of blood in death, is most prominent and yet not exclusively present. In the one case the present participle (ἀγαπῶντι) seems to extend the act beyond the moment of accomplishment; and in the other ἐν τῷ αἵματι is felt to add something to ἐσφάγης which is not included in it. The Blood is not simply the price by which the redeemed were purchased but the power by which they were quickened so as to be capable of belonging to God.
On the other hand in Apoc. xii. 11 ἐνίκησαν αὐτὸν διὰ τὸ αἷμα τοῦ ἀρνίου, Apoc. vii. 14 ἐλεύκαναν αὐτὰς [τὰς στολὰς] ἐν τῷ αἵματι τοῦ ἀρνίου, 1 John i. 7 τὸ αἷμα Ἰησοῦ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ καθαρίζει ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ πάσης ἁμαρτίας, the conception of the Blood as an energetic power, as a fountain of life, opened by death and flowing still, is clearly marked.
This latter thought explains the stress which St John lays on the issue of the blood and the water from the side of the Lord after the Crucifixion (John xix. 34; 1 John v. 6 ff. notes). That which was outwardly, physically, death, was yet reconcileable with life. Christ lived even in Death and through Death.
The simple idea of the Death of Christ, as separated from His Life, falls wholly into the background in the writings of St John (John xi. 50 f.; xviii. 14; xii. 24 f., 33; xviii. 33). It is only in the words of Caiaphas that the virtue of Christ’s death is directly mentioned. In this respect his usage differs from that of St Paul and St Peter (πάσχειν). If the Good Shepherd ’lays down His life for the sheep’ (John x. 11), this last act only reveals the devotion of His care for them.
In the Epistle to the Hebrews the manifold efficacy of Christ’s Blood is directly illustrated by a parallel with two representative sacrifices, the Covenant Sacrifice by which Israel was brought into fellowship with God (Heb. ix. 15 ff.), and the Service of the Day of Atonement, by which the broken fellowship was again restored (Heb. ix. 11 ff.).
The Blood of Christ is the Blood of the New Covenant: Heb. ix. 15 ff. See Matt. xxvi. 28; Mk. xiv. 24; Le. xxii. 20; 1 Cor. xi. 25, 27 (comp. 1 Cor. x. 16); and it is the Blood through which He as our High Priest enters into the Presence of God for us: Heb. ix. 12, 23 ff.; comp. xiii. 12, i. 3. These two aspects of the truth need to be carefully regarded. By ‘sprinkling’ of Christ’s Blood the believer is first brought into fellowship with God in Christ; and in the imperfect conduct of his personal life, the life of Christ is continually communicated to him for growth and cleansing. He
Usage of the Epistle to the Hebrews.
himself enters into the Divine Presence ‘in the Blood of Jesus’ (Heb. x. 19) surrounded, as it were, and supported by the Life which flows from Him¹.
Similar thoughts find expression in the other writings of the New Testament. Thus we read with predominant reference to the initial act of salvation:
1 Pet. i. 18 f. ἐλυτρώθητε…τιμίῳ αἵματι ὡς ἀμνοῦ ἀμώμου καὶ ἀσπίλου Χριστοῦ.
But even in such cases the first act is not regarded as an isolated act of forgiveness. It is the beginning of a state which continues:
In other places the thought of the continuous efficacy of Christ’s Blood as a power of life is even more conspicuous:
1 Pet. i. 2 (ἐκλεκτοῖς) εἰς ὑπακοὴν καὶ ῥαντισμὸν αἵματος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ.
The two elements which are thus included in the thought of Christ’s Blood, or, in the narrower sense of the word, of Christ’s Death and Christ’s Blood, that is of Christ’s Death (the Blood shed) and of Christ’s Life (the Blood offered), are indicated clearly in v. 9 [God] is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins (the virtue of Christ’s Death); and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness (the virtue of Christ’s Life).
1 John 1:8
- The mention of sin at the end of v. 7 leads on to a new thought and a new plea. ‘How,’ it may be asked, ‘has the Christian anything more to do with sin? How does it still continue?’ The question has real difficulty.
Some who do not venture to affirm the practical indifference of action, may yet maintain that sin does not cleave to him who has committed it, that man is not truly responsible for the final consequences of his conduct. This is the second false plea: We have no sin; sin is a transient phenomenon which leaves behind no abiding issues: it is an accident and not a principle within us.
The issue of this second false plea is also presented in a positive and negative form. By affirming our practical irresponsibility ‘we lead ourselves astray’ positively, and negatively we shew that ’the truth is not in us’ as an informing, inspiring power.
ἀμ. οὐκ ἔχομεν] we have no sin. The phrase ἁμαρτίαν ἔχειν is peculiar to St John in the N. T. Like corresponding phrases ἔχειν πίστιν (Matt. xvii. 20; xxi. 21, &c.), ζωὴν ἔχειν (John v. 26, 40, &c.), λύπην ἔχειν (John xvi. 21 f.), &c., it marks the presence of something which is not isolated but a continuous source of influence (comp. κοινωνίαν ἔχειν v. 3).
Thus ’to have sin’ is distinguished from ’to sin’ as the sinful principle is distinguished from the sinful act in itself. ‘To have sin’ includes the idea of personal guilt: it describes a state both as a consequence and as a cause.
Comp. John ix. 41; xv. 22, note, 24; xix. 11.
The word ‘sin’ is to be taken quite generally and not confined to original sin, or to sin of any particular type. A tempting form of this kind of error finds expression in a fragment of Clement of Alexandria (Ecl. Proph. § 15, p. 993 P.) ὁ μὲν πιστεύσας ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτημάτων ἔλαβεν παρὰ τοῦ κυρίου, ὁ δ’ ἐν γνώσει γενόμενος ἅτε μηκέτι ἁμαρτάνων παρ’ ἑαυτοῦ τὴν ἄφεσιν τῶν λοιπῶν κομίζεται.
ἑαυτοὺς πλαν.] ipsi nos seducimus V., we deceive ourselves, or rather, we lead ourselves astray. Our fatal error is not only a fact (πλανώμεθα
- οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν ἡμῖν NB me the: ἐν ἡμῖν οὐκ ἔστιν 5 AC vg. Comp. v. 10.
Matt. xxii. 29; John vii. 47), but it is a fact of which we are the responsible authors. The result is due to our own efforts. We know that the assertion which we make is false (ψευδόμεθα); and, more than this, we persuade ourselves that it is true.
The phrase does not occur again in N. T. For the use of ἑαυτοὺς with the first person see Acts xxiii. 14; Rom. viii. 23; xv. 1; 1 Cor. xi. 31; 2 Cor. i. 9, &c. St John uses it with the second person c. v. 21; 2 John 8; John v. 42; vi. 53; xii. 8.
The idea of πλάνη (c. iv. 6) is in all cases that of straying from the one way (James v. 19 f.): not of misconception in itself, but of misconduct. Such going astray is essentially ruinous.
The cognate terms are used of the false christs and prophets (Matt. xxiv. 4 ff.; Apoc. ii. 20; xiii. 14; xix. 20; comp. c. iv. 6; 2 Ep. 7); of Satan (Apoc. xii. 9; xx. 3 ff.), of Babylon (Apoc. xviii. 23), of Balaam (Jude 11).
Ἀπατάω, ἀπάτη (φρενταπάτω, φρενταπάτης) are not found in the writings of St John. In this group of words the primary idea is that of ‘deception,’ the conveying to another a false belief.
καὶ ἡ ἀλ. οὐκ ἔ. ἐν ἡμ.] and the truth is not in us. According to the true reading the pronoun is unemphatic (so v. 10). The thought of ’the Truth’ prevails over that of the persons. In St John ’the Truth’ is the whole Gospel as that which meets the requirements of man’s nature. Comp. John viii. 32 ff.; xviii. 37. Introd. to Gospel of St John, p. xlv.
The same conception is found in the other apostolic writings; 2 Thess. ii. 12; Rom. ii. 8; 2 Cor. xiii. 8;
(Gal. v. 7); 1 Tim. iii. 15; iv. 3; vi. 5; 2 Tim. ii. 15, 18; (Tit. i. 1); Heb. x. 26; 1 Pet. i. 22; James iii. 14; v. 19.
The Truth may therefore in this most comprehensive sense be regarded without us or within us: as something outwardly realised (v. 6 do the truth), or as something inwardly efficacious (the truth is in us). Comp. v. 10 note. With this specific statement ἡ ἀλ. οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν ἡμῖν (comp. ii. 4) contrast the general statement οὐκ ἔστιν ἀλ. ἐν αὐτῷ John viii. 44 (’there is no truth in him’).
1 John 1:9
- How then, it may be asked, can consequences be done away? If sin is something which clings to us in this way, how can it be ’effaced’? The answer is that the same attributes of God which lead to the punishment of the unrepentant lead to the forgiveness and cleansing of the penitent. He meets frank confession with free blessing. And the divine blessing connected with the confession of sins is twofold. It includes (1) the remission of sins, the remission of the consequences which they entail, and (2) the cleansing of the sinner from the moral imperfection which separates him from God: 1 Cor. vi. 9; Luke xiii. 27.
ἐὰν ὁμολ.] There is no sharp opposition in form between this verse and v. 8, as there is between 7 and 6 (if we say—but if (ἐὰν δῇ) we walk). Open confession and open assertion are acts of the same order.
ὁμολ. τὰς ἀμ.] confess our sins, not only acknowledge them, but acknowledge them openly in the face of men. Comp. ii. 23; iv. 2, 3, 15; Apoc. iii. 5; John i. 20; ix. 22; xii. 42; Rom. x. 9, &c. The exact phrase is not found elsewhere in N.T.; but the kindred phrase ἐξομολογεῖσθαι ἁμαρτίας (παραπτώματα)
- τὰς ἄμ. (2) AB: + ἡμῶν NC vg syrr the me. om. ἡμᾶς C.
occurs Matt. iii. 6 || Mk. i. 5; James v. 16. Comp. Acts xix. 18.
Comp. Ecclus. iv. 26 μὴ αἰσχυνθῇς ὁμολογῆσαι ἐφ’ ἁμαρτίαις σου, Sus. v. 14 ὡμολόγησαν τὴν ἐπιθυμίαν.
Nothing is said or implied as to the mode in which such confession is to be made. That is to be determined by experience. Yet its essential character is made clear. It extends to specific, definite acts, and not only to sin in general terms. That which corresponds to saying ‘we have no sin’ is not saying ‘we have sin,’ but ‘confessing our sins.’ The denial is made in an abstract form: the confession is concrete and personal.
Augustine says with touching force: Ista levia quæ dicimus noli contemnere. Si contemnis quando appendix, expavesse quando numeras. And again: Vis ut ille ignoscat? tu agnosce.
πιστός ἐστιν…] The subject (God) is necessarily supplied from the context, vv. 5 ff. The form of the sentence (πιστός…ἵνα) presents the issue as that which is, in some sense, contemplated in the divine character. Forgiveness and cleansing are ends to which God, being what He is, has regard. He is not, as men are, fickle or arbitrary. On the contrary, He is essentially ‘faithful’ and ‘righteous.’ Comp. 1 Clem. ad Cor. c. 27.
‘Iva is construed with adjectives in other cases: John i. 27 ἄξιος ἵνα…; Luke vii. 6 ἱκανὸς ἵνα…, but these are not strictly parallel; see c. iii. 11 note.
The epithet ‘faithful’ (πιστός) is applied to God not unfrequently in the Pauline epistles as being One who will fulfil His promises (Heb. x. 23; xi. 11), and complete what He has begun (1 Thess. v. 24; 1 Cor. i. 9), and guard those who trust in Him
(1 Cor. x. 13; comp. 1 Pet. iv. 19), because this is His Nature (2 Tim. ii. 13). With these passages those also must be compared in which Christ is spoken of as ‘faithful’ (2 Thess. iii. 3), and that both in regard to God (Heb. iii. 2) and to man (Heb. ii. 17).
God (the Father) again is spoken of in the New Testament as ‘righteous’ (δίκαιος) in Apoc. xvi. 5; John xvii. 25; Rom. iii. 26; and so also Christ, c. ii. 1, iii. 7; 1 Pet. iii. 18 (the usage in Matt. xxvii. 19, 24; Luke xxiii. 47 is different). The subject in c. ii. 29 is doubtful.
The essence of righteousness lies in the recognition and fulfilment of what is due from one to another. Truth passing into action is righteousness. He is said to be righteous who decides rightly, and he also who passes successfully through a trial.
Righteousness is completely fulfilled in God both in respect of what He does and of what He is. Here action and character (as we speak) absolutely coincide. And yet further, the ‘righteousness’ of God answers to His revealed purpose of love; so that the idea of righteousness in this case draws near not unfrequently to the idea of ‘mercy.’ Compare the use of ‘righteousness’ in the second part of Isaiah (e.g. xlii. 6, Cheyne).
It may indeed be said most truly that the righteousness of God is His love seen in relation to the discipline of man; and that love is righteousness seen in relation to the purpose of God.
So far as righteousness is manifested in the life of one whose powers and circumstances change, the principle, which is unchanging, will receive manifold relative embodiments from time to time.
The forgiveness and the cleansing
πάσης ἀδικίας. ¹⁰Ἐὰν εἴπωμεν ὅτι Οὐχ ἡμαρτήκαμεν, of those who ‘confess their sins’ are naturally connected with God’s faithfulness and righteousness. They answer to what He has been pleased to make known to us of His being in Scripture and life and history. He has laid down conditions for fellowship with Himself which man can satisfy and which He will satisfy.
It is not difficult to see how this view of God’s action is included in the fundamental message: God is light. Light necessarily imparts itself (πιστός), and imparts itself as light (δικαίος).
The two epithets are applied to God as ‘a righteous and faithful witness,’ Jer. xlii. 5.
ἀφῇ ἡμῖν τὰς ὅμ.] The verb ἀφιέναι occurs in this connexion in St John c. ii. 12; John xx. 23. The phrase ἄφεσις ἁμαρτιῶν (Synn., Acts, Eph., Col., Heb.) is not found in his writings. The image of ‘remission,’ ‘forgiveness,’ presents sin as a ‘debt,’ something external to the man himself in its consequences, just as the image of ‘cleansing’ marks the personal stain.
The repetition of the pronoun (ἡμῖν, ἡμᾶς) is to be noticed.
ἀφῇ…καθαρίσῃ] remittat…emundet ab… V., dimittat…purget ex… Aug., forgive…cleanse… Both acts are here spoken of in their completeness. The specific sins (αἱ ἁμαρτίαι) are forgiven (see Additional Note): the character (ἀδικία) is purified. The Christian character (righteousness) depends on a distinct relation to God in Christ. This admits of no degree; but there is a progressive hallowing of the Christian which follows after to the end of life (v. 7).
The two parts of the divine action answer to the two aspects of righteousness already noticed. As judging righteously God forgives those who stand in a just relation to Himself: as being righteous He communicates His nature to those who are united with Him in His Son.
Hence it is said that ‘God cleanses’—there can be no doubt as to the subject—as before that ’the blood of Christ cleanses.’ The Father, the one Fountain of Godhead, cleanses by applying the blood of the Son to believers. It is significant also that ‘sin’ (as distinguished from ‘sins’) is here regarded under the relative aspect of duty as ‘unrighteousness’ (c. v. 17).
ἀδικίας] iniquitate V., unrighteousness. The word occurs elsewhere in St John only in c. v. 17; John vii. 18.
Generally the kindred words (δικαιοσύνη, &c.) are rare in his writings. Righteousness and unrighteousness are regarded by him characteristically under the aspect of truth and falsehood: that is, under the form of being rather than under the form of manifestation.
The correspondence of righteous and unrighteousness is lost in the Latin (justus…iniquitate), and hence in A.V.
Additional Note on i. 9. The idea of sin in St John.
The treatment of the doctrine of sin by St John requires to be considered briefly in its main features for the understanding of many details in the Epistle. ‘Sin,’ St John says in a phrase of which the terms are made convertible, ‘is lawlessness’ (c. iii. 4 ἡ ἀμαρτία ἐστὶν ἡ ἀνομία, peccatum est iniquitas V.). The description is absolutely exhaustive. Man is constituted with a threefold relation, a threefold obligation to self, to the world, to God. To violate the ’law’ by which this relation is defined in life is ’to sin.’ Each conscious act by which the law is broken
¹ Compare a remarkable passage of Clement of Alexandria: διττὸν δὲ τὸ αἷμα τοῦ κυρίου, τὸ μὲν γὰρ ἔστιν αὐτοῦ σαρκικόν, ᾧ τῆς φθορᾶς λειπρώμεθα, τὸ δὲ πνευματικόν, τούτεστιν ᾧ κεχρίσμεθα.
is ‘a sin’: the principle which finds expression in the special acts is ‘sin’ (ἡ ἁμαρτία, John i. 29)¹.
Sin is self-assertion, selfishness, hatred.
When traced back to its last form this ‘sin’ is the self-assertion of the finite in violation of the limits which guide the harmonious fulfilment of the idea of its being. Every such act, being in its essence self-regarding, self-centred, must be a violation of ’love.’ Thus lawlessness is under another aspect selfishness; or as it is characterised by St John, ‘hatred’ in opposition to love (1 John ii. 9; iii. 14 f.; iv. 20). There can be essentially no middle term.
The revealed law.
The ’law’ which determines man’s right conduct finds manifold declaration, through special divine utterances (John xvii. 8, ῥήματα, commandments (c. ii. 3 ἐντολαί), which are gathered up in the unity of one revelation (λόγος) without and within (c. ii. 7, 14). To disregard any of these is to sin.
‘Sin.’ ‘sins.’
It follows that ἁμαρτία ‘a sin,’ ‘sin’ and ἁμαρτάνειν (’to sin’) have two distinct meanings. Ἀμαρτία may describe a single act impressed by the sinful character (1 John v. 16 f.), or sin regarded in the abstract (John xvi. 8 f.). And again ἁμαρτάνειν may be ’to commit a sinful act’ (c. i. 10) or ’to present a sinful character’ (c. iii. 6). The plural ἁμαρτία offers no ambiguity (John viii. 24; xx. 23; 1 John i. 9; ii. 2, 12; iii. 5; iv. 10; comp. Apoc. i. 5; xviii. 4 f.).
The sinful character.
This distinction between the principle, the power, of sin and the manifestation of the power in individual sins is of primary importance. The wrong-doer embodies sin in deed (c. iii. 4, 8 ὁ ποιῶν τὴν ἁμαρτίαν, comp. John viii. 34), just as the right-doer embodies the Truth (c. i. 6 ποιεῖν τὴν ἀληθείαν); and by so doing he contracts a character corresponding to his deeds (c. i. 8 ἔχει ἁμαρτίαν).
All men as sinful need salvation.
Sin, as a fact, is universal (1 John i. 10); and the end of sin is death (James i. 15). Or, as St John states the case, looking at the eternal relations of things, man in his natural state is ‘in death’ (1 John iii. 14 μεταβεβήκαμεν ἐκ τοῦ θανάτου εἰς τὴν ζωὴν; comp. John v. 24, 40; Matt. viii. 22; I.e. ix. 60; I.e. xv. 24). ‘The wrath of God abideth upon him’ (John iii. 36 μένει ἐπ’ αὐτόν; comp. Eph. ii. 3 τέκνα φύσει ὀργῆς). He needs ‘salvation’ (σώζειν John iii. 17; v. 34; x. 9; xii. 47; σωτήρ John iv. 42, 1 John iv. 14; ἡ σωτηρία John iv. 22; comp. Apoc. vii. 10; xii. 10; xix. 1).
It may come to pass that ‘sin’ and ‘sins’ surround the sinner and become as it were the element in which he exists (John viii. 21 ἐν τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ, 24 ἐν ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις, comp. 1 John v. 19 ἐν τῷ πανηρῷ κεῖται). He who sins ‘has not seen God’ (1 John iii. 6). ‘Darkness’ not only hinders the use of sight but destroys the organ of sight (1 John ii. 11). There is even in the Christian body a sin unto death (c. v. 16 ἁμαρτία πρὸς θάνατον,
¹ This use of ἡ ἁμαρτία is not found in the Synoptic Gospels nor in the Acts. It occurs in St Paul: Rom. v. 12. &c.
Many of the special terms which are used for sin in different aspects in other writings of the New Testament, are wanting in St John, e.g. ἀσεβεῖν, ἀσέβεια (St Paul, St Peter, St Jude), παραβαίνειν, παράβασις, παραβάτης (St Matthew, St Paul, Hebrews, St James; in 2 John 9 read προάγων); (παρανομεῖν, παρανομία); παράπτωμα (παραπίπτειν) (St Matthew, St Mark, St Paul). He commonly speaks of sin under the terms ‘darkness,’ ‘hatred,’ ‘wandering.’
peccatum ad mortem V.) which excludes from the privileges of the Christian society, the natural forces of the Christian life.
The efficacy of Christ’s work extends both to sin and sins. As ’the Lamb of God’ ‘He taketh away the sin of the world’ (John i. 29 ὁ ἀμνὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, ὁ αἴρων τὴν ἀμαρτίαν τοῦ κόσμου, V. Agnus Dei…qui tollit peccatum mundi); and again ‘He was manifested that he may take away sins,’ not simply ‘our sins’ (1 John iii. 5 ἐφανερώθη ἵνα ἄρῃ τὰς ἀμαρτίας, apparuit ut peccata tolleret V.). Under another aspect this ‘removal of sins’ is an ‘undoing,’ an ‘abrogation of the works of the devil’ (c. iii. 8 ἐφανερώθη ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ ἵνα λύσῃ τὰ ἔργα τοῦ διαβόλου, apparuit Filius Dei ut dissolyat opera diaboli V.).
The consequences of sin once committed place the need of the sinner in a clear light. Sin unless it be taken away ‘abideth’ (John ix. 41); and its consequences fall under three main heads. The sinner incurs a debt; he falls into bondage; and he is estranged from God. The particular act calls for a proportionate reparation, the moral discipline of the debtor coinciding with the satisfaction due to the broken law; the wrong-doing impairs so far the powers of the doer; and it also places a barrier between him and God. The notion of debt (Matt. vi. 12) is recognised in that of the ‘remission’ of sins (c. i. 9; John xx. 23): the notion of bondage finds a most emphatic exposition in John viii. 32 ff.: ’the love of the Father’ is incompatible with the love of the world, out of which sin springs (1 John ii. 15 ff.; comp. Eph. iv. 18; Col. i. 21).
Thus it is that man needs forgiveness, redemption, reconciliation. For-giveness in order to be complete involves not only the remission of the penalty of the deed but the removal of the direct results of the act on the doer. As long as a debtor finds that his debt is remembered though the payment of it will not be exacted, forgiveness is not complete. The exercise of such a power of forgiveness corresponds with a new creation. Thus when the Lord claims as Son of man the power of the forgiveness of sins He offers as a sign of it a creative act (Matt. ix. 5 f.; comp. John v. 14). And so St John appeals to the divine promise assured to the penitent to ‘forgive their sins and cleanse them from all unrighteousness’ (1 John i. 9).
Redemption again includes two elements, the deliverance of the sinner from thraldom to a foreign power, and the restoration of his lost strength. St John does not use the group of words connected with λύτρον (λυτροῦσθαι, λυτρωτής, λύτρωσις, ἀντίλυτρον), but he has the simple λύω (Apoc. i. 5); and in the Apocalypse he carries out the notion yet further, representing Christians as ‘bought’ for God (v. 9; xiv. 3 f.).
Man’s estrangement from God by sin can also be regarded in two ways. Sin cannot but be a bar to God’s love; and conversely man as sinful cannot love God. He requires a change in condition and a change in feeling, propitiation and reconcilement. The latter thought finds its plainest expression in the group of words καταλλάσσειν, ἀποκαταλλάσσειν, καταλλαγή, which are peculiar to St Paul: the former in the group ἱλάσκομαι, ἱλασμός, ἱλαστήριον. The change in the personal relation of man to God, from the side of man, indicated by ‘reconcilement’ (2 Cor. v. 18—20; Rom. v. 10 f.), is referred to its source by St John, who shews that
All flow from fellowship in Christ.
the love of God in the Mission of His Son calls out man’s love (1 John iv. 10). On the other hand God looks with good pleasure on man in Christ: Christ is ’the propitiation for our sins’ (c. ii. 2). ‘He loosed us from our sins in His blood’ (Apoc. i. 5). ‘His blood cleanseth from all sin’ (i. 7; comp. Heb. i. 3 καθαρισμόν ἀμ. ποιησόμενος, Acts xxii. 16 ἀπόλουσαι τὰς ἀμ.)¹.
The last phrases lead at once to St John’s view of the way in which the work of the Word Incarnate avails for forgiveness, for redemption, for reconciliation. By dying on the Cross He made His Life—His blood—available for all who believe in Him. The gift of God is eternal, divine, life, ‘and this life is in His Son’ (1 John v. 11 f.). The possession of such life is the destruction of past sin, and safety from sin to come (1 John iii. 9). By incorporation with Christ the believer shares the virtue of His humanity (John vi. 51, 57). Thus finally unbelief in Him is the test of sin (John xvi. 9).
Compare additional notes on i. 7; ii. 2, 13.
It may be added that it will be evident from this sketch of the teaching of the N. T. on sin, according to which the fundamental conception of sin is the self-assertion of the finite against the infinite, that the relation of good to evil is not one which exists of necessity in the nature of things. The difference is not metaphysical, inherent in being, so that the existence of evil is involved in the existence of good; nor physical, as if there were an essential antagonism between matter and spirit; but moral, that is recognised in the actual course of life, so that evil when present is known to be opposed to good.
¹ It will be of interest to put together without any discussion the various phrases which describe the action of Christ with regard to sin and sins.
(1) As to sin itself, He brought condemnation by His Incarnation: Rom. viii. 3 ὁ Θεὸς τὸν ἑαυτοῦ υἱὸν πέμψας…κατέκρινε τὴν ἁμαρτίαν ἐν τῇ σαρκί. disannulling by His sacrifice: Heb. ix. 26 εἰς ἀθέτησιν τῆς ἁμαρτίας, διὰ τῆς θυσίας αὐτοῦ πεφανέρωται… Comp. Rom. vi. 7 ὁ ἀποθανῶν δεδικαίωται ἀπὸ τῆς ἀμ.
(2) As to the sins of men Christ makes propitiation for them: Heb. ii. 17…ἀρχιερεύς…εἰς τὸ ἱλάσκεσθαι τὰς ἁμαρτίας τοῦ λαοῦ.
forgives them: Matt. ix. 2 ff.: ἀφίενταί σου αἱ ἁμαρτίαι. Comp. Col. ii. 13 χαρισάμενος τὰ παραπτώματα.
takes them away, by bearing them: 1 John iii. 5 ἵνα ἄρῃ τὰς ἁμαρτίας; John i. 29 ὁ αἴρων τὴν ἁμαρτίαν τοῦ κόσμου. Comp. Heb. x. 4 ἀφαιρεῖν ἀμ.; x. 11 περιελεῖν ἀμ. looses men from them: Apoc. i. 5 τῷ…λύσαντι ἡμᾶς ἐκ τῶν ἀμ. ἐν τῷ αἵματι αὐτοῦ. Comp. Rom. vi. 22 ἐλευθερωθέντες ἀπὸ τῆς ἀμ. cleanses men from all sin: 1 John i. 7 τὸ αἷμα Ἰησοῦ…καθαρίζει ἡμ. ἀπὸ π. ἀμ.
saves from sins: Matt. i. 21 σώσει…ἀπὸ τῶν ἀμ.
1 John 1:10
- So far the Apostle has dealt with the two main aspects of the revelation God is light. He has shewn what is the character which it fixes for the man who is to have fellowship with Him (if we walk in the light); and he has shewn also how that character can be obtained (if we confess our sins). Man must become like God; and to this end he must recognise his natural unlikeness to Him.
A third plea still remains. He who recognises the true character of sin, and the natural permanence of sin as a power within, may yet deny that he personally has sinned. This plea is suggested by the words ‘our sins’ in v. 9, just as the plea in v. 8 was suggested by ‘all sin’ in v. 7. Conviction in this case is sought not primarily in consciousness (we lie, v. 6;
we deceive ourselves, v. 8), but in the voice of God (we make Him a liar).
The consequences of this assertion of sinlessness are stated in the same form as before (vv. 6, 8). By making it we affirm (positively) that God deals falsely with men; and (negatively) we are without the voice of God within us which converts His revelation for each one into a living Word.
Thus divine revelation is regarded first from without and then from within. God speaks; and (it is implied) His word enters into the soul of the believer, and becomes in him a spring of truth (John iv. 14) and a power of life (c. ii. 14). By claiming sinlessness we first deny generally the truth of the revelation of God; and, as a consequence of this denial, we lose the privilege of ‘converse’ with Him: His word is not in us.
Philo in an interesting passage (Leg. Alleg. i. 13: i. p. 50 M) notices the grounds on which men seek to escape the charge of sin: ὁ μὴ ἐμπνευσθεὶς (Gen. ii. 7) τὴν ἀληθινὴν ζωὴν ἀλλ’ ἄπειρος ὡν ἀρετῆς κολαζόμενος ἐφ’ οἷς ἥμαρτεν εἶπεν ἂν ὡς ἀδίκως κολάζεται, ἀπειρία γὰρ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ σφάλλεσθαι περὶ αὐτό…τάχα δὲ μηδ’ ἁμαρτάνειν φήσει τὸ παράπαν εἴ γε τὰ ἀκούσια καὶ τὰ κατὰ ἄγνοιαν οὐδὲ ἀδικημάτων λόγου ἔχειν φασί τινες.
οὐχ ἠμαρτήκαμεν] we have not sinned. The statement is quite unlimited. It is an absolute denial of the fact of past sin as carrying with it present consequences.
ψ. ποιοῦμεν αὐτόν] mendacem facimus eum V., we make Him a liar, that is God (the Father) who is the main subject of the whole section 6—10 (with Him, v. 6; as He is, v. 7; He is faithful, v. 9). The conclusion follows from a consideration of the nature of divine revelation. Revelation is directed in the first instance to making clear the position of man towards God. Such an office St Paul assigns to law, and to the Law particularly. And generally all the communications of God to men presuppose that the normal relations between earth and heaven have been interrupted. To deny this is not only to question God’s truth in one particular point, but to question it altogether; to say not only ‘He lieth’ in the specific declaration, but ‘He is a liar’ in His whole dealing with mankind. Comp. c. v. 10.
The peculiar phrase ψ. ποιοῦμεν is characteristic of St John (John v. 18; viii. 53; x. 33; xix. 7, 12), and carries with it the idea of overweening, unrighteous self-assertion.
ὁ λόγος αὐτοῦ] His word, the word of God, ii. 14. Comp. John viii. 55; x. 35; xvii. 6, 14, 17.
The phrase is used specially for the Gospel message, which is the crown of all revelation: Luke v. 1; viii. 11, 21; xi. 28; and habitually in the Acts: iv. 31; vi. 2, 7; viii. 14; xi. 1; xii. 24; xiii. 5, 7, 44, 46, &c.
The ‘word’ here differs from the ’truth’ in v. 8 as the process differs from the result. The ’truth’ is the sum considered objectively of that which the ‘word’ expresses. The word as a living power makes the truth real little by little to him who receives it (John viii. 31, 32). And further, the ‘word’ is personal: it calls up the thought of the speaker: it is ’the word of God.’ The truth on the other hand is abstract, though it is embodied in a Person.
The word, like the truth, can be regarded both as the moving principle which stirs the man and as the sphere in which the man moves. The ‘word abides in him’ (John v. 38, comp. viii. 37), and conversely he ‘abides in the word’ (John viii. 31).