1 John 4

1 John 4:1

IV. THE RIVAL SPIRITS OF TRUTH AND ERROR (iv. 1—6).

This section is closely connected both with what precedes and with what follows; and corresponds with the first section of this great division of the Epistle: ii. 18—29. It contains three main thoughts:

1 There are many spiritual influences at work (v. 1). 2 The test of spirits lies in the witness to the incarnation (vv. 2, 3). 3 The test of men lies in the recognition of the Truth (vv. 4, 5).

The progress of thought is parallel to that in ii. 18—29 (see p. 67), but the argument of St John has passed to a new stage. There his teaching was centred in the Messiahship, the Sonship of Jesus: here in the Incarnation of Jesus Christ. There he insisted on the original message of the Gospel: here he appears to regard the fuller interpretation of the message. This section in fact presents the conflict of the Faith with its counterfeits in the last form, as a conflict of spiritual powers, unseen and real.

1 The many spiritual influences (v. 1).

The ‘many false prophets’ stand in a relation towards the Spirit like that which the ‘many Antichrists’ occupy towards Christ (ii. 18). Through them evil spiritual powers find expression. Spirits therefore must be proved.

‘Beloved, believe not every spirit, but prove the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

1. Ἀγαπητοί] Comp. ii. 7 note. The existence of a subtle spiritual danger calls out the tenderness of love.

μὴ παντὶ πν. πιστ.] nolite omni spiritui credere V., believe not every spirit. The mention of a spirit as the characteristic endowment of Christians leads to a definition of true and false spirits. There are many spiritual powers active among men, and our first impulse is to believe and to obey them. They evidently represent that which is not of sight. But some of these are evil influences belonging to the unseen order. They come to us under specious forms of ambition, power, honour, knowledge, as distinguished from earthly sensual enjoyments. All such spirits are partial revelations of the one spirit of evil which become (so to speak) embodied in men.

δοκιμάζετε τὰ πν.] probate spiritus V., prove the spirits. As we are charged to ‘prove’ the season (Luke xii. 56), ourselves (1 Cor. xi. 28; 2 Cor. xiii. 5), what is the will of God (Rom. xii. 2; Eph. v. 10), our work (Gal. vi. 4), our fellow-workers (2 Cor. viii. 8, 22; 1 Cor. xvi. 3; 1 Tim. iii. 10), all things (1 Thess. v. 21, notice vv. 19, 20), so we are charged to ‘prove the spirits.’ Elsewhere the discrimination of spirits is referred to a special gift (1 Cor. xii. 10 διακρίσεις πνευμάτων). Here however the injunction to ‘prove’ them is given to all Christians. Comp. ii. 20. Man maintains his personal supremacy and responsibility in the presence of these powers: 1 Cor. xiv. 32.

εἰ ἐκ τοῦ θ. ἐστίν] whether they are of God, whether they derive from Him their characteristic being and their power.

For εἶναι ἐκ see ii. 16 note; and for δοκιμ. εἰ compare 2 Cor. xiii. 5; Mk. iii. 2; Lk. xiv. 28, 31 (Matt. xii. 10 parallels).

2 γινώσκετε ΝᶜABC me the syrhl: γινώσκεται vg syrvg: γινώσκομεν Νʷ.

ὅτι π. ψευδ…] Such watchful care is required because many false prophets, through whom the false spirits speak, as the Spirit speaks through the true prophets (2 Pet. i. 21, ii. 1), are gone out into the world. ‘The spirit of antichrist’ inspires them. So ‘false Christs’ and ‘false prophets’ are joined together (Matt. xxiv. 24).

The use of the term ψευδοπροφήτης in the N. T. is suggestive. It is applied to the rivals of the true prophets under the old dispensation (Luke vi. 26; 2 Pet. ii. 1); and to the rivals of the apostles under the new dispensation (Matt. vii. 15, xxiv. 11, 23 f. || Mk. xiii. 22; Acts xiii. 6); and especially, in the Apocalypse, to the embodied power of spiritual falsehood (Apoc. xvi. 13, xix. 20, xx. 10). The false-prophet is not only a false-teacher (2 Pet. ii. 1 ψευδοπροφήται, ψευδοδιδάσκαλοι), but a false-teacher who supports his claims by manifestations of spiritual power (Matt. xxiv. 24 δώσουσιν σημεῖα μεγάλα καὶ τέρατα; Acts xiii. 6 ἄνδρα τινὰ μάγον; Apoc. xix. 20 ὁ ποιήσας τὰ σημεῖα).

ἐξεληλύθασιν] exierunt V. (prodierunt F.), are gone out on a mission of evil from their dark home. The tense, as contrasted with ii. 19, 2 John 7, ἐξῆλθαν, expresses the continuance of their agency as distinguished from the single fact of their departure. Comp. John viii. 42, xiii. 3, xvi. 27 &c.

εἰς τὸν κόσμον] into the world as the scene of their activity. John iii. 17, ix. 39, x. 36 &c.

The words evidently refer to external circumstances vividly present to St John’s mind. They point, as it appears, to the great outbreak of the Gentile pseudo-Christianity which is vaguely spoken of as Gnosticism, the endeavour to separate the ‘ideas’ of the Faith from the facts of the historie Redemption.

2 The test of spirits lies in the witness of the Incarnation (2, 3).

2, 3. The test of the presence of the Divine Spirit is the confession of the Incarnation, or, more exactly, of the Incarnate Saviour. The Gospel centres in a Person and not in any truth, even the greatest, about the Person. The Incarnate Saviour is the pledge of the complete redemption and perfection of man, of the restoration of ’the body’ to its proper place as the perfect organ of the spirit. Hence the Divine Spirit must bear witness to Him. The test of spirits is found in the confession of a fact which vindicates the fulness of life. The test of antichrist was found in the confession of a spiritual truth (ii. 22 f.).

² In this ye know the Spirit of God; every spirit which confesseth Jesus Christ come in flesh is of God; ³ and every spirit which confesseth not Jesus is not of God. And this is the spirit (revelation) of Antichrist whereof ye heard that it cometh; and now is it in the world already.

1 John 4:2

2. Ἐν τούτῳ] In hoc V. (Hinc F.), Hereby. The idea of the process of testing passes directly into that of the test itself.

γινώσκετε] cognoscitur (i.e. γινώ- σκεται) V., ye know, i.e. perceive, recognise the presence of. The Vulgate rendering is evidently derived from a common itacism (-ai for -e) and may be dismissed at once. Throughout the Epistle St John speaks personally (ive know, ye know), and not in an abstract form (it is known). It is more difficult to decide whether γι-

2 Ἰν Χν: Χν Ἰν C.

νώσκετε is indic. (ye know), or imper. (know ye). In every other place in the Epistle ἐν τούτῳ is joined with a direct statement. On the other hand it is always elsewhere used with the first person in combination with γινώσκω (ἐν τούτῳ γινώσκομεν, ἐγνώκαμεν). The change of person may therefore be connected with a change of mood; and in this case the imperative carries on the charge believe not, prove. Compare John xv. 18. So far there is nothing in usage to determine the question; but on the whole it seems more likely that St John would appeal to the results of actual experience which had been hitherto decisive (ye discern, recognise) than seem to enjoin a new and untried rule (discern, recognise). Comp. v. 4.

τὸ πν. τοῦ θ.] the Spirit of God, the one Holy Spirit who reveals Himself in many ways and in many parts. He must be recognised as the inspirer of all who speak from God; and all that is truly spoken is from Him.

In v. 13 St John speaks of ‘His Spirit’ (i. e. of God), and in c. v. 6, 8 of ’the Spirit,’ but, as has been noticed, the title ’the Holy Spirit’ is not found in the Epistles or in the Apocalypse. Comp. v. 6.

πᾶν πν. ὁ…] every spirit which… There is an endless variety in the operations of the Spirit (1 Cor. xii. 4). These severally appear to find characteristic organs in ‘spirits’ which are capable of acting on man’s spirit. Comp. 1 Cor. xii. 10; xiv. 12, 32; Hebr. i. 14 (xii. 9, 23), (1 Pet. iii. 19), (Apoc. xxii. 6); τὰ ἑπτὰ πν. Apoc. i. 4; iii. 1; iv. 5; v. 6.

ὁμολογεῖ] confitetur V., confesseth, openly and boldly acknowledges the Person of the Incarnate Saviour and not only the fact of the Incarnation.

Comp. ii. 23 note. The question here is not of inner faith, but of outward confession. Faith, if it is real, must declare itself. Active love must be connected with a distinct recognition of its source. Ergo, Augustine says, followed by Bede, ipse est spiritus Dei qui dicit Jesum in carne venisse; qui non dicit lingua sed factis; qui dicit non sonando sed amando.

‘I. X. ἐν σ. ἐλ.] The construction of these words is not quite clear. Three ways of taking them are possible. (1) The direct object may be Ἰησοῦν and χριστὸν ἐν σ. ἐλ. a secondary predicate: ‘confesseth Jesus as Christ and a Christ come in flesh’; (2) The direct object may be Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν and ἐν σ. ἐλ. a secondary predicate: ‘confesseth Jesus Christ, Him who is known by this full name, as come in flesh.’ (3) The whole phrase may form a compound direct object: ‘confesseth Him, whose nature and work is described by the phrase, ‘Jesus Christ come in flesh’.’ The corresponding clause in v. 3 Ἰησοῦν which gives the person and not any statement about the person as the object of confession is in favour of the last view.

ἐληλυθότα] The construction with the participle gives a different thought from that with the infinitive (ἐληλυθέναι). It does not express the acknowledgment of the truth of the fact but the acknowledgment of One in whom this fact is fulfilled and of whom it is predicated. Comp. 2 John 7 (ὁμολ. ἐρχόμενον). For the sense of ἔρχεσθαι see c. v. 6 note.

ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλ.] come in flesh, manifested under this special form. The order (ἐν σαρκὶ ἐλ.) and the tense of the verb (ἐληλ.) lay emphasis on the mode rather than on the fact of Christ’s coming. ‘The Word became

3 ὁ μὴ ὁμολογεῖ: ὁ λύει νς. See Additional Note. τὸν Ἰν AB (νς) me syrr; Ἰν Χν (νς) (others read τὸν Ἰν Χν). + ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθότα Ν syrr (lat): om. AB νς me the.

flesh’ (i. 14); and that not temporarily, but so that He is still coming in it [2 John 7]. The Christ ‘who should come’ came, and coming in this way fulfilled and still fulfils the promises of the past. For the confession is not only of One who ‘came’ (ἐλθόντα) but of One who ‘is come’ (ἐληλυθότα), whose ‘coming’ is an abiding fact. And yet further He came ‘in flesh,’ as revealing the nature of His mission in this form, and not only ‘into flesh’ (εἰς σάρκα), as simply entering on such a form of being.

ἐκ τοῦ θ. ἐ.] Comp. 1 Cor. xii. 3; and Additional Note on iii. 1.

1 John 4:3

3. καὶ πᾶν πν.] The negative statement is here directly joined to the positive. In ii. 23 the positive and negative statements are placed in simple parallelism.

ὁ μὴ ὁμ. τὸν Ἰ.] The substance of the confession which has been given in detail in the former verse is gathered up in the single human name of the Lord. To ‘confess Jesus,’ which in the connexion can only mean to confess ‘Jesus as Lord’ (1 Cor. xii. 3, Rom. x. 9), is to recognise divine sovereignty in One Who is truly man, or, in other words, to recognise the union of the divine and human in one Person, a truth which finds its only adequate expression in the fact of the Incarnation.

The very ancient reading ὁ λύει τὸν Ἰησοῦν (qui solicit Jesum V., qui destruit Lefr.: see Additional Note) expresses this view more directly. The meaning which it is designed to convey must be ‘which separates the divine from the human, which divides the one divine-human Person.’ But it may well be doubted whether Ἰησοῦς would be used in this comprehensive sense. In Scripture ‘Jesus’ always emphasises the humanity of the Lord considered in itself. The thought would be conveyed by ὁ λύει Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν or even by ὁ λύει τὸν χριστόν. It seems likely that the verb was transferred to this context from some traditional saying of St John in which it was applied to false teachers, such as οἱ λύοντες τὸν χριστόν, or the like. The words of Polycarp which appear only indirectly, and yet certainly, to refer to the phrase in the Epistle indicate that St John dwelt upon the thought in various aspects: 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 ἐστί (ad Phil. c. vii.).

ὁ μὴ ὁμολογεῖ] The use of μή marks the character of the spirit which leads to the denial (‘such that it confesseth not’) as distinguished from the simple fact of the failure to confess (ὁ οὐχ ὁμολογεῖ: π. 6 ὃς οὐκ ἔστιν).

τὸν Ἰ.] Comp. i. 7 note. For the use of this simple human name of the Lord in similar connexions see Rom. iii. 26; (x. 9;) 2 Cor. xi. 4; Eph. iv. 21; Phil. ii. 10; Hebr. ii. 9 note. Comp. 2 Cor. iv. 10 f.

ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ οὐκ ἔ.] The denial of the Incarnation is in fact the denial of that which is characteristic of the Christian Faith, the true union of God and man (comp. ii. 22 ff.). By this form of statement (as distinguished from ‘is of the devil,’ or the like) St John meets the specious claims of the false prophets: such a spirit, whatever appearances may be, is not of God.

The antagonists regarded here are not mere unbelievers but those who knowing Christianity fashion it into a shape of their own.

Augustine (ad loc.) remarks characteristically that the denial of the Incarnation is the sign of the absence of love: Caritas illum adduxit ad carnem. Quisquis ergo non habet caritatem negat Christum in carne venisse. And so he goes on to interpret ‘solvit’ of the spirit of the schismatic: Ille venit colligere, tu venis solvere. Distringere vis membra Christi. Quomodo non negas Christum in carne venisse qui disrumpis Ecclesiam Dei quam Ille congregavit?

It is of interest to notice the two negative signs which St John gives of ’not being of God.’ In c. iii. 10 he writes πᾶς ὁ μὴ ποιῶν δικαιοσύνην οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ: here πᾶν πνεῦμα ὁ μὴ ὁμολογεῖ τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ οὐκ ἔστιν. In the case of men the proof of the absence of the divine connexion is found in the want of active righteousness: in the case of spirits in the failure to confess the Incarnation. The two tests exactly correspond to one another in the two spheres to which they severally belong. The confession of the Incarnation embodied in life must produce the effort after righteousness which finds its absolute spiritual support in the belief in the Incarnation.

καὶ τοῦτο…] et hic est antichristus quod audistis V., hoc est illius antichristi quod aud. F., ‘and this whole manifestation of false, ungodly, spiritual powers is the manifestation of antichrist, whereof (ὁ not ὄν) ye have heard…’ The omission of πνεῦμα in the phrase τὸ τοῦ ἀντιχρίστου gives greater breadth to the thought, so that the words include the many spirits, the many forces, which reveal the action of antichrist.

τοῦ ἀντιχρίστου] The spiritual influence is not only negatively ’not of God’: it is positively ‘of antichrist.’ ἀκηκόατε] Compare καθὼς ἠκούσατε ii. 18. The difference in tense places the two warnings in a somewhat different relation to the hearers. For the perfect see c. i. 1, 3, 5; for the aorist, ii. 7, 18, 24, iii. 11; 2 John 6.

ἔρχεται] The same word is used of the advent of the power of evil as of the advent of the Lord. Comp. ii. 18; v. 6, notes.

καὶ νῦν…ἤδη] et nunc jam V., and now…already. For the position of ἤδη see John ix. 27 (not iv. 35). The prophecy had found fulfilment before the Church had looked for it.

3. The test of men lies in the recognition of the Truth (4-6).

Additional Note on the reading of iv. 3.

The first clause in this verse is given in several different forms in existing Greek authorities. These are π. πν. ὁ μὴ ὁμολογεῖ τὸν Ἰησοῦν

AB.

N.

L, &c.

K, &c.

To these variations must be added another, which is represented by the Vulgate reading :

The main interest centres on the alternatives μὴ ὁμολογεῖ and λύει.

As the direct evidence now stands, μὴ ὁμολογεῖ is read by

External evidence for (i) μὴ ὁμολογεῖ,

(1) All Greek MSS, uncial and cursive,

(2) All the versions except the Latin, and by one important Old Latin MS (Fris.),

(3) The Greek Fathers who quote the passage with the exception of Socrates, from Cyril downwards, to whom Polycarp must probably be added : πᾶς γὰρ ὃς ἂν μὴ ὁμολογῇ Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν ἐληλυθέναι ἀντίχριστός ἐστι (ad Phil. 7).

On the other hand

(1) Socrates gives λύει as having been the reading in ’the old (ii) for λύει.

(2) All Latin MSS, with one exception, read solvit ; and

(3) This reading, with the variant destruit, prevails in the Latin Fathers, being universal in the later writers.

The evidence of Socrates, the only Greek authority for λύει, is contained in a passage which presents several difficulties. Speaking of the error of Nestorius and of his general self-sufficiency and contempt for accurate learning, he goes on to say : ‘for example he was ignorant of the fact that in the Catholic Epistle of John it was written in the ancient copies that every spirit which divideth (λύει) Jesus is not from God. For they that desired to separate the deity from the man of the dispensation [i.e. Christ Jesus] removed this thought [the condemnation of those who ‘divide Jesus’] from the ancient copies. Wherefore also the ancient interpreters noted this very fact, that there were some who had tampered with the epistle wishing to divide the man from God¹.’

¹ H. E. vii. 32, αὐτίκα γοῦν ἠγνόησεν ὅτι ἐν τῇ καθολικῇ Ἰωάννου γέγραπτο ἐν τοῖς παλαιοῖς ἀντιγράφοις ὅτι πᾶν πνεῦμα ὁ λύει τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἀπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ οὐκ ἔστι. ταύτην γὰρ τὴν διάνοιαν ἐκ τῶν παλαιῶν ἀντιγράφων περιεῖλον οἱ χωρίζειν ἀπὸ τοῦ τῆς οἰκονομίας ἀνθρώπου βουλόμενοι τὴν θεότητα· διὸ καὶ οἱ παλαιοὶ ἑρμηνεῖς αὐτὸ τοῦτο ἐπεσημήναντο, ὡς τινες εἶεν ῥᾳδιουργήσαντες τὴν ἐπιστολήν, λύειν ἀπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ τὸν ἄνθρωπον θέλοντες.

II—2

Quotations in texts of Greek Fathers.

Latin Patristie evidence.

It will be seen that Socrates does not say that the reading was found in copies which he had himself seen, but only that it once was found in the text: he writes that it ‘had been written’ (γέγραπτο) and not that ‘it is written’ (γέγραπται). Again it is a sign that he is not quoting any Greek MS that he writes ἀπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ for ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ, a variant which has no Greek authority. His language is in fact perfectly satisfied by the supposition that he was acquainted with the Latin reading and some Latin commentary¹.

In the Latin translation of IRENEUS 2 John 7 and 1 John iv. 3 are quoted as from the same epistle (Iren. iii. 16, 8). After the quotation of the former passage the text continues…Johannes in praedicta epistola fugere eos praecepit dicens…omnis spiritus qui solvit Jesum non est ex Deo sed de (ex) Antichristo est. The context shews clearly in what sense Iremæus understood St John’s words, but it is not decisive as to the reading which he had in his Greek text.

The Latin translation of CLEMENT’s Outlines (Ὑποτεπώσεως) on 2 John gives as part of the substance of this Epistle: adstruit in hac epistola… ut nemo dividat Jesum Christum, sed unum credere Jesum Christum cenisse in carne.

The reading ‘solvit Jesum’ is found in the Latin translation of ORIGEN: Hæc autem dicentes non solvimus suscepti corporis hominem, cum sit scriptum apud Johannem omnis spiritus qui solvit Jesum non est ex Deo, sed unicuique substantiae proprietatem servamus (in Matt. Com. Ser. § 65). But the character of the translation is such as to give no satisfactory assurance that Origen’s Greek text read λέει.

There is no indication, as far as I am aware, that the reading λέει was accepted by or known to any other Greek or Eastern father.

Yet the fact remains that the reading was found at a very early date. TERTULLIAN uses the phrases ‘solvere Jesum’ (adv. Marc. v. 16) and ‘solvere Jesum Christum’ (de Jejun. 1). In the former passage he appears to combine the language of 1 John iv. 3 and 2 John 7, as is done in the Latin translation of Clement: Johannes dicit processisse in mundum præcursores antichristi spiritus, negantes Christum in carne venisse et solcentes Jesum; and it may be observed that the close connexion of the two verses in some of the Latin renderings which give cenisse for ἐρχόμενον in 2 John 7 makes it difficult to decide to which of the two reference is made in particular cases. The words of Tertullian de Carne Chr. 24 qui negat Christum in carne venisse hic antichristus est; de Praeser. her. 33 in epistola sua [Johannes] eos maxime antichristos vocat qui Christum negarent in carne venisse et qui non putarent Jesum filium Dei esse (comp. c. Marc. iii. 8 negantes Christum in carne venisse); and of Cyprian (Testim. ii. 8) qui autem negat in carne venisse de Deo non est sed est de antichristi spiritu², were probably moulded by the passage in the second epistle.

AUGUSTINE in his explanation of the epistle first quotes the passage at length with the reading ‘qui non confietur Jesum Christum in carne venisse,’ which he explains referring to c. ii. 19, and then without any

¹ Socrates was acquainted with Latin: H. E. i. 12.

² All. de Deo natus non est sed est Antichristus.

remark he passes on to explain ‘solvere’: Adeo ut noveritis quia ad facta retulit: Et omnis spiritus, ait, qui solvit Jesum; and again afterwards he unites both phrases: ‘solvis Jesum et negas in carne venisse.’

FULGENTIUS¹ and TICHONIUS² combine phrases from the two epistles with even greater freedom.

It is remarkable that BEDE, who was aware of the substance of Socrates’ criticism, supposes that those who tampered with the epistle left out the whole clause: In tantum ex Deo non sunt ut quidam…hunc…versiculum quo dicitur et omnis spiritus qui solvit Jesum ex Deo non est, ex hac epistola eraserint, ne scilicet per auctoritatem beati Joannis convinceretur error eorum. Denique Nestorius nescire se prodidit hanc authenticis exemplaribus inditam fuisse sententiam…

This strange assertion is repeated by FULBERT of CHARTRES³, and HINCMAR⁴. Such a misunderstanding offers a memorable example of the way in which critical statements are unintelligently perverted and made the ground of unjust charges.

From this review there can be no question as to the overwhelming weight of external evidence in favour of μὴ ὁμολογεῖ. To set this aside without the clearest necessity is to suspend all laws of textual criticism. No reading supported by such authority as λύει is, I believe, more than a very early gloss. And on careful consideration it seems that the internal evidence is not more favourable to λύει Ἰησοῦν than the external. It is scarcely possible that such a phrase could be used for separating the divine and human natures in Christ. The name Ἰησοῦς brings prominently forward the humanity of the Lord. Socrates evidently felt this, for he defines λύειν by the addition ἀπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ.

The language of Polycarp shews that St John’s teaching upon the subject was current in various forms. It seems likely that he used two main phrases λύειν Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν and μὴ ὁμολογεῖν τὸν Ἰησοῦν (answering to Κύριος Ἰησοῦς Rom. x. 9). This being so, the λύει in the former phrase was added as a gloss on the phrase μὴ ὁμολογεῖ of the epistle in some early copies, and so passed into the Latin version⁵. The additions to Ἰησοῦν are

¹ Ad Trasim. i. c. 5. De qua veritate…ille qui de pectore ipsius sapientiae mysteriorum cælestium meruit intelligentiam illuminatus haurire fiducialiter dicit; omnis spiritus qui confitetur Jesum Christum in carne venisse ex Deo est. Omnis spiritus qui non confitetur Jesum Christum in carne venisse ex Deo non est; et hic est Antichristus. Ep. xvii. c. 10 Joannes…testatur quia omnis spiritus qui solvit Jesum ex Deo non est, et hic est antichristus.

² Reg. iv. Super Joannem multi pseudoprophetæ prodierunt in hunc mundum. In isto cognoscite spiritus Dei. Omnis spiritus qui solvit Jesum et negat in carne venisse de Deo non est sed hic de

Antichristo est. Quod audistis quoniam venit et nunc in isto mundo præsens est.

³ Ep. v. (i) Cujus [Arii] auditores quoniam Spiritum Sanctum Deum esse negabant de Evangelio eraserunt illud quod Salvator ait Spiritus est Deus, et de epistola Joannis eraserunt et omnis spiritus qui solvit Jesum ex Deo non est. Sicut Nestorius…

⁴ Opusc. et Epist. xviii. (Migne, Patr. Lat. cxxvi. p. 351) quidam etiam de epistola Joannis eraserunt et omnis spiritus qui solvit Jesum ex Deo non est. The whole paragraph is very instructive.

⁵ A passage of Cyril of Alexandria will shew how naturally the gloss easily intelligible, and the forms in which they occur shew that they are no part of the original text. At the same time it is not unreasonable to suppose that the unusual amount of variants indicates the influence of some traditional form of words upon the text. In 2 John 7 there is no variation in the corresponding phrase; nor is the characteristic word of that passage (ἐρχόμενον) introduced here by any authority.

1 John 4:4

4-6. In the verses which precede (2, 3) St John has considered the teaching of spirits as the test of their character. He now regards the subject from another point of view and considers the teaching of spirits as the test of men.

4 Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them, because greater is he that is in you than he that is in the world. 5 They are of the world: for this cause speak they of the world and the world heareth them. 6 We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he who is not of God heareth not us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.

4. Ὑμεῖς] You as contrasted with the world; you who are in possession of spiritual endowments. Comp. ii. 20 καὶ ὑμεῖς χρίσμα ἔχετε, ii. 24, 27.

ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐστέ] Comp. Additional note on iii. 1.

The hearers of St John have that divine connexion which the false spirits have not (c. 3 ἐκ τοῦ θ. οὐκ ἔ.).

τεκνία] c. iii. 18. The father in Christ speaks again. The address ‘beloved’ has been used twice in the interval (iii. 21, iv. 1).

νενικήκατε αὐτούς] vicistis eum V., cos F., have overcome them. The personal reference goes back to c. 1 (ψευδοπροφῆται). The intervening verses are structurally parenthetical, though they contain the ruling thought of the section.

The false spirits, whose characteristic has now been defined, must have their organs through whom to speak; and Christians must wage war against them. In this conflict the virtue of their Master’s Victory (John xvi. 33) is granted to them. They have to claim the fruits of a triumph which has been already gained.

Comp. ii. 13 (νενικήκατε) note.

The thought of a spiritual conflict is developed in Eph. vi. 12 ff.

ὅτι…] The ground and the assurance of the victory of Christians lie in the Power by which they are inspired (c. iii. 24). The strength of men is proportioned to the vital force of which they are the organs.

Vicistis eum, inquit. Sed unde vicerunt! Numquid liberi virtute arbitrii! Non utique. Taccat Pelagius, dicat ipse Johannes: Quoniam major est qui in vobis est… (Bede). So Augustine; …qui audit Vicistis erigit caput, erigit cervicem, laudari se vult. Noli te extollere: vide quis in te vicit.

μείζων] greater. See iii. 20.

ὁ ἐν ὑμῖν] qui in vobis est V., he that is in you, that is in the Christian Society. The Church appears to be set over against the world; so that here the thought is of the body, and not (as in iii. 24) of the individual. The Divine Person is undefined. We think naturally of God in Christ. Comp. John vi. 56, xiv. 20, xv. 4 f., xvii. 23, 26. Elsewhere ’the word of God’ (c. ii. 14), ’the unction received from Him’ (ii. 27), ‘His seed’ (iii. 9) is said to ‘abide’ in believers, as here He himself is in them. See note on r. 15. St Paul expresses the same thought in relation to the individual: Gal. ii. 20.

ὁ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ] he that is in the world. The many false spirits represent one personal power of falsehood, ’the prince of the world’ (John xii. 31, xiv. 30), the devil whose ‘children’ the wicked are iii. 10). The world occupies in regard to him the same twofold position which Christians occupy with regard to God: ’the world lieth in the wicked one’ (c. v. 19) and he ‘is in the world.’ The natural opposite to ‘in you,’ taken personally, would have been ‘in them’; but St John wishes to shew that these false prophets are representatives of the world. The conflict, as has been said above, is regarded socially.

Comp. Eph. ii. 2.

1 John 4:5

5. αὐτοί…] ipsi V., they, the false prophets, through whom the false spirits work.

The nom. pl. αὐτοί, which occurs here only in the Epistles, emphasises the contrast. Comp. James ii. 6, 7; Hebr. xiii. 17; Luke xi. 48. See c. ii. 25 note.

ἐκ τ. κ. εἰσίν] de mundo sunt V., are of the world and not simply of the earth (John iii. 31). The ’earth’ expresses the necessary limitations of the present order: the ‘world’ the moral characteristics of the order, as separated from God. For the phrase compare c. ii. 16; John xv. 19, xvii.

6 ὃς οὐκ…ἡμῶν: om. A.

14, 16 and the cognate phrase ’to be of this world’: John viii. 23, xviii. 36.

διὰ τοῦτο] ideo V., for this cause. The character of their speech and the character of their hearers are determined by their own character. They draw the spirit and the substance of their teaching from (out of) the world and therefore it finds acceptance with kindred natures. The words ‘of the world’ answer to ’the world’ in the order of the original: ‘it is of the world they speak, and the world heareth them.’

For the threefold repetition of ’the world’ see John iii. 17, 31; 2 Macc. vii. 11.

ἀκούει] Comp. John xv. 19.

1 John 4:6

6. ἡμεῖς ἐκ τ. θ. ἐ.] we are of God. The apostle has spoken of Christian hearers (v. 4 ὑμεῖς ἐκ τ. θ. ἐ.): he now speaks of Christian teachers. In each case living dependence upon God produces its full effect. The hearer discerns the true message. The teacher discover the true disciple. And this concurrence of experience brings fresh assurance and deeper knowledge.

The opposition of ἡμεῖς to ὑμεῖς and the use of ἀκούει shew that St John is not speaking here of Christians generally but of those whose work it is to unfold the divine message.

The description of the true teachers is not exactly parallel with that of the false teachers. It is not directly said of these that ’they speak of God’ because the conclusion does not admit of being put in the same form as in the former case (’they speak of the world and the world heareth them’). The world listens to those who express its own thoughts; the Christian listens to those who teach him more of God, new thoughts which he makes his own. Thus the argument which in the former clause lies in ‘speak of the world,’ in this clause lies in ‘he that knoweth God.’ The readiness to hear springs from a living, growing, knowledge, which welcomes and appropriates the truth.

Comp. John viii. 47.

ὁ γινώσκων τ. θ.] qui novit Deum V., he that knoweth God. The Latin and English renderings both fail to express the force of the original phrase which describes a knowledge apprehended as progressive and not complete, a knowledge which answers to the processes of life. Comp. v. 7, v. 20; John xvii. 3. Contrast ii. 3 f., 13 f., iii. 1.

So St Paul speaks of ’the call’ of God as continuous; 1 Thess. v. 24. Comp. Phil. iii. 12 ff.

St John appears to choose this most expressive phrase in place of the more general one ‘he that is of God’ in order to illustrate the position of the true disciple as one who is ever advancing in the knowledge of God, and whose power of hearing and learning is given by this attitude of faithful expectancy.

So it is that when he passes to the negative side it is sufficient to say ‘he that is not of God’ without bringing into prominence the special energy which flows from this divine dependence in regard to the fuller exposition of the Gospel.

The contrast which is marked here between him ’that knoweth God’ and the man ‘who is not of God’ is given under a slightly different form in v. 7 where it is said ‘he that loveth hath been born of God and knoweth God,

ἐκ τούτου NB syrr: ἐν τούτῳ A vg me the.

while ‘he that loveth not knew not God.’ οὐκ ἀκούει] Comp. John xiv. 17 note.

ἐκ τούτου] in hoc V., hereby, from this. The phrase does not occur again in the Epistle and must be distinguished from the common ἐν τούτῳ (see c. ii. 3 note). It is found twice in the Gospel marking a connexion partly historical and partly moral (vi. 66, xix. 12). Ἐν τούτῳ seems to note a fact which is a direct indication in itself of that which is perceived: ἐκ τούτου suggests some further process by which the conclusion is obtained. The consideration of the general character of those who receive and of those who reject the message, and again of the teaching which is received and rejected by those who are children of God, leads to a fuller discernment of the spirit of the Truth and of the spirit of the opposing error. The power to recognise and accept the fuller exhibition of the Truth must come from the Spirit of Truth: the rejection of the Truth reveals the working of the spirit of error.

γινώσκομεν] cognoscimus V., ac know, recognise, perceive. This power of recognition belongs to all believers. It is not limited to teachers by an emphatic pronoun as before; but expresses what is learnt in different ways by hearers and teachers.

τὸ πν. τῆς ἀλ.] spiritum veritatis V., the Spirit of Truth. Comp. John xiv. 17 note; 1 Cor. ii. 12 ff.

τὸ πν. τῆς πλάνης] spiritum erroris V., the spirit of error. The phrase is unique in the N. T. Comp. 1 Cor. ii. 12 τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ κόσμου. 1 Tim. iv. 1 πνεύμασι πλάνοις. In contrast to ἡ ἀληθεία ’the Truth’ stands ἡ πλάνη (Eph. iv. 14) ’the error,’ in which lie concentrated the germs of all manifold errors. Compare τὸ ψεῦδος 2 Thess. ii. 11; Rom. i. 25; Eph. iv. 24f.; John viii. 44.

‘The seven spirits of error’ occupy an important place in The Testaments of the XII Patriarchs, Reuben 2 ff. The two spirits of truth and error are described as attending man, and it is added, τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας μαρτυρεῖ πάντα καὶ κατηγορεῖ πάντων, καὶ ἐμπεπύρισται ὁ ἀμαρτήσας ἐκ τῆς ἰδίας καρδίας. Judah, 20.

C. THE CHRISTIAN LIFE: THE VICTORY OF FAITH. (iv. 7—v. 21.)

The consideration of Antichrists and of the spirit of Antichrist and error is now over, and St John lays open the fulness of the Christian life. In doing this he takes up in a new connexion thoughts which he has before touched upon, and groups them in relation to the final revelation God is love (iv. 8, 16).

The whole division of the Epistle seems to fall most naturally into three sections:

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.)

I. THE SPIRIT OF THE CHRISTIAN LIFE: GOD AND LOVE (iv. 7—21).

This section deals in succession with

7 ὁ ἀγαπῶν: + τὸν θεὸν A (fratrem is also added).

1. The ground of love (7-10). 2. The inspiration of love (11-16a). 3. The activity of love (16b-21).

In the first paragraph the subject is regarded mainly from its abstract, and in the second mainly from its personal side: in the third it is treated in relation to action.

1. The ground of love (7—10).

The Christian Society has been shewn to be clearly distinguished from the world, even when the world obtains the support of spiritual powers. St John therefore passes on to consider the spirit of the Christian life as seen in the Christian Body. This spirit is love, the presence of which is the proof of divine sonship, seeing that God is love (vv. 7, 8); and in the Incarnation we have set before us the manifestation (v. 9) and the essence of love (v. 10).

7 Beloved, let us love one another, because love is of God, and every one that loveth is begotten of God and knoweth God. 8 He that loveth not, knoweth not (knew not) God, because God is love. 9 In this was manifested the love of God in us, that God hath sent his Son, his only Son, into the world that we may live through him. 10 In this is love, not that we have loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son a propitiation for our sins.

1 John 4:7

7. The transition of thought appears to lie in the implied efficiency of love as a moral test of knowledge. The twofold commandment of faith and love is essentially one commandment (iii. 23f.). Love in the region of action corresponds to the confession of the Incarnation in the region of thought. The Christian spirit then is proved by love. Comp. John x. 14 ff. note.

Ἄγαπητοί] The title and the charge go together. See ch. ii. 7 note.

The title occurs comparatively frequently in 2 Peter, Jude, and sparingly in the other Epistles of the New Testament: 2 Pet. iii. 1, 8, 14, 17; Jude 3, 17, 20; 1 Pet. ii. 11; iv. 12; 2 Cor. vii. 1; xii. 19; Rom. xii. 19; Phil. iv. 1; Hebr. vi. 9. Ἄγαπητοί μου occurs 1 Cor. x. 14; and ἀδελφοί μου ἀγαπητοί, James i. 16, 19; ii. 5; 1 Cor. xv. 58.

ἀγαπῶμεν ἀλλήλους] diligamus in-ricem, V., let us love one another. Comp. ch. iii. 11 note. St John deals with the love of Christians for Christians (φιλαδελφία, St Paul, Hebr., St Peter) as the absolute type of love. There is no longer any distinction of ‘ye’ and ‘we’ (vv. 4ff.); nor any emphasis on the pronoun. Compare iii. 14, 18, 23; iv. 12, 19; v. 2. St John never says ἀγαπᾶτε, though he does say μὴ ἀγαπᾶτε (ii. 15).

ὅτι…] because… The charge is based upon a twofold argument: (1) Love is of God, and therefore since it proceeds from Him, it must be characteristic also of those who partake in His Nature, as His children; and, again, (2) Active love becomes to him who exercises it the sign of his sonship (iii. 19).

ἐκ τ. θ. ἐ.] is of God, flows from Him, as the one spring, and in such a way that the connexion with the source remains unbroken. See Additional Note on iii. 1.

πᾶς ὁ ἀγαπῶν…] every one that loveth… The clause appears at first sight to be inverted in form. It might have seemed to be a more

IO—2

⁸ ὁ μὴ ἄγ…θεόν: οΜ. Ν* (οΜ. τὸν θεὸν Ν*). οὐκ ἔγνωκεν Ν*.

direct argument to say ’let us love one another because… every one that is born of God loveth.’ But as it is, the words bring out the blessing as well as the implied necessity of love. Every one that loveth hath in the consciousness of that spirit the proof of his divine sonship. Comp. c. iii. 19.

πᾶς ὁ…] every one that… Comp. iii. 3 note. St John does not say simply ‘he that loveth.’ He insists on the supreme characteristic of love as overpowering in whomsoever it is realised difficulties which men might discover in subordinate differences.

ἐκ τοῦ θ. γεγένηται] hath been begotten of God. Compare Additional Note on iii. 1. The combination of γεγένηται with γινώσκει (not ἔγνωκεν) is significant. Living knowledge is regarded only in its present activity. The active principle of sonship is referred to its origin.

γινώσκει] cognoscit V., knoweth. See c. 6 note. The present is sharply contrasted with the aor. (ἔγνω, novit, V.) which follows (c. 8).

The idea of ‘knowledge’ is introduced here in connexion with the action of the Spirit of Truth in the fuller unfolding of the mystery of Christ’s Person. He that loveth derives his spiritual being from God, and of necessity therefore is in sympathy with him, and knows Him, that is, recognises every revelation which shews more of Him (c. 6).

1 John 4:8

8. As the presence of active love is the pledge of advancing knowledge, so the absence of love is the proof that apparent knowledge was not real. ‘He that loveth not, knew not God’ (οὐκ ἔγνω τ. θ., non novit V., ignorat F.) when he made profession of knowing Him. His acknowledgment of God (as at Baptism) was based on no true recognition of His nature.

The aor. (ἔγνω) always has its full force. Compare iii. 1; John x. 38, xvi. 3.

ὅτι…] because. It is assumed that knowledge involves practical sympathy. Compare ii. 3 note.

Bede puts well one side of the truth; Quisquis [Deum] non amat, profecto ostendit quia quam sit amabilis non novit (ad c. ii. 5).

This conception of the nature of knowledge corresponds with the view of the Gospel as ’the Truth.’ ὁ θ. ἀγάπη ἐστίν] Deus caritas est V. See Additional Note.

Additional Note on iv. 8. The revelation of God.

Tendencies towards two conceptions of God in the Apostolic age, abstract and concrete.

St John unites them.

His teaching rests on the Old Testament.

Opposed to

Dualism,

Polytheism,

Jewish thought in the age of St John represented in striking forms the two chief tendencies of religious speculation on the Being of God. On the one side there was the philosophic, theoretic tendency which leads to an abstract conception; and on the other the popular, practical tendency which leads to a concrete conception. The former found an exponent in Philo: the latter was embodied in the current creed of Palestine, which more and more reduced the God of the Covenant to the position of the God of the Jews.

St John unites the truths which gave force to these tendencies, the transcendental and the personal truth, in a perfect harmony. He wholly avoids the Alexandrine terms—τὸ ὕν, ἐπέκεινα πάσης οὐσίας and the like—and yet he preserves the thoughts at which they aimed. He recognises most emphatically the privileges of Israel, and at the same time he places the ‘One God’ in a living, loving connexion with ’the world.’

The foundation of his teaching lies in the Monotheism of the O. T., which is not rigid, sterile, final, like the Monotheism of Islam, but vital and progressive. The unity which it affirms is not numerical but essential (John x. 30 ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ πατήρ ἓν ἐσμεν: comp. xvii. 3; 1 John v. 20).

In this sense the thought of ’the only God’ (John v. 44) is opposed to all forms of Dualism, Polytheism, Pantheism. He is the One source of life (John v. 26); and through the Word, ’the Son,’ to Whom ‘he gave to have life in himself’ (John l.c.), ‘all things came into being’ (John i. 3). All notion of coeternal matter or of a coeternal principle of evil, as antagonistic to or limiting the divine action, is set aside. God ’loved the world’ (John iii. 16; comp. 1 John ii. 2) not as strange but as His own. All men need (John iii. 3) and all men are capable of (John xii. 32) union with Him. The devil left his first place ‘in the Truth’ (John viii. 44); and Christ ‘came to undo his works’ (1 John iii. 8) by taking ‘flesh,’ which could not therefore have been in essential opposition to His Nature.

The allusions to Polytheism in St John are naturally less prominent than those in St Paul. Once in general terms he warns against ’the idols’ which might be introduced. He quotes the passage: πᾶν πνεῦμα ὃ μὴ ὁμολογεῖ τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ οὐκ ἔστι and then in his interpretation adds ὁ τοίνυν οὐ λέγων θεὸν εἶναι ἀληθῶς τὸν Χριστὸν διαίρῶν δὲ καὶ κατασμικρύνων τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ τὸ τοῦ Ἀντιχρίστου πνεῦμα ἔχων ἀλώσεται

(de recta fide ad reg. p. 94). The Greek version of Leo’s Letter to Flavian (c. v. p. 830) gives πᾶν πνεῦμα τὸ διαίροῦν Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν ἀπὸ θεοῦ οὐκ ἔστι καὶ οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ Ἀντίχριστος as the rendering of the Latin omnis spiritus qui solvit Jesum ex Deo non est et hic est Antichristus.

usurp the place of ’the true God’ (1 John v. 21); and in the Apocalypse he marks the connexion between the empire and idolatry (xiii. 14 f.; and comp. xxi. 8; xxii. 15). But his teaching is directed rather against the spirit than against the form of polytheism. ‘The only true God,’ God revealed as Father in the Son, excludes polytheism of necessity both within and without the Christian Body.

St John, like St Paul, places Creation in close relation with the Creator, but he affirms the reality of the relation which the words imply. God is present in all things but He transcends them. They answered to His will in their beginning (Apoc. iv. 11), and are supported by His working (John v. 17).

For the most part St John, like the other writers of the Bible, leaves the reader to form his conception of God from what is recorded of His action; but in three phrases he has laid down once for all the great outlines within which our thoughts on the Divine Nature must be confined. The first sentence is in his narrative of the Lord’s words: ‘God is spirit’ (John iv. 24); the two others are in his first Epistle: ‘God is light’ (1 John i. 5 note) and ‘God is love’ (1 John iv. 8, 16).

To these may be added a fourth, in which he speaks of the revelation of ‘Him that is true’ made in ‘Jesus Christ His Son’: ’this,’ he says, ‘is the true God and eternal life’ (1 John v. 20). So he passes from the idea of God to the revelation of God to man.

The three phrases which have been quoted do not simply specify properties of God (as ‘God is loving’), but, so far as we can apprehend them, essential aspects of His Nature. The first, if we may venture to distinguish them, is metaphysical and describes God in Himself, in His Being: He is Spirit. The second is moral, and describes God in His character towards all created things: He is Light. The third is personal, and describes God in His action towards self-conscious creatures: He is Love. In this order they offer a progress of thought: each statement is taken up and developed in that which follows.

i. God is spirit (πνεῦμα ὁ θεός). The statement obviously refers to the divine nature and not to the divine personality. The parallel phrases are a sufficient proof of this. God is not ‘a spirit,’ as one of many, but ‘spirit.’ As spirit, He is absolutely raised above all limitations of succession (time and space) into which finally all thoughts of change and transitoriness are resolved.

There is no anticipation of this idea in the O.T. The ‘Spirit of God’ is constantly spoken of; but the loftiest descriptions of the Divine Majesty are always relative to space (Is. lxvi. 1; 1 K. viii. 27; Jer. xxiii. 24).

It follows that God as God is not cognisable by the senses (John i. 18; 1 John iv. 12). The Theophanies of the O.T. were not manifestations of ‘God’ but of the Son of God (John xii. 41; Is. vi. 1; comp. Apoc. iv. 2 ff.).

But while the material vision of God is impossible, there is a spiritual and a moral vision of God through Christ (John xiv. 9; comp. xii. 45) and through love, which leads up to the transfiguring contemplation of the Divine Presence (1 John ii. 2).

ii. God is light (ὁ θεὸς φῶς ἐστίν). This statement again is absolute as to the Nature of God, and not as to His action (not ‘a light’ or ’the light.

light of men’). The phrase expresses unlimited self-communication, diffusiveness. Light is by shining: darkness alone bounds. And further, the communication of light is of that which is pure and glorious. Such is God towards all finite being, the condition of life and action. He reveals Himself through the works of creation which reflect His perfections in a form answering to the powers of man, and yet God is not to be fully apprehended by man as He is.

The idea is not distinctly expressed in the O. T., though it underlies the thought of the Divine ‘glory’ (Ex. xxiv. 17; Hab. iii. 3f.). Compare also Is. x. 17; Ps. xxxvi. 10; civ. 2; Ezek. i. 27. It is indicated in Wisdom (vii. 26), and Philo uses the very words of St John: de Somn. i. p. 632, πρῶτον μὲν ὁ θεὸς φῶς ἐστί… καὶ οὐ μόνον φῶς ἀλλὰ καὶ παντὸς ἑτέρου φωτὸς ἀρχέτυπον μᾶλλον δὲ ἀρχιτέρμον πρεσβύτερον, καὶ ἀνώτερον, λόγον ἔχων παραδείγματος. Compare also Philo de nom. mut. i. 579; de sacrif. ii. p. 254; one remarkable phrase which Philo uses deserves to be quoted: ὁ θεὸς ἑαυτοῦ φέγγος ὡν δι’ αὐτοῦ μόνον θεωρεῖται (de præm. et pœn. ii. 415).

The idea of Light, it may be added, passes into that of Fire; but this thought is not brought out by St John (Hebr. xii. 29; Deut. iv. 24).

iii. God is love (ὁ θεὸς ἀγάπη ἐστίν). In this declaration the idea of ‘personality’ is first revealed, and in the case of God necessarily of a self-sufficing personality (see Additional Note on v. 20). The idea of God is not only that of an unlimited self-communication, but a self-communication which calls out and receives a response (1 John iv. 7 ff.), which requires the recognition not only of glory but of goodness. And this love is original, and not occasioned (1 John iv. 10). It corresponds to the innermost nature of God, and finds its source in Him and not in man (1 John iv. 19, iii. 1). It is not like the love which is called out in the finite by the sense of imperfection (ἔρως Plat. Sympos. pp. 201 ff.), but is the expression of perfect benevolence. The only earthly image which answers to it is the love of parents for children (Eph. iii. 15), while that of Christ for the Church is compared to the love of husband for wife (Eph. v. 25); compare the view of the relation of Jehovah to Israel in the Old Test. (Jer. ii.; Hos. ii.).

As answering to this love of God, Creation in its essence and destiny reveals not only the will but also the nature of God. As yet there is conflict and disorder, and St John does not, like St Paul (1 Cor. xv. 28), distinctly contemplate the end. He lays down the eternal truths which must find fulfilment.

For the same reason the thoughts of judgment and vengeance which are prominent in the Apocalypse fall into the background in the Gospel and Epistles. These lie, so to speak, rather in the necessity of things so far as they are apart from God than in the will of God.

In the O. T. love is an attribute of God, one of many exercised in particular relations: Deut. iv. 37, vii. 8, 13, xii. 15, 18, xxiii. 5; 2 Sam. xii. 24; Is. xli. 8, xliii. 4, xlviii. 14; Mal. i. 2. In the N. T. first love can be shown to be the very Being of God as answering to the Revelation in Christ; and we may see a certain fitness in the fact that this crowning truth is brought out in the latest of the apostolic writings.

In other passages St John speaks of God as ’living’ (John vi. 57 ὁ ζῶν πατήρ), ’true’ (ἀληθῇς John viii. 26, iii. 33; comp. 1 John i. 10), ‘faithful’ iii. God is love.

(πιστός 1 John i. 9; Apoc. i. 5, iii. 14, xix. 11), ‘righteous’ (δίκαιος John xvii. 25; 1 John i. 9; comp. Apoc. xvi. 5), ‘holy’ (ἅγιος John xvii. 11; comp. Apoc. vi. 10). And he records how His character is shewn to us in His action in Nature (John v. 17), History (ii. 3, xix. 11), and Grace (vi. 44 f.). Comp. John xii. 28, x. 29, xi. 41 f.

1 John 4:9

9. ἐν τούτῳ…ὅτι…] In hoc…quoniam… V. In this…that… So c. 10, John ix. 30.

ἐν τ. ἐφαν…] The manifestation and the essence of love (c. 10 ἐν τ. ἐστὶν ἡ ἀ.) are distinguished, though both are seen in the Incarnation. The manifestation of love was shewn in the fact (τ. υἱ. τ. μον. ἀπέστ.) and in the end (ἵνα ζῆσ.) of the Mission of the Son. The essence of love was shewn in this that the Mission of the Son was absolutely spontaneous (αὐτὸς ἠγάπησεν ἡ.). Comp. Rom. viii. 32.

ἐφανερώθη] apparuit V., manifestata est Ang., was manifested. That which ‘was’ eternally was made known in time. Compare c. i. 2 note. In the retrospect of His completed work on earth the Lord says: ἐφανέρωσά σου τὸ ὄνομα (John xvii. 6), that is ’the Father’s name,’ the revelation of love. See also 2 Tim. i. 9 f.

9 ζήσωμεν: ζῶμεν ἦ*.

10 ἡ ἀγ.: +τοῦ θεοῦ ἦ me the.

ἐν ἡμῖν] in nobis V., in us: not simply ’towards us’ as the objects to whom the love was directed, but ‘in us,’ in us believers, as the medium in which it was revealed and in which it was effective (that we may live through Him). Comp. v. 16. The Christian shares the life of Christ, and so becomes himself a secondary sign of God’s love. There is a sense in which creation shews God’s love, but this revelation becomes clear through the new creation. The manifestation of the love of God to man becomes a living power as a manifestation of His love in man.

The sense in our case, or among us (John i. 14), is excluded by the constant use of the preposition in the context to express the presence of God in the Christian body (v. 12).

τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ. [filium suum unigenitum V., His Son, His only Son. The exact form occurs only here and John iii. 16. Comp. ii. 7; John i. 14 notes; and Additional Note on iii. 23. The order of the words in the whole clause is most impressive: ‘in this that His Son, His only Son, hath God sent into the world,’ into the world, though alienated from Him.

ἀπέσταλκεν] He hath sent, and we now enjoy the blessings of the Mission: v. 14; John v. 36, xx. 21. Comp. John v. 33; Luke iv. 18; 2 Cor. xii. 17, &c. The aorist (ἀπέστειλα) occurs v. 10; John iii. 17, 34, vi. 29, &c., xvii. 3, &c. See Additional Notes on iii. 5; John xx. 21.

Both here and in John iii. 16 the Mission of the Son is referred to ‘God’ and not to ’the Father.’ The central idea is that of the divine majesty of the Son and not that of the special relation in which the

Father stands to the Son and, through the Son, to men. Contrast v. 14, and see Additional Note on i. 2.

ἵνα ζήσωμεν…] that we may live… The natural state of men is that of death: c. iii. 14. It is perhaps strange that this is the only place in the Epistles in which the verb ζῆν occurs. Compare John v. 25; vi. 51, 57 f.; xi. 25; xiv. 19. The term is used because the Apostle lays stress upon the activity of the Christian and not upon his safety only (that we may be saved: John iii. 17). In him, as he lives, the love of God is seen visibly working. As compared with John iii. 16 f., which should be closely examined with this passage, the object of the Mission of Christ is here set forth in its personal working and not in its general scope.

δι’ αὐτοῦ] per eum V., through Him, as the efficient cause of life.

Elsewhere the Christian is said to live ‘on account of’ Christ; John vi. 57 (δι’ ἐμέ).

St Paul speaks of Christ as living in the Christian; Gal. ii. 20. ‘The life of Jesus’ is that which the believer strives to manifest: 2 Cor. iv. 10 f.; and Christ is his life: Col. iii. 4 (comp. 1 John v. 12, 20); while hereafter the Christian will live with Him (σὸν αὐτῷ): 1 Thess. v. 10. So Christ is the aim of the Christian’s life: Rom. xiv. 8 (τῷ κυρίῳ ζ.); comp. Rom. vi. 10 f.; Gal. ii. 19; and the substance of his life (τὸ ζῆν): Phil. i. 21.

It is to be noticed that the Christian is not said in the New Testament to ’live in Christ’ (contrast Acts xvii. 28); though the Christian’s life is ‘in Him’: 1 John v. 11; Rom. vi. 23; 2 Tim. i. 1. This phrase however

occurs in Polyc. ad Phil. 8, δι’ ἡμᾶς, ἵνα ζήσωμεν ἐν αὐτῷ, πάντα ὑπέμεινε.

Additional Note on iv. 9. The use of the term μονογενής.

The term μονογενής is derived from the vocabulary of the LXX. It occurs there altogether eight times, three times in the Psalms, three times in Tobit, once in Judges and once in the book of Wisdom. The use of the word in Tobit is quite simple. Tobit and Sarah are two μονογενείς, only children of their parents (viii. 17): Sarah is μονογενής (or μία iii. 10) the one daughter of her father (iii. 15; cf. vi. 11 where the reading is doubtful). In the book of Wisdom the meaning of the term is less easy to express. It is said (vii. 22) that in Wisdom there is a spirit intelligent, holy, μονογενές, manifold, subtle, versatile… The epithet evidently describes the essential nature and not the derivation of this spirit: it is something absolutely one, unique (unicus in Latt.)

In the three passages of the Psalms, as in Jud. xi. 34, the word represents the Hebrew יָהִיר, twice as a significant title of the soul, the one single irreparable life of man (Ps. xxii. (xxi.) 21; xxxv. (xxxiv.) 17, unicam meam Lat. Vet.; solitariam meam V.), and once of the sufferer left alone and solitary in his distress (Ps. xxv. (xxiv.) 16 unicus Lat. Vet.; solus V.; and so Aquila rightly in Ps. lxviii. (lxvii.) 6 [LXX. μονοτρόπους], but in the three other places he gives μοναχός, which is the rendering of Sym. and Theod. here)

In six other places the same original word (יָהִיר) is represented by ἀγαπητός (Gen. xxii. 2, 12, 16; Jer. vi. 26; Amos viii. 10; Zech. xii. 10), which also carries with it the notion of ‘an only child’; once by ἀγαπώ-μενος, Prov. iv. 3. In Jud. xi. 34 Cod. A. gives the duplicate rendering μονογενής, ἀγαπητή.

In the New Testament μονογενής has the same meaning only (Lk. viii. 42 ii. in the unica), or only child (Lk. vii. 12 unicus; ix. 38 id.; Hebr. xi. 17, unicus Vet. N. T. Lat. unigenitus V., comp. John i. 14, unici Tert., unigeniti most); and so the word is used of the Lord (John iii. 16 unicus Vet. Lat.; unigenitus V.; 1 John iv. 9 unicum Vet. Lat.; unigenitum V.; comp. John i. 14), and once, according to the most ancient authorities in connexion with the word ‘God’ (John i. 18 μονογενής θεός; unicus filius, Adim. ap. Aug.; unigenitus filius (Deus), rell.).

The one instance of the use of the word in the sub-apostolic writings iii. in later gives exactly the same sense. Clement speaks of the Phœnix (Ep. i. 25) as μονογενές ὑπάρχον, a bird ‘absolutely unique, the only one of its kind.’ (Comp. Bp. Lightfoot ad loc.)

The word next appears prominently in the system of Valentinus. The Mind (Νοῦς) the offspring of the ineffable Depth (Βυθός) and Silence (Σεγή), which alone embraced the greatness of the First Father, itself ’the Father and beginning of all things,’ was also called ὁ Μονογενής, the onlyborn. And from this Being ’like and equal’ to its Author, in conjunction with Truth the other Æons proceeded (Iren. i. 1, 2).

These mystical speculations fixed attention upon the term; but perhaps at the same time they checked its technical use in the Church. It does not in fact occur in the earlier types of the Creed, which are found in Irenæus, Tertullian and Novatian; and in Tertullian the corresponding Latin term unicus is used of God the Father: de virg. col. 1; ade. Prax. 2. But it is worthy of notice that in the confession of Ignatius before Trajan, which follows the great lines of a Baptismal Symbol, the phrase is found: εἰς ἔστιν θεὸς…καὶ εἰς Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς ὁ νίος τοῦ θεοῦ ὁ μονογενής (Ignat. Mart. 2; comp. Polyc. Mart. 20). And it was apparently from Antioch that the term spread as an element of the expression of the Catholic Faith.

In the second half of the third century the word appears in the Confessions of Syria and Asia Minor (Syn. Ant. A.D. 269, Routh, iii. p. 290; Greg. Thaum. ap. Greg. Nyss. 3, p. 912; Lucian, Socr. 2, 10, 7; Apost. Const. 7, 41; Marcellus, Epiph. Her. 72, p. 836); and from that time it gradually obtained a permanent place in the Creeds of the East and the West.

The earliest certain example of the word in this connexion brings out its force very plainly. The Synod of Antioch (269), which condemned Paul of Samosata, in giving the exposition of their ancient belief which they addressed to him, write: ‘We confess and proclaim the Son as begotten, ‘an only Son (γεννητόν, νίον μονογενή), the image of the unseen God, the ‘firstborn of all creation, the Wisdom and Word and Power of God, who was ‘before the ages not by foreknowledge but by essence and subsistence, ‘God, Son of God, having recognised Him as such both in the Old and New ‘Testament’ (Routh, Rell. Sacr. iii. 290; comp. Alex. Alexandr. ap. Theodor. H. E. 1. 4. 45, φύσις μονογενής).

The point which is emphasised by the word here is evidently the absolute oneness of the Being of the Son. He stands to the Father in a relation wholly singular. He is the one only Son, the one to whom the title belongs in a sense completely unique and peculiar. The thought is centred in the Personal existence of the Son, and not in the Generation of the Son. That mystery is dealt with in another phrase. Consistently with this view the earliest Latin forms of the Creed uniformly represent the word by unicus, the only son, and not by unigenitus the only-begotten son, and this rendering has maintained its place in the Apostles’ Creed and in our English version of it. But towards the close of the fourth century in translations from the Greek unigenitus came to be substituted for unicus, and this interpretation has passed into our version of the Constantinopolitan Creed only-begotten.

The sense of only Son is preserved by the Syriac versions of the Nicene Creed, which go back to the original word which was rendered in the 1.xx. μονογενής and ἀγαπητός (ܐܝܠܝܐ) following in this the example of the Syriac translation of the N. T., where the word μονογενής is so rendered uniformly: Caspari, pp. 101, 116.

The exact phraseology of the true Nicene Creed separates distinctly these two thoughts of the generation of the Son, and of the unique being of the Son. ‘We believe…in one Lord Jesus Christ, begotten of the Father

Confessions of Faith.

an only Son’ (γεννηθέντα ἐκ πατρὸς μονογενῆ)¹, where the uniqueness of nature is further defined by the addition ’that is to say of the essence of the Father.’ And this proper sense of the word μονογενής, as marking the oneness of the sonship, preserves a close affinity in idea with ἀγαπητός well-beloved, the second translation of יָחִיד. Both words define that which is essentially singular in filial relationship: ‘Only son and well-beloved,’ Athanasius writes, ‘are the same’ (Or. c. Ar. iv. 24).

But in the interval which elapsed before the council of Constantinople the important distinction between the sonship and the generation of the Son was beginning to be obscured, and μονογενής was treated as equivalent to μόνος γεννηθείς, so as to include both the fact of the uniqueness of the Nature of the Son and the ground (if we may so speak) of His uniqueness².

In this way the grand simplicity of the original idea of the word was lost. Other thoughts, true in themselves, were gathered round it, and at last the sense was given by Gregory of Nazianzus as describing ’not the only Son of an only Parent, at one only time, but also that He was (begotten) in a singular way (μονοτρόπως)’ (Orat. xxx. 20). And this conception, with which no fault can be found except that it is not contained in the word, became popularly current afterwards and was admirably expressed by John of Damascus: Μονογενής δὲ ὅτι μόνος ἐκ μόνον τοῦ πατρὸς μόνως ἐγεννήθη (De Fid. Orthod. i. 8. 135).

One other use of the word μονογενής, which is at first strange to our ears, remains to be noticed. The true reading in John i. 18 is in all probability μονογενής θεός (unigenitus Deus), and this phrase occurs in some of the Confessions of the fourth century. Thus it appears in a copy of the Nicene Creed addressed by Eustathius to Liberius (c. 366), (Socr. iv. 12, 14), and in a Creed set forth by the council of Antioch in 341 (πιστεύομεν …εἰς ἕνα Κύριον Ἰν. Χν. τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ θεόν…τὸν γεννηθέντα… Socr. ii. 10, 12; Athan. de Syn. 23), which was said in fact to be the Creed of Lucian the Martyr; and again in the Synodical letter of the Synod of Ancyra (358) (Sozom. 3, 5, 9; Epiph. Haer. 73, 8).

The phrase is common in patristic writings both in connexion with the passage in St John’s Gospel and independently. Didymus sets the phrase μονογενής θεός λόγος parallel with εἰς θεός. Alexander, who reads ὁ μονογενής υἱός in John i. 18 speaks afterwards of the ‘ineffable subsistence of God the only Son’ (θεὸς μονογενής Theod. 1, 4, §§ 15, 19). Gregory of Nyssa, who uses it most frequently, says ’the sum of the Christian religion is to believe in God the only Son (τὸν μονογενῆ θεόν) who is the Truth and the true Light and the Power of God and the Life’ (c. Eunom. 12, p. 913, Migne).

On the relation of μονογενής to πρωτότοκος as applied to the Son see Lightfoot on Col. i. 15; and the typical passage of Athanasius: Orat. c. Ar. ii. 21 § 9. In connecting πρωτότοκος with the Incarnate Lord, I

¹ There can be no doubt that in this sentence μονογενῆ is (so to speak) a secondary predicate, and not a fresh epithet. The clause is so rendered in the Syriac version; Caspari, p. 101.

² The word μονογεννητός does not occur. The instance quoted by Bingham (3, 359) from Ussher is simply a false conjunction of the words…μονογενῆ τὸν… See Heurtley, pp. 79, 82.

believe that the great Greek fathers wished to guard the truth which I have sought to express in the Essay on ‘The Gospel of Creation.’

For the use of the phrase μονογενὴς θεός see Dr Hort’s Two Dissertations, Cambridge, 1876.

1 John 4:10

10. ἐν τούτῳ ἐστίν…ὅτι…] in this is…that…] In this we can see a revelation of the true nature of love. The source of love is the free will of God Himself. He loved us because ‘He is love,’ and in virtue of that love sent His Son. The origin of love lies beyond humanity.

ἡ ἀγάπη] caritas V., love, in its most absolute sense, not farther defined as the love of God or of man.

οὐχ ὅτι…ἀλλ’ ὅτι…] non quasi…sed quoniam V., not that…but that… The negative clause is brought forward to emphasise the thought of man’s inability to originate love. For somewhat similar forms of expression see 2 John 5; John vi. 38; vii. 22; xii. 6. Non illum dileximus prius: nam ad hoc nos dilexit ut diligamus eum (Aug., Bede).

αὐτός] ipse V., He, of His own free will. Compare ii. 25 note.

ἠγάπησεν] loved us. The love is viewed in regard to its historic manifestation, John iii. 16; Eph. ii. 4; 2 Thess. ii. 16. Comp. Gal. ii. 20; Eph. v. 2, 25; Apoc. iii. 9.

ἰλασμὸν] propitiationem V., litatorem Aug.; in quibusdam codicibus… legitur…litatorem… Bede; expiatorem Lefr., a propitiation. Comp. ii. 2 note. The idea is introduced here to mark the preparation of men for fellowship with God. God was pleased to make men fit to share His nature. The life (e. 9) followed on the removal of sin.

2. The inspiration of love (11—16a).

St John has shewn that love must come from God Who has revealed in the Incarnation what it is essentially, the spontaneous communication of the highest good. He now considers what must be the effect upon men of this manifestation of love, which is the assurance and the revelation of the Divine Presence.

The character of God’s love carries with it an obligation to love (v. 11) through the fulfilment of which by the Spirit we gain the highest possible assurance of fellowship with God (vv. 12, 13). And the experience of the Church attests equally the love of God and the effects of His love among men (14—16 a).

¹¹ Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. ¹² No man hath ever yet beheld God; if we love one another, God abideth in us and his love is perfected in us. ¹³ In this we know that we abide in him and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit. ¹⁴ And we have beheld and bear witness that the Father hath sent the Son as Saviour of the world. ¹⁵ Whosoever shall confess that Jesus [Christ] is the Son of God, God abideth in him and he in God. ¹⁶ And we know and have believed the love which God hath in us.

1 John 4:11

11. Ἀγαπητοί] c. 7 note.

εἰ οὕτως…] si sic Deus dilexit nos, if it was so, as we see in the mission of His Son, God loved us… The order of the words throws a stress upon the particular manifestation of God’s love (ἠγάπησεν, John iii. 16); and the repetition of ὁ θεὸς emphasises the Majesty of Him Who thus revealed His love.

λους ἀγαπᾶν. ¹²θεὸν οὐδεὶς πώποτε τεθέαται· ἐὰν ἀγαπᾶμεν ἀλλήλους, ὁ θεὸς ἐν ἡμῖν μένει καὶ ἡ ἀγάπη αὐτοῦ καὶ ἡ. ὄφ.] et nos debemus V., we also ought… See iii. 16 note. The love which God has not only shewn but given to us (v. 1) becomes a constraining motive for action.

ἀλλ. ἄγ.] alterutrum diligere V., invicem diligere Aug. (F.). The phrase marks the mutual fulness of love. Comp. iii. 11 note. Of the love itself Augustine says: Noli in homine amare errorem, sed hominem: hominem enim Deus fecit, errorem ipse homo fecit.

It is of importance to observe that the obligation which St John draws from the fact of God’s love is not that we should ’love God’ but that we should ’love one another.’ It is through human affections and duties that the spiritual, when once apprehended in its sublime purity, gains definiteness and reality under the conditions of our present state (comp. v. 20; c. i. 3 note). The thought of ’the love of God’ (i.e. of which God is the object) as distinct from the ’love of Christ’ (John xiv. 15, 21, 23 f., 28; xxi. 16; Eph. vi. 24) is very rare in the N. T. (v. 21; c. v. 2; Rom. viii. 28; 1 Cor. ii. 9, LXX.; viii. 3 εἴ τις ἀγαπᾷ τὸν θεόν, οὗτος ἔγνωσται ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ). The command to love God is quoted from the Law (Matt. xxii. 37 and parr. from Deut. vi. 5). Gradually by the elevation of thought God seemed to be withdrawn from men; and then in the Person of His Son, who took humanity to Himself, God gave back to man that in which human feeling can find inspiration and rest.

1 John 4:12

12. θεόν…τεθέαται] Deum nemo vidit unquam V., God hath no man ever beheld. Comp. John i. 18 note. In both passages θεόν stands first and without the article, ‘God as God’; and in both passages the object is directly followed by the subject: God hath no man ever (seen). But the verbs are different. In John i. 18 the thought is of the vision which might be the foundation of revelation (ἐώρακεν): here the thought is of the continuous beholding which answers to abiding fellowship (τεθέαται). Comp. John xvi. 16 note. On θεός and ὁ θεός see Additional Note.

οὐδεὶς πώποτε…] no man ever yet… In these words St John seems to call up all the triumphs of the saints in past time. However close their fellowship with God had been, yet no one had beheld Him as He is. The question here is not one of abstract power but of actual experience.

ἐὰν ἀγαπῶμεν…] if we love… Though God is invisible He yet is not only very near to us but may be in us, the Life of our lives. The words, as Bede points out, meet the implied question: Quo solatio utendum ubi divina visione nondum licet perfrui!

The manifestation of active love by men witnesses to two facts: (1) the abiding of God in them, and (2) the presence of divine love in them in its completest form. There is both the reality of fellowship and the effectiveness of fellowship.

ὁ θ. ἐν ἡμ. μένει] abideth in us. See Additional Note on v. 15. Generally this fellowship is described under its two aspects (‘God in us, we in God’), but here the idea is that of the power of the divine indwelling. Comp. John xvii. 23, 26.

The question has been asked (Bede), How the highest blessedness is attached to the mutual love of Christians while in the Gospel the love of enemies is enjoined (Matt. v. 43 ff.)? The answer lies in the recognition of the essence of Christian love. This resting upon the Incarnation regards

12 τετ. ἐν ἡμῖν ἐ. NB: ἐν ἡμῖν τετ. ἐ. A vg: τετ. ἐ. ἐν ἡμῖν me the syrr.

all men in the light of that fact. The Christian can separate in man that which belongs to his true nature from the disease which corrupts it: Sævit in te homo. Ille sævit, tu deprecare: ille odit, tu miserere. Febris animae ipsius te odit: sanus erit et gratias tibi aget (Aug. in 1 Joh. Tract. viii. § 11).

The love of the brethren is indeed the recognition of God in men by the exercise of that in man which is after the image of God. Ubi factus est ad imaginem Dei? Augustine asks on this passage, and replies: In intellectu, in mente, in interiore homine, in eo quod intellegit caritatem, dijudicat justitiam et injustitiam, novit a quo factus est, potest intellegere Creatorem suum, laudare Creatorem suum (Tract. viii. § 6).

He afterwards adds a profound test of love: Hoc naturale habes: semper melior eris quam bestia. Si vis melior esse quam alius homo, invidebis ei quando tibi esse videbis æqualem. Debes velle omnes homines æquales tibi esse (§ 8).

ἡ ἀγ. αὐτοῦ] caritas ejus V., His love, the love which answers to His nature and with which He has endowed us. Comp. ii. 5 note. Man receives the love of God and makes it his own. Neither of the two specially defined senses, ’the love of God for man,’ or ’the love of man for God,’ suits the context.

τετελ…ἐστίν] The resolved form (i. 4; contrast r. 17, ii. 5) emphasises the two elements of the thought: ’the love of God is in us’; ’the love of God is in us in its completest form.’ It is through man that ’the love of God’ finds its fulfilment on earth.

The ideas of the perfection of love in the believer and of the perfection of the believer in love are presented in several different forms in the epistle. In c. ii. 5 the sign of the perfection of ’the love of God’ in man is found in the watchful regard which the believer pays to His revelation (ὃς ἂν τηρῇ αὐτοῦ τὸν λόγον). Here it is found in the love of Christians for one another. The two signs explain and indeed include each other. Love is the fulfilment of divine obedience. The commandment of Christ was love (cf. c. iii. 23).

In vv. 17, 18 the perfection of love is presented under another aspect. The fruit of the possession of ’love’ is shewn in regard to the believer himself. ‘Love hath been perfected with us’ to the end that ‘we may have boldness in the day of judgment.’ And for the present, ‘he that feareth hath not been made perfect in love.’ Obedience, active love, confidence, these three, point to the same fact. Where the one is the other is. The source of all is the full development of the divine gift of love.

This characteristic thought of St John is found in the Thanksgiving after the Eucharist in the Doctr. App. 10 Μνήσθητι, Κύριε, τῆς ἐκκλησίας σου τοῦ…τελειῶσαι αὐτὴν ἐν τῇ ἀγάπῃ σου…

Additional Note on iv. 12. On the use of θεός and ὁ θεός.

Difference of ὁ θεός and θεός.

A careful examination of the passages, relatively few in number, in which θεός is used without the article in St John’s writings leads to the conclusion that the difference between ὁ θεός and θεός is such as might have been expected antecedently. The former brings before us the Personal God Who has been revealed to us in a personal relation to ourselves: the latter fixes our thoughts on the general conception of the Divine Character and Being.

i. Use in St John, θεός without the article.

i. Θεός occurs without the article (exclusively of cases where it occurs with a preposition) in the following passages:

John i. 1 θεός ἦν ὁ λόγος. „ 12 τέκνα θεοῦ. So 1 John iii. 1, 2. „ 18 θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν. 1 John iv. 12 θεὸν οὐδεὶς πώποτε τεθέαται. „ vi. 45 διδακτοὶ θεοῦ (LXX). „ viii. 54 λέγετε ὅτι θεὸς ὑμῶν ἐστίν. „ x. 33 ποιεῖς σεαυτὸν θεόν. „ 34 f. εἶπα θεοὶ ἐστε (LXX). „ xix. 7 υἱὸν θεοῦ ἑαυτὸν ἐποίησεν.

1 John iii. 1, 2 (above John i. 12).

„ iv. 12 (above John i. 18).

2 John 9 θεὸν οὐκ ἔχει.

Apoc. vii. 2 σφραγίδα θεοῦ ζῶντος (comp. 1 Thess. i. 9; 2 Cor. iii. 3, vi. 16; 1 Tim. iv. 10; Hebr. ix. 14, x. 31, xii. 22).

„ xxi. 3 ὁ θεὸς μετ’ αὐτῶν ἔσται [αὐτῶν θεός].

It is clear that in these passages ὁ θεός either could not be used, or could only be used with a serious change of sense.

The use of ὁ θεός and θεός with prepositions presents some marked results.

Use with prepositions.

1. ἀπό.

(a) With article:

Apoc. xii. 6 τόπον ἤτοιμασμένον ἀπὸ τοῦ θ.

(β) Without article:

John iii. 2 ἀπὸ θ. ἐλήλυθας.

„ xiii. 3 ἀπὸ θ. ἐξῆλθεν.

„ xvi. 30 ἀπὸ θ. ἐξῆλθες.

2. εἰς.

John xiv. 1 πιστεύετε εἰς τὸν θ.

3. ἐκ.

(α) With article:

γεννηθῆναι ἐκ τοῦ θ. 1 John iii. 9, v. 1, 4, 18.

εἶναι ἐκ τοῦ θ. John vii. 17, viii. 47; 1 John iii. 10, iv. 1 ff., 6 f., v. 19; 3 John 11.

John viii. 42 ἐκ τοῦ θ. ἐξῆλθον.

Apoc. xi. 11 πνεῦμα ζωῆς ἐκ τοῦ θ.

(β) Without article:

John i. 13 ἐκ θεοῦ ἐγεννήθησαν.

4. ἐν.

(α) With article:

1 John iv. 15 αὐτὸς [μένει] ἐν τῷ θ. „ 16 ἐν τῷ θ. μένει.

(β) Without article:

John iii. 21 ἐν θ. ἐστὶν εἰργασμένα.

5. παρά.

(α) With article:

John vi. 46 ὁ ὢν παρὰ [τοῦ] θ. „ viii. 40 ἦν ἤκουσα παρὰ τοῦ θ.

(β) Without article:

6. πρὸς.

Uniformly with the article:

John i. 1 ἦν πρὸς τὸν θ.

„ xiii. 3 ὑπάγει πρὸς τὸν θ.

1 John iii. 21 παρρησίαν ἔχομεν πρὸς τὸν θ.

Apoc. xii. 5 ἠρπάσθη πρὸς τὸν θ.

Throughout it will be seen that in θεός the general conception of divinity is dominant, and in ὁ θεός that of the One Being in personal relation to others.

ii. The same general difference is observable in the use of the terms in the other Books of the N. T. Thus it may be noticed that the article is uniformly found

(1) with (\dot{\epsilon}\nu\dot{\omega}\pi\iota\omega) ((\ddot{\epsilon}\nu\alpha\nu\tau), (\kappa\alpha\tau\epsilon\nu\omega\pi\iota\omega), (\kappa\alpha\tau\epsilon\nu\alpha\nu\tau)) (31 times) except 2 Cor. ii. 17. (2) with (\pi \rho \acute{\circ} s) acc. (19 times). (3) with (\dot{\nu}\pi \acute{o}) gen. (13 times) except Rom. xiii. 1; Gal. iv. 9.

On the other hand the article is never used with κατά acc. (6 times), while it is used in the two places where κατά is used with gen.

A few illustrations will serve to make this difference felt:

Examples of usage.

Comp. 1 Tim. iv. 10 and 2 Cor. i. 9.

Acts xx. 21 τὴν εἰς θεὸν μετάνοιαν.

1 Thess. i. 9 ἐπεστρέψατε πρὸς τὸν θεὸν ἀπὸ τῶν εἰδώλων δουλεύειν θεῷ ζῶντι καὶ ἀληθινῷ.

1 Cor. iii. 19 μωρία παρὰ τῷ θεῷ ἐστίν.

Rom. ii. 17 καυχᾶσαι ἐν θεῷ.

11 καυχώμενοι ἐν τῷ θεῷ.

In this connexion also, though other considerations come in here, the following parallel phrases deserve notice: εὐαγγέλιον θεοῦ Rom. i. 1; τὸ eὐαγγ. τοῦ θ. Rom. xv. 16; δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ 2 Cor. v. 21; ἡ δικ. τοῦ θ. Rom. x. 3; ὀργὴ θεοῦ Rom. i. 18; ἡ ὀργὴ τοῦ θ. John iii. 36, Eph. v. 6; ἀλήθεια θεοῦ Rom. xv. 8; ἡ ἀλήθ. τοῦ θ. Rom. i. 25, iii. 7.

1 John 4:13

13. ἐν τούτῳ γινώσκομεν…] in hoc intellegimus V., in this, the possession of the spirit of love, which flows from God, are perceive, we are severally conscious of the fact of the divine indwelling which has been affirmed generally (r. 12, God abideth in us); and that by continuous and progressive experience (contrast ἐγνώ- κομεν, r. 16).

ἐν αὐτῷ μένομεν…] See Additional

13 δέδωκεν ΝΒ: ἔδωκεν Α. 15 ὁμολογήσῃ: ὁμολογῇ Α.

14 τεθεάμεθα ΝΒ: ἐθεασάμεθα Α. Ἰησοῦς: + Χριστός Β.

Note on v. 15. The believer feels in the enjoyment of this affection that the centre of his life is no longer within himself nor on earth; because the spirit by which it is inspired, by which alone it can be inspired, is the Spirit of God.

ἐκ τοῦ πν.] de spiritu suo V., of His Spirit, ’to each according to his several ability.’ Under different aspects it can be said that God gives to Christians ‘His Spirit’ (1 Thess. iv. 8), or ‘of His Spirit.’ For the use of ἐκ (contrast iii. 24) see John vi. 11, i. 16. In the Holy Trinity we conceive of the perfect union of the Father and the Son as realised through the Spirit. So too it is through the same Spirit that the ‘many sons’ are united in the Son with God.

δέδωκεν] hath given. Contrast iii. 23, ἔδωκεν. The difference in tense corresponds to the difference in the sense of ἐκ τοῦ πνεύματος.

1 John 4:14

14. Καὶ ἡμεῖς τεθ…] Et nos vidimus V., And we have beheld… The emphatic pronoun (v. 6, i. 4; John i. 16) brings into prominence the experience of the Christian Society gathered up in that of its leaders. The apostle does not speak of himself personally but as representing the Church for which he had a special work to do. His experience (John i. 14) was in another form the experience of all (John i. 16). The vision and witness of the immediate disciples correspond with the knowledge and belief of the disciples in all ages. Or to express the same truth otherwise, that vision and witness remain as an abiding endowment of the living Body.

τεθεάμεθα] Strictly speaking the immediate objects of τεθεάμεθα and μαρτυροῦμεν are different. The object of contemplation was the revelation of the Lord’s Life: the object of witness, the declaration of its meaning. In a wider sense spiritual facts can become the objects of direct vision (comp. John i. 33, μένον). Here however the thought is that the significance of the Lord’s Mission was made known to those who carefully regarded His Life and observed the necessary tendency of all His actions. In this respect His Life was the object of contemplation (θεᾶσθαι) and not of vision. Compare John i. 34 (ἐώρακα) with John i. 32 (τεθέαμαι). See also c. i. 1, 2.

The use of τεθεάμεθα carries the mind back to v. 12, θεὸν οὐδεὶς τεθέαται. Though God Himself had not been the object of direct human regard, yet Christian faith rests upon a historic revelation of His Nature.

τεθεάμεθα καὶ μαρτυροῦμεν] Comp. i. 2, ἐωράκαμεν καὶ μαρτυροῦμεν, iii. 11, 32, and contrast John i. 34, ἐώρακα καὶ μεμαρτύρηκα, xix. 35. The continuous witness was based upon the abiding experience.

ὁ πατήρ] Comp. v. 10 (ὁ θεός) note. ἀπέσταλκεν] hath sent. The testimony is borne not simply to the historic fact (v. 10, ἀπέστειλεν), but (as in v. 9) to the permanence of Christ’s mission. Of this believers have direct knowledge. Comp. Additional Note on c. iii. 5.

σωτῆρα τοῦ κ.] salvatorem mundi V. (sæculi F.), as Saviour of the world. The full title occurs once again in the N. T. as the confession

[Χριστός] ἐστιν ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, ὁ θεὸς ἐν αὐτῷ μένει καὶ αὐτὸς ἐν τῷ θεῷ. ¹⁶ Καὶ ἡμεῖς ἐγνώκαμεν of the Samaritans, John iv. 42; and the thought which it conveys is expressed in John iii. 17. St John nowhere else uses the title σωτήρ, which in other apostolic writings is applied both (1) to ‘God’: 1 Tim. i. 1 θεὸς σωτὴρ ἡμῶν καὶ X. I.; Tit. i. 3 ὁ σ. ἡμῶν θ., ii. 10, iii. 4; Jude 25 μόνος θεὸς σωτήρ; and more expressly 1 Tim. ii. 3 ὁ σ. ἡ. θ. ὃς πάντας ἀνθρώπους θέλει σωθῆναι, iv. 10 θεὸς ζῶν, ὃς ἐστιν σωτὴρ πάντων ἀνθρώπων, μάλιστα πιστῶν (comp. Luke i. 47); and (2) to Christ: Luke ii. 11 ἐτέχθη ὑμῖν σ. ὃς ἐστιν χριστὸς κύριος; Acts v. 31 [Ἰησοῦν] ὁ θεὸς ἀρχηγὸν καὶ σωτῆρα ὕψωσεν, xiii. 23 ὁ θεὸς…ἤγαγεν τῷ Ἰσραὴλ σωτῆρα Ἰησοῦν; 2 Tim. i. 10 ὁ σ. ἡ. X. I.; Tit. i. 4 X. I. ὁ σ. ἡ. (comp. τ. 3), ii. 13 ὁ μέγας θεὸς καὶ σ. ἡ. X. I., iii. 6 I. X. ὁ σ. ἡ.; 2 Pet. i. 11 ὁ κύριος ἡ. καὶ σ. I. X., ii. 20, iii. 18 (comp. iii. 2 ὁ κ. καὶ σ.); and more particularly Phil. iii. 20 σ. ἀπεκδεχόμεθα κύριον I. X. (Eph. v. 23 αὐτὸς σωτὴρ τοῦ σώματος is doubtful). Thus the title is confined (with the exception of the writings of St Luke) to the later writings of the N. T., and is not found in the central group of St Paul’s Epistles. The double application in Tit. i. 3 f. is very instructive.

The title is applied to God not unfrequently in the Lxx.: Deut. xxxii. 15 θεὸς σ. (צור וְשָׁעָתוֹ a Deo salutari V.); Ps. xxiv. (xxiii.) 5; xxv. (xxiv.) 5 (Deus salcator meus V.); xxvii. (xxvi.) 9 (אֱלֹהֵי וַיִּשְׁעִי Deus salutaris meus V.); lxv. (lxiv.) 6; lxxix. (lxxviii.) 9; xcv. (xciv.) 1 || Deut. xxxii. 15; Is. xvii. 10; xlv. 15 (מוֹשִׁיעַ salcator V.). Comp. Wisd. xvi. 7; Ecclus. li. 1; 1 Macc. iv. 30. It is used also of human deliverers: Jud. iii. 9, 15 (מוֹשִׁיעַ salcator V.); and of the promised salvation (Saviour): Is. lxii. 11 (וַיִּשְׁעַ salcator V.).

In Classical writers the title is used of many deities, especially of Zeus; and it was given under later Greek dynasties to princes and benefactors. Comp. Pearson On the Creed, pp. 72 f. (136 ff.) notes, and Wetstein on Lk. ii. 11 for numerous examples. It had no Latin equivalent in Cicero’s time. Cicero commenting on the title as applied to Verres adds: Hoc quantum est? ita magnum est ut Latine uno verbo exprimi non possit. Is est nimirum poter qui salutem dat in Verr. ii. 2, 63).

The acens. σωτῆρα describes what Christ is and not simply what He is designed to be. Compare ii. 2 Ἰλασμός ἐστιν, τ. 10 ἀπέστειλεν Ἰλασμόν. That which is yet partly future in its human application (Phil. iii. 20 σωτῆρα ἀπεκδεχόμεθα) is complete in the divine idea.

It is worthy of notice that the words σώζειν and σωτηρία are not found in the Epistles of St John.

1 John 4:15

15. ὃς ἐάν] See ii. 5 note. There is no limitation in the will of God (1 Tim. ii. 3).

ὁμολογήσῃ] See ii. 23 note; τ. 2 note. The different forms of the confession require to be studied together. He that confesseth the Son hath the Father also (ii. 23); Every spirit that confesseth Jesus Christ come in the flesh is of God (iv. 2); Whosoever confesseth that Jesus [Christ] is the Son of God, God abideth in him and he in God. The exact point of the confession here prepares for the conclusion. The recognition of the revelation of God is the sign of the presence of God (comp. 1 Cor. xii. 3). The fruit of the confession characterised in τ. 2 is now described fully.

ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θ.] See c. iii. 8 note.

ὁ θ. ἐν αὐτῷ…αὐ. ἐν τῷ θ.] God in him …he in God. See Additional Note. The two clauses mark two aspects

16 πεπιστεύκαμεν NB (vg): πιστεύομεν A me.

ὁ θεός: - ὁ Ν.

of the Christian’s life. The believer has a new and invincible power for the fulfilment of his work on earth: ‘God is in him.’ And again he realises that his life is not on earth, that he belongs essentially to another order: ‘he is in God.’ The divine fellowship is complete and effective in each direction.

This complementary view of the fulness of the Christian life, as the believer lives in God and God in him, is presented by St John in several forms. The love of God abideth in him (iii. 17), and he abideth in love (iv. 16). Eternal life abides in him (iii. 15); and this life is in the Son of God (v. 11). The Truth is in him (i. 8; ii. 4), and he walketh in the Truth (2 Ep. 3). The word of God is and abideth in him (i. 10; ii. 14; cf. ii. 24), and he abides in the word (John viii. 31). He is and abides in the light (ii. 9f.), and the unction of God abides in him (ii. 27), and guides him to all the Truth. Comp. Apoc. iii. 20.

Vicissim in se habitant qui continet et qui continetur. Habitas in Deo, sed ut continuaris: habitat in te Deus, sed ut te continuat ne cadas (Aug., Bede).

Additional Note on iv. 15. Divine Fellowship.

The fact of the divine fellowship is presented by St John in different forms.

1. Sometimes it is set forth in its reciprocal fulness:

iii. 24, he that keepeth (ὁ τηρῶν) His commandments abideth in Him (ὁ θεός) and He in him.

iv. 13, hereby we perceive that we abide in Him and He in us, because He hath given us of His Spirit.

iv. 15, whosoever shall confess that Jesus [Christ] is the Son of God, God abideth in him and he in God.

iv. 16, God is love, and he that abideth in love abideth in God, and God [abideth] in him.

With these passages in which the divine fellowship is described as a fellowship with ‘God,’ must be compared those in which it is described as a fellowship with Christ:

John vi. 56, he that eateth (ὁ τρώγων) my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in Me and I in him.

John xiv. 20, in that day ye shall know (γνώσεσθε) that I am in my Father, and ye in Me, and I in you.

John xv. 5, he that abideth in Me and I in him, the same beareth much fruit.

It will be observed that, with one exception (c. iv. 15), the ‘dwelling’ or ‘being’ of man in God is placed first (iii. 24, iv. 13, 16; comp. ii. 24; John vi 56, xiv. 20, xv. 5). The ascension to heaven, if we may so speak, generally precedes the transfiguration of earth.

2. Sometimes again the divine fellowship is regarded in one of its two aspects:

(a) The abiding (being) of man in God (or Christ):

ii. 5, in this we know (γινώσκομεν) that we are in Him.

ii. 6, he that saith he abideth in Him ought himself also to walk even as He walked.

iii. 6, every one that abideth in Him sinneth not.

v. 20, we know (οἴδαμεν) that the Son of God hath come…and we are in Him that is true (ἐν τῷ ἀληθινῷ).

Compare John xv. 4 (ye cannot bear fruit) except ye abide in Me.

ii. 28, abide in Him that if He shall be manifested we may have boldness…

(β) The abiding (being) of God (or Christ) in man:

iii. 24, hereby we know (γινώσκομεν) that He abideth in us, from the Spirit which He gave us.

iv. 12, if we love one another God abideth in us…

John xvii. 22 f., the glory which Thou hast given Me I have given unto them; that they may be one, even as We are one; I in them, and Thou in Me…

John xvii. 26, I made known unto them Thy Name…that the love wherewith Thou locedst Me may be in them and I in them.

It is of interest to examine these several passages as illustrating the efficient cause, the conditions, the sign, the results of this fellowship of man with God.

(α) The efficient cause: the recognition of the revelation of God in Christ, of the Glory and the Name of the Father: John xvii. 22 f., 26, xiv. 20; 1 John v. 20.

(β) The conditions: confession, iv. 15; obedience, iii. 24, ii. 6; love, iv. 16. These are summed up in the thought of participation in Christ’s Humanity, John vi. 56.

(γ) The sign: the possession of the Spirit of God, iii. 24; which shews itself as the source of obedience, ii. 5; and of love, iv. 12 f.

(δ) The results: fruitfulness, John xv. 4 f.; confidence, 1 John ii. 28; guilelessness, iii. 6.

The use of the terms ‘abiding’ and ‘being’ is also suggestive:

(a) abide: ii. 6, 28, iii. 6, 24, iv. 12 f., 15 f.; John vi. 56, xv. 4 f.

(b) be: ii. 5, v. 20; John xiv. 20, xvii. 23, 26.

In this connexion Basil’s remark is of interest that the Spirit is spoken of ‘as the place of those that are sanctified.’ ‘The Spirit,’ he goes on to say, ‘is the place of the saints; and the saint is a place appropriate to the Spirit…’ (de Spir. S. xxvi. § 62).

1 John 4:16

16. Καὶ ἡμεῖς] And we, we who can speak from the fulness of Christian experience as confessors of Christ… The case is taken from supposition (ὁς ἐὰν) to fact. For ἡμεῖς see v. 14 note.

ἐγνώκ. καὶ πεπιστ. τὴν ἀγ.] cognovimus et credidimus caritati V., cogn. et credimus quam dilectionem Deus habet Aug., cogn. et credidimus in [caritate] quam habet Deus F. The two verbs form a compound verb, in which the idea of belief qualifies and explains what is in this case the primary and predominant idea, knowledge. The Vulgate rendering throws the emphasis wrongly on belief. The same two verbs occur in John vi. 69 in the reverse order: ἡμεῖς πεπιστεύκαμεν καὶ ἐγνώκαμεν ὅτι σὺ εἶ ὁ ἅγιος τοῦ θεοῦ. Under different aspects knowledge precedes faith and faith precedes knowledge. We must have a true if limited knowledge of the object of faith before true faith can exist; and true faith opens the way to fuller knowledge. A general faith in Christ and self-surrender to Him prepared the disciples for a loftier apprehension of His character. The actual experience of love includes the promise of a larger manifestation of its treasures. This St John indicates here: ‘We have perceived the divine love. To a certain extent we have realised what it is: but we have not exhausted its meaning. In knowing we have believed too; and in the conscious imperfection of knowledge we wait without doubt for future revelation.’ τὴν ἀγ. ἦν ἔχει ὁ θ. ἐν ἡμῖν] For the phrase ἀγάπ. ἔχειν see John xiii. 35 ἐὰν ἀγ. ἔχητε ἐν ἀλλήλοις; John xv. 13; 1 Pet. iv. 8 τὴν εἰς ἑαυτοὺς ἀγ. ἐκτενῆ ἔχοντες; 1 Cor. xiii. 1 ff.; Phil. ii. 2. It is clear from the context that the love here spoken of is the love which God has and shews towards man. But St John adds a second thought to that of God’s love towards man (εἰς ἡμᾶς). The love of God becomes a power in the Christian Body (ἐν ἡμῖν). Believers are the sphere in which it operates and makes itself felt in the world (2 Cor. iv. 10f.). Comp. v. 9 note.

3. The activity of love (16b-21).

In the two preceding sections St John has shewn what love is in its essence and origin, and how it neces-

ἡμῖν. Ὁ θεὸς ἀγάπη ἐστίν, καὶ ὁ μένων ἐν τῇ ἀγάπῃ ἐν τῷ θεῷ μένει καὶ ὁ θεὸς ἐν αὐτῷ [μένει].

ἐν αὐτῷ μένει NB me the syrhl: — μένει A vg.

sarily becomes an inspiring power in the believer, answering to a confession of the Incarnation. He now develops more fully the activity of love; and this in two relations, as to the believer in himself (16 b—18), and as to the believer in his dealings with his fellow-Christians (19—21). On the one side, it is by continuance in love that the divine fellowship is realised by the believer (16 b), while love is perfected in the divine fellowship, so that the last element of fear is cast out of the soul of him who loves (17, 18). And on the other side love, which is of a divine origin (19), must be fulfilled after a divine type, in love to the brethren (20), according to the divine commandment (21).

Ambrose has traced in a famous passage the progress of love till it finds its consummation in complete self-surrender. This he sees shadowed out in three passages of Canticles (ii. 16 f.; vi. 2; vii. 10). First there is the quickening of the divine affection in the soul by the revelation of the Word; next, the freedom of mutual intercourse between the soul and the Word; and at last the soul offers itself absolutely to the Word that He may rest there (Ambr. de Isaac et anima, c. viii. § 68).

God is love, and he that abideth in love abideth in God and God [abideth] in him. ¹⁷ In this love is perfected with us, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment; because even as he is, so are we in the world. ¹⁸ There is no fear in love, but perfect love casteth out fear, because fear hath punishment; and he that feareth is not perfected in love.

The words of v. 8 God is love are repeated as the subject of a new development of thought. Before the idea was of birth and knowledge, now the idea is of growth and action. The revelation of the Nature of God as love calls out a response in answer to that which is necessarily regarded as a ‘personal’ call to men, and by suggesting the idea of unlimited self-communication as characteristic of God, it sets a type for human action. The nature of the believer must be conformed to the Nature of God.

καὶ ὁ μένων…] and he that abideth … From the very Nature of God it follows as a necessary consequence that the life of self-devotion is a life in fellowship with Him. By the use of the conjunction in place of simple parallelism (he that abideth) the unity of the complex idea is emphasised.

ὁ μένων ἐν τῇ ἀγ.] he that abideth in love as the sphere in which his life is fulfilled. Compare John xv. 9 f. μ. ἐν τῇ ἀγάπῃ τῇ ἐμῇ, μ. ἐν τῇ ἀγ. μου. Here the feeling is regarded absolutely without any further definition of its object, as God or man. But the divine ideal made known through Christ is present to the mind of writer and reader.

Under different aspects St John presents elsewhere ’the light’ (c. ii. 10), and ’the word’ (John viii. 31), as the sphere in which the Christian ‘abides,’ ’loving his brother’ and ‘believing’; just as the unbeliever ‘abides in darkness’ (John xii. 46), and ‘he that loveth not,’ ‘in death’ (c. iii. 14).

ἐν τ. θ. μ. καὶ ὁ θ. ἐν αὖ. [μ.] abideth in God and God [abideth] in him. See v. 15 Additional Note. He that so abideth in love hath risen to the heavenly order (Col. iii. 3) and found

17’Ἐν τούτῳ τετελείωται ἡ ἀγάπη μεθ’ ἡμῶν, ἵνα παρ-

17 ἡ ἀγάπη: +τοῦ θεοῦ the (lat).

the power of divine fellowship for the accomplishment of earthly work.

It has been seen that this twofold blessing is connected with obedience (iii. 24) and confession (iv. 15). And love involves obedience (John xiv. 15 τηρήσετε, Rom. xiii. 10), and is the condition of fuller knowledge (John xiv. 21 ff.).

1 John 4:17

17. ‘Ἐν τούτῳ…] In this…The reference has been variously explained. Some have connected in this with what follows, others with what precedes. In the former case two views have been held. The words have been taken closely with the second of the following clauses, ἐν τούτῳ…ὅτι…in this…because…, and again with the first, ἐν τούτῳ…ἵνα…, in this…that … The former construction may be at once set aside. The intervening clause, ἵνα…κρίσεως, makes the connexion of ἐν τούτῳ with ὅτι most unnatural. The connexion of ἐν τούτῳ with ἵνα gives a true sense and is not foreign to St John’s style, though the exact combination does not occur (not John xv. 8) in his writings; for it would not be strange that he should use a final particle (ἵνα) in place of a demonstrative particle (ὅτι), in order to bring out the idea of effort involved to the last in the realisation of confidence (comp. John xvii. 3; c. iii. 11 note). But the context and his general usage (comp. ii. 3 note) favour the conclusion that the reference is to that which precedes. The argument requires the affirmation of a fact from which a consequence is drawn, rather than a further explanation of how love is perfected. The fellowship of man with God and of God with man carries with it the consummation of love. In this—in this double communion—love hath been perfected already on the divine side; and it is God’s will that men should make its blessings their own in view of the close of earthly life.

Jerome has a strange inversion of the sense of the passage: In hoc perfecta est…caritas, si fiduciam habeamus…ut quomodo ille est sic et nos simus… (c. Jovin. i. c. 40).

τετελ. μεθ’ ἡμῶν] perfecta est nobiscum V., is (hath been) perfected with us. There can be no doubt that μεθ’ ἡμῶν is to be joined with the verb. The structure of the sentence is decisive against taking ἡ ἀγ. μεθ’ ἡμῶν together in the sense ’the love which is realised between Christians,’ or ’the love of God shewn among us.’ The unique form of expression appears to have been chosen in place of the simple ‘hath been perfected in us’ in order to place the perfection clearly in the realised fellowship of God and man. Love is not simply perfected in man (ἐν ἡμῖν) by an act of divine power, but in fulfilling this issue God works with man (μεθ’ ἡμῶν). Something of the same thought of cooperation is seen in Acts xv. 4, ὅσα ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς μετ’ αὐτῶν. Comp. 2 John 3 ἔσται μεθ’ ἡμῶν χάρις…

Philo calls attention to a use of the preposition not unlike in Gen. iii. 12 (LXX. ἡ γυνὴ ἦν ἔδωκας μετ’ ἐμοῦ): εὖ τὸ μὴ φάναι ἡ γυνὴ ἦν ἔδωκας ἐμοὶ ἀλλὰ μετ’ ἐμοῦ. οὐ γὰρ ἐμοὶ ὡς κτῆμα…ἔδωκας ἀλλὰ καὶ αὐτὴν ἀφῆκας ἄνετον καὶ ἐλευθέραν…(Leg. Alleg. iii. § 18; i. 98 M.).

τετελείωται] v. 12; c. ii. 5 note. The tense presents the perfection as dependent on a continuous fellowship between God and the Christian body. Contrast Clem. ad Cor. i. 50 οἱ ἐν ἀγάπῃ τελειωθέντες.

ἵνα παρρ. ἔχ.] ut fiduciam habeamus V. The fulness of love is given with a view to an end. The feeling

which is active now will have its fullest effect in the supreme trial of existence. St John, who habitually regards the eternal aspect of things, regards the boldness as something which is possessed absolutely (τετελείωται…ἵνα ἔχωμεν…). In an earlier passage (ii. 28), he enjoined abiding in God in Christ as the source of confidence at Christ’s Presence. He now points out how the confidence is established. To abide in God is to share the character of Christ under the conditions of earth. The sense of spiritual harmony with Him which this abiding brings necessarily inspires boldness in the believer; and it is the purpose of God that it should do so. So God fulfils His counsel of love. Thus the whole train of thought is brought to a natural conclusion. “God is love: he that abideth in love-abideth in God…In this communion love finds consummation, in order that ‘by conscious conformity with Christ’ the last trial of life may be overcome, when ’the last fear is banished.’” παρρ. ἔχωμεν] c. ii. 28 note.

ἐν τῇ ἡμ. τῆς κρ.] in die judicii V., in the day of judgment, when Christ shall come to execute judgment on the world (c. ii. 28). The definite phrase is found here only. The indefinite phrase, ‘a day of judgment’ (ἡμ. κρ.), occurs in Matt. x. 15; xi. 22, 24; xii. 36; 2 Pet. ii. 9; iii. 7. Compare also Apoc. vi. 17 ἡ ἡμ. ἡ μεγάλη τῆς ὀργῆς αὐτῶν; Rom. ii. 5 ἡμ. ὀργῆς καὶ ἀποκαλύψεως τῆς δικαιοκρισίας τοῦ θεοῦ; 1 Pet. ii. 12 ἡμ. ἐπισκοπῆς. In the Gospel St John speaks of ’the last day’ (ἡ ἐσχάτη ἡμ.); vi. 39, 40, 44, 54; xi. 24; xii. 48; which is elsewhere styled simply ’that day’ (ἐκείνη ἡ ἡμ., ἡ ἡμ. ἐκ.), Matt. vii. 22; Luke vi. 23; x. 12; xxi. 34; 2 Thess.

i. 10; 2 Tim. i. 12, 18; iv. 8. The phrase ’the judgment’ (ἡ κρίσις) is found Matt. xii. 41 f.; Luke x. 14; xi. 31 f.

It is of interest to notice that the privilege which is here attributed to love is, under another aspect, attributed also to faith; John iii. 18; v. 24. The two cannot be separated.

ὅτι καθὼς ἐκείνος…] because even as He (Christ, c. ii. 6 note) is… The ground of boldness is present likeness to Christ. He has ‘passed out of this world’ (John xii. 1), but His disciples are still ‘in the world’ (John xvii. 11), and have a work to do there (John xvii. 18). In fulfilling this work He is their ideal (c. ii. 6): conformity to Him is the rule of their judgment (John xv. 18 ff.). And the likeness of Christians to Christ is to His character as it is at present and eternally (καθὼς ἐκ. ἐστιν, comp. iii. 2, 7) and not to the particular form in which it was historically manifested (κ. ἐκ. ἦν).

The reference is not to any one attribute, as love or righteousness, but to the whole character of Christ as it is made known; and His high-priestly prayer serves as a commentary on the view which St John suggests of the position of Christians in the world.

Following Augustine [see iii. 7 note] Bede says forcibly: Non semper ad æqualitatem dicitur sicut, sed dicitur ad quandam similitudinem… Si ergo facti sumus ad imaginem Dei, quare non sicut Deus sumus? non ad æqualitatem sed pro modo nostro. Inde ergo nobis datur fiducia in die judicii, quia sicut ille est et nos sumus in hoc mundo, imitando videlicet perfectionem dilectionis in mundo eujus ille exemplum nobis quotidie præbet de cælo.

18 φόβος οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν τῇ ἀγάπῃ, ἀλλ’ ἡ τελεία ἀγάπῃ ἔξω βάλλει τὸν φόβον, ὅτι ὁ φόβος κόλασιν ἔχει, ὁ

καθὼς…καὶ ἡμεῖς…] The οὕτως in the second member of the comparison is sometimes replaced by καὶ: c. ii. 6, 18; John xvii. 18; xx. 21 (xv. 9 is doubtful); sometimes it is omitted: c. ii. 27; and especially when the order of the clauses is inverted: John v. 23; Rom. xv. 7.

καὶ ἡμ. ἐ. ἐν τῷ κ. τ.] The likeness is conditioned by the circumstances of the present state. ‘This world’ (ὁ κ. οὗτος), as distinguished from ’the world,’ emphasises the idea of transitoriness. The phrase is not found elsewhere in the Epistles of John. See John i. 10 note.

1 John 4:18

18. The thought of boldness necessarily calls up that of its opposite, fear. There is fear in man naturally; but love ever tends to expel it. Fear finds no place in love, and it cannot therefore co-exist with perfect love which occupies the whole ‘heart.’ The ideas are expressed in a general form and hold good absolutely, but they necessarily are specialised mentally from the context.

φόβος.. ἐν τῇ ἀγ.] Love is the simple desire for the highest good of another or of others, and is the expression of a spirit of self-surrender. Fear therefore—the shrinking from another—cannot be an essential element in love. Here the reader at once feels that the abstract principle has found a typical embodiment in the self-sacrifice of Christ, towards the imitation of which Christians strive through His Spirit.

The fear of which St John speaks is, of course, not the reverence of the son (Hebr. v. 7 ff.), but the dread of the criminal or of the slave (Rom. viii. 15).

So Augustine says: Aliud est timere Deum ne mittat te in gehennam cum diabolo: aliud est timere Deum ne recedat a te.

ἀλλ’…] but, so far is it from being the case that fear has a place in love, it is of the nature of love to expel fear. Fear is an instrument of painful discipline; and when the end of perfect fellowship with God has been reached, the discipline is no longer needed. This sentence ἀλλ’…ἔχει is parenthetical.

ἡ τελ. ἀγάπῃ] perfect love, not ‘perfected love’ (ἡ τετελειωμένη ἀγ.). The thought is of love which is complete in all its parts, which has reached its complete development (Hebr. v. 14 note); of what it is and not of what it has become. Comp. James i. 4; iii. 2; Eph. iv. 13.

The arrangement ἡ τελ. ἀγ., which is common, for example, in 2 Pet., is unique in the Epistle (comp. 3 John 4 τὰ ἐμὰ τέκνα). See c. ii. 7 note. It expresses a shade of meaning, as distinct from ἡ ἀγ. ἡ τελ., which is evidently appropriate here.

ἔξω βάλλει] foras mittit V., casteth forth from the whole sphere of life. There is no longer scope for its operation. St John thus recognises the provisional presence of fear in the believer. It is found for a time with growing love, but mature love removes it. The phrase βάλλει ἔξω, which suggests the thought of a defined realm of spiritual activity (Apoc. xxii. 15), is more vivid than ἐκβάλλει. Comp. Matt. v. 13; xiii. 48; Luke xiv. 35 (βάλλειν ἔξω); John vi. 37; ix. 34 f.; xii. 31; xv. 6 (ἐκβάλλειν ἔξω).

ὅτι ὁ φ. κόλ. ἔχει] quoniam timor pœnam (tormentum Aug.) habet V.,

19 ἡμεῖς Ἀβ me the syrhl: +οὖν A vg syrvg. Ἀ (vg) me syrr. (αὐτόν and invicem are also added.) ὁ θεός A vg.

ἀγαπῶμεν Αβ: +τὸν θεόν αὐτός Ἀβ me the syrr:

because fear hath punishment. Fear, which is the expression of disharmony and therefore the anticipation of suffering, at the same time must include suffering. And the suffering which comes from disharmony with God is divine punishment which has a salutary office: Hebr. xii. 11. Such punishment is not future only but present. Comp. John iii. 18.

κόλ. ἔχει] includes, brings with it punishment. Comp. Hebr. x. 35 (τὴν παρρησίαν) ἥτις ἔχει μεγάλην μισθαποδοσίαν. James ii. 17 (i. 4).

The word κόλασις occurs elsewhere in the N. T. only in Matt. xxv. 46. The verb κολάζεσθαι is found in Acts iv. 21; 2 Pet. ii. 9 (not ii. 4). The noun occurs in the Lxx. of Ezekiel (for מִמְשָׁל): xiv. 3, 4, 7; xviii. 30 (xliii. 11); xliv. 12; and both the noun and verb occur not unfrequently in Wisdom: xi. 14, 17; xvi. 1, 2, &c.

The familiar classical distinction between τιμωρία which regarded the retributive suffering and κόλασις which regarded the disciplinary chastisement of the wrong-doer was familiar to the Alexandrine Greeks: e.g. Philo, de confus. ling. § 34 (i. 431 M.) ἔστι δὲ καὶ κόλασις οὐκ ἐπιζήμιον ἁμαρτημάτων οὖσα κώλυσις καὶ ἐπανόρθωσις.

ὁ δὲ φοβούμενος…] and he that feareth… This clause goes closely with the first clause of the sentence: ’there is no fear in love, but he that feareth hath not been made perfect in love.’ That which is stated first as an abstract principle (‘fear’) is repeated in a personal form (‘he that feareth’). St John, while he lays down the full truth, recognises the facts of life and deals with them. There are those who fear while yet they love: so far their love though real is incomplete.

The second and third clauses of the verse illustrate well the distinction of ἀλλὰ (sed) and δὲ (autem). The second clause (ἀλλ’ ἡ τ. ἀ.) stands in sharp opposition to the first, while the third (ὁ δὲ φ.) deals with a limitation, or objection.

οὐ τετελείωται ἐν τῇ ἀγ.] This consummation of the believer is presented in two complementary forms. He is himself the sphere in which love finds its perfection; and love is the sphere in which he finds his perfection. Love is perfected in him (ii. 5): and he is perfected in love. Comp. Additional Note on v. 15.

Bengel in one of his unmatched epigrams gives a history of the soul through its relations to fear and love: Varius hominum status: sine timore et amore; cum timore sine amore; cum timore et amore; sine timore cum amore.

1 John 4:19

19-21. In the preceding verses St John has shewn what love brings to the believer. He now lays open the obligation which it imposes upon him. The love which is inspired by God must be manifested towards the brethren according to His commandment.

¹⁹ We love, because he first loved us. If any one say I love God, and hate his brother, he is a liar; for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen cannot love God, whom he hath not seen. And this commandment have we from him that he who loved God love his brother also.

19. Ἡμεῖς ἀγ.] Nos ergo diligamus invicem V. The absence of any title of

20 — ὅτι ℵ.

address and the addition of the personal pronoun distinguish this phrase from v. 7 ἀγαπητοί, ἀγαπῶμεν ἀλλήλους, and seem to shew clearly that the verb is an indicative (We love), and not a conjunctive (Let us love). It is worthy of notice that the Latin and Pesh. Syriac which give the hortatory rendering add a connecting particle as many Greek authorities (οὖν).

The indicative also suits the context better. The fact of love is assumed, and then it is shewn in its workings. Comp. iii. 16.

According to the true reading the idea of love is left in its full breadth without any definition of the object, as God (αὐτόν or τὸν θεόν), or man (invicem V.). This is required by what follows, where it is falsely urged that the claims of ’love’ can be satisfied by bare ’love of God.’ ὅτι αὐτὸς πρ. ἦγ. ἡμ.] Comp. v. 10. The thought here is different from that in the former context. There love was regarded in its essence: here it is regarded in its personal exercise. Our love is the light kindled by the love of God. And the divine origin of love determines its character and also assures its stability. Comp. John xv. 16.

πρῶτος ἦγ.] prior dilexit V. Comp. Rom. v. 8. The priority of the love of God to all love on man’s part which is accentuated here, is a ground for the spontaneous exercise of love on the part of the believer towards those who do not seem to invite it.

20, 21. The consequences of the preceding statement are traced out in two ways from the nature of the case (v. 20), and from the direct commandment of God (v. 21). The love of God, which is assumed to exist at least in profession, must include love of the brethren, and so God has Himself enjoined. The thought of loving God is here first discussed (comp. v. 10).

1 John 4:20

20. ἐὰν τις εἴπῃ] The form of expression differs slightly from that in i. 6 ff. (ἐὰν εἴπωμεν). There a view was given of the general position of Christians: here a particular case is taken, involving personal feeling. Contrast also ‘he that [saith]’ and ’every one that [saith],’ c. iii. 3 note; ii. 4 note.

εἴπῃ ὅτι Ἀγαπῶ…] For the use of the recitative ὅτι see i. 6 note. The claim is like those which have been noticed in ii. 4, 9; i. 6 ff., by which the faith is taken out of the sphere of practical life.

It is worthy of notice that in the Gospel of St John ἀγαπᾶν is not used of the feeling of man for God (the Father). It is so used in the other Gospels in a quotation from the LXX.

μισῇ] hate. St John admits no position of indifference. See ii. 9 note.

ψεύστης ἐστίν] Comp. ii. 4 ὁ λέγων ὅτι Ἔγνωκα αὐτὸν καὶ τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ μὴ τηρῶν ψεύστης ἐστίν… The claim to the knowledge of God without obedience, and the claim to the love of God without action, involve not only the denial of what is known to be true (ψεύδεσθαι), but falseness of character. Comp. i. 10 note, and v. 10. See also John viii. 44, 55; and c. ii. 22.

ὁ γὰρ μὴ ἀγαπῶν…] for he that loveth not… The particular statement (ἐὰν τις εἴπῃ) is refuted by a general principle. Sight is taken as the sign of that kind of limitation which brings objects within the range of our present powers. It is necessarily easier to love that which is like ourselves

οὐ δύν. ἈΒ the syrhl: πῶς δύν. A vg me syrvg.

21 ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ: ἀπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ A vg.

than that which we cannot grasp in a finite form. And the title ‘brother’ brings out the idea of that which is godlike in man to which love can be directed. He therefore who fails to recognise God as He reveals Himself through Christ in man (Matt. xxv. 40 ἐνὶ τούτων τῶν ἀδελφῶν μου τῶν ἐλαχίστων) cannot love God. He has refused the help which God has provided for the expression of love in action.

Philo traces the thought through the natural love of children for parents: φασί τινες ὡς ἄρα πατήρ καὶ μήτηρ ἐμφανεῖς εἰσὶ θεοί… ἀμήχανον δὲ εὐσεβεῖσθαι τὸν ἀόρατον ὑπὸ τῶν εἰς τοὺς ἐμφανεῖς καὶ ἐγγὺς ὄντας ἀσεβούντων (de decal. § 23, ii. p. 204 M.). The love of parents involves the love of brethren.

τὸν θ. ὃν οὐχ ἐώρ.] John i. 18 note; r. 12 (τεθέαται); 1 Tim. vi. 16. The inverted order in the corresponding clauses is singularly expressive. There is also a more solemn pathos in the direct negative οὐ δύναται than in the more rhetorical phrase of the common text πῶς δύναται.

ἐώρακεν…οὐχ ἐώρακεν…] videt… non videt… V., hath seen…hath not seen… It might have seemed more natural to say ‘seeth…cannot see…’; but the two perfects mark the fact that a revelation with abiding consequences has and has not been made in the two cases. The vision of ’the brother’ may in any particular case be clouded but he has been seen, and the idea of brotherhood abides for constant use.

1 John 4:21

21. καὶ ταύτην τ. ἐ.] That which is a spiritual necessity is also an express injunction. The commandment of love which has been implied in the preceding verses is now defined. Comp. c. iii. 23.

ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ] a Deo V., ab ipso Lat. Vet., from Him, from God. The context makes it probable that, though the Divine Person is not clearly defined, the reference is to the Father (r. 19), Who by sending His Son shewed the way of love. The commandment was given in substance by Christ (John xiii. 34), but it came from God (ἀπό) as its final source. Compare i. 5; ii. 27 notes; and contrast the use of παρά Apoc. ii. 27; John viii. 26, 40; x. 18.

ἵνα…] that… The final particle gives more than the simple contents of the commandment. It marks the injunction as directed to an aim; and implies that the effort to obtain it can never be relaxed (ἵνα…ἀγαπᾷ). Comp. John xiii. 34 note.

Augustine (en c. v. 3) uses the words of the ascended Lord to Saul to illustrate and enforce the lesson: Persecutori Saulo [Christus] dixit de super: Saulo, Saulo, quid me persequeris? Ascendii in caelum, sed adhuc in terra jaceo. Hic ad dexteram patris sedeo; ibi adhuc esurio, sitio et peregrinus sum.